RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive395

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 9 September 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>, <390>, <391>, <392>, <393>, <394>, <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>
, (new)(back)

Onlyfans bans porn[edit]


Aren't they, like, literally destroying their own branch? Aren't they also doing this, because of the memeshit that exists thanks to youtubers? 2A02:1812:2C66:D000:1836:5288:93FD:70B2 (talk) 13:49, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

From what I understand, OF was being investigated by the Beeb, as much of their content was exploitive or outright illegal, including child porn. Not something they wanted to be associated with. CorruptUser 14:11, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
So, the same thing that did happen to Tumblr in 2018 I presume? (talk) 16:27, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
At least Twitter will still let me view both porn and the Taliban. CorruptUser 19:31, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
The problem with a lot of these sites is that they aren't willing to put in the needed effort to ensure oversight, which leads to an all-or-nothing result. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:36, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
They were also looking to get outside investors spooked by adult content. Something else will fill the gap, I'm sure PH will steal some ideas.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 21:58, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Im curious to know how many RWikians are shameless enough to admit they have a few subscriptions to the site?SensaurC-137 (talk) 16:57, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
@SensaurC-137 I having nothing against porn as long as it is legal and the people in it give consent. --Get Vaccinated (talk) 23:58, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
@Rationalzombie94 oh i meant nothing by it i was just being cheeky. Ive been a proud subscriber and consumer of OF porn content since 2017 long before the site became mainstream lol. I personally see sex work(within the appropriate boundaries) as very empowering.SensaurC-137 (talk) 00:17, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
@SensaurC-137 No, using your body and becoming a sex object is not "empowering", its demeaning. I am for OnlyFans here. No wonder why young men are losing respect for women (I am looking at you, Cuomo and you are 63!) . One less filth on the internet. BibleStudy
You can tell our friend here hasn't actually seen any porn. Mainly because dudes do it too. I know, I checked. Multiple times. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:53, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Same thing. BibleStudy
And how does it demean men? Can men simply not stand being objectified? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:03, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Some people can stand being murdered. But does that make murder OK? BibleStudy
How is porn like murder? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:40, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
They are both wrong. Both porn and murder treats other people like dirt. BibleStudy
And how does it do that? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:27, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Surely I don't need to describe this for you. Ever heard of sexual objectification and lust? Unlike in a Christian relationship/marriage, porn is based on lust and sin not in love. Porn treats people like dirt. BibleStudy

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── So porn is not in fact, morally comparable to murder, is that what you're saying? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:43, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

(EC)It's funny how some radfems have a very similar opinion on porn, with fairly similar arguments except that they don't mention God. GeeJayK (talk) 02:44, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Just going to point out the troubled ethical worldview hinted when he equated porn to taking a life.-Flandres (talk) 02:54, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Aaaaaaand Gamers are getting involved. Why am I not surprised that Gamers don't see SW as work? (talk) 13:25, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
For similar reasons people don't think what Kim Kardashian does is work?
Or I guess "professional twitch streamers" would be a better comparison to OnlyFans pornography. CorruptUser 14:28, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
LOL, this Twitter guy apparently is a professional Fortnite player and "pump and dump" crypto shill. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black... PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 14:33, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
I think there's a bit of jealously involved as well. A bunch of guys who struggle to get laid are upset that there are girls who are literally paid to have sex. Imagine being hungry, and seeing that there's someone who is literally paid to eat. CorruptUser 15:02, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
@CorruptUser I mean, to my knowledge cam shows (which to my knowledge is a hefty chunk of OnlyFans sex work scene), are primarily self stimulation. So I'm not sure if your point holds up. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:37, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Talking about the disdain for sex workers in general. But even with cam-girls, again, there's still the jealousy of seeing someone being paid to masturbate all day. CorruptUser 15:39, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
@CorruptUser Probably cam-boys as well. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:45, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm quite sure they don't make nearly as much money though. CorruptUser 15:47, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Even the cam girls typically don't make a lot from what I understand. Like the game streaming scene, and along with and many other entertainment forms, there's a small percentage at the top that does very well, and the rest scramble for pocket change. Not sure about cam girls, but The Google suggests that the median earnings from Onlyfans was $180 a month. I doubt the median cam girl does any better. It's hard to pay rent (at least in the US) with just that. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 15:57, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
theres plenty of issues with porn but the above hyperbolic condemnation doesnt address these issues and it pulls focus so the responses to said hyperbole dont either.
there is the issue of porn of the end product and the industry is crazy racist. another issue concerns the mental health of performers. there was a spate of suicides a little back, 2018ish. for a job that is both mentally and physically taxing, there was apparently no help available when things started to go wrong. the short self life with 'porn star' limits their career options once the porn career ends, along with all the new stresses brought internet porn, mental health issues get compounded - thats maybe improved by now. theres the issue of the 'empowering' argument doesnt really work so well if you are in porn but not a big star. got a problem with a scene? tough do it or find a new career. theres not much empowering about a scene you dont wanna do because who is fucking you and how, and not doing it means your career. there the issue of pornhub and all the free internet porn hoovering up all the money that used to go to its stars. they cant even count on the good money to make up all the downsides anymore. this largely looking at the us porn industry.
and this assumes its legal and consenting, which largely speaking, is true for the american porn industry. not all porn is made in america. how well are the above issues in other locales? i assuming pretty well in nordic countries. how about porn coming from eastern europe? how about asia?
i can understand people taking the line on porn that its ok on conditions of its legality and on it being choice of the performers to be in that line of work and that there is no inherent reason for it be damaging to performers or its viewers. it says nothing about the issues generated by the industry as it is today.
its unfortunate that onlyfans is going to ban porn. for performers, they get to dictate what they do, and they get most of the profits for their work. control of the lives and career like never before. empowering, almost. its a pity the site owners wont try and find ways to get rid of child and revenge porn that would appease their bank's jitters. but thats another problem with the porn industry. more mainstream businesses often wont have anything to do with the porn industry.
even if your favoured porn is ethically sound, how empowering would it seem to you if it were your son or daughter getting double fucked? or your parent? probably a little less keen to browse pornhub before sleep. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:58, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Oh I agree. The industry as a whole is one of the most exploitative on the planet, using, abusing, and disposing of its workers. My view is that porn sites should be like OnlyFans used to be, allowing performers greater control over their end of things. And of course, it should go without saying that society/societies should actually moderate this shit, to exclude shit like revenge porn, forced porn, and child porn. But our friend here isn't making that nuanced an argument. They are saying that porn is bad, full stop. There is no further foundational reason for their view. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:20, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Ugh, revenge porn. I feel dirty having once masturbated to the Paris Hilton revenge porn tape. It was a different time, we all did it, we didn't know any better.
I feel like when it comes to revenge porn, all sexual material of any nature should automatically be assumed to be "for personal use only unless specifically specified otherwise". You make a film with your GF, and break up? Sorry, you can't post the video, and posting it without consent should be treated as if you stole the video and posted it. It's not just "yours", it's "hers" too. CorruptUser 17:25, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
The current problem with the Internet pornography scene is that one company (Mindgeek) is a practical monopoly these days. Their porn studios generally are disposable junk, and their search engines / aggregators are disposable junk as well. There are a few independent studios of course, but the tools to be an independent entertainer aren't as good due to the bank wariness etc. So unfortunately the variety of independent studios and workers seems less to me then say in music or art.
Any content issues regarding on Onlyfans -- I've seen the BBC report and much (not all) of it seems to be workers posting illegal content on their own accord (eg underage performers, sex workers offering escort services), of which moderators were too lax to stop -- is only worse on Mindgeek areas like Pornhub. Even when they are simply hosting professional studio content, there's a decent chance that the studio is a total piece of shit (see the whole GirlsDoPornWikipedia saga for a depressing look into the shithole side of pornography). Mindgeek is also being sued for underage content as well as worse exploitative material (forced / rape / trafficking). They too have recently had issues with banks and credit cards, but at this point they are too big to fail that way. That's the problem with the banks nixing Onlyfans, they aren't exactly wholesome (majority owner Leonid RadvinskyWikipedia in particular seems rather shady) but the alternative is just worse. That being said I'm pretty sure that someone else will come up with a "Patreon for adult workers" model, maybe someone who actually gives a shit about moderation this time. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 17:54, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
But so long as prostitutes don't have a home elsewhere, they will always invade the Craigslists, POFs, and OnlyFans of the world. You would need to recreate BackPage or something for them, so that guys looking for prostitution go there, and guys looking for porn go to OnlyFans. The issue of course is when your porn star is also a prostitute, using OF as advertising in addition to revenue. CorruptUser 18:12, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
@CorruptUser There's another problem though. "Sex work" covers everything from porn to erotic dancers to sex-for-cash. And we (society) need to improve conditions for all sex workers, not just porn actors and cam-show models. So, with that in mind one idea might be the "adult performer patronage" model, but with compartmentalization. We'd also need to think in terms of international adult performance standards and regulations, to prevent country shopping, as it were. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:28, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Prostitution has problems that can never be solved without some sort of future-tech that doesn't exist yet. Most of the demand is not for sex, the demand is for cheap sex. A board certified, health inspected, OSHA complaint, non-GMO cage-free organic sex worker is going to charge a lot more. The johns that are used to paying $25 every single night for a rub&tug from a middle-aged addict are not suddenly going to only go to your idealized sex workers once a month for $500, nor are they themselves likely to pass some sort of "john inspection" to weed out the predators, abusers or diseased among them. It's a demand for low quality high quantity that can only be supplied through drugs or worse. CorruptUser 19:12, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong but the "argument" that's being made by that "Fortnite Expert", wasn't that also something many Gamers during GamerGate said aswell? Makes me wonder how many of them are either christian fundamentalists or conservatives... 2A02:1812:2C66:D000:859:824E:F819:CA8A (talk) 19:13, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
And why is the porn industry so exploitive? It simple, because people are treated like commodity not as human beings. The whole industry is just pure filth from the top down. BibleStudy
I love how you assume that no one actually wants to engage in sex work, an area where I've done a bit more study than you. No, that isn't a dirty joke, I've actually bothered to listen to what sex workers have to say about the industry in which they work. Shit like OnlyFans was the best they had until recently, and yet you act as if its closure is a good thing, mainly because you don't actually care about the workers, only that "sex and porn are bad and icky". ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:24, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
@CorruptUser Yeah fuck those types. I mean it, selfish johns can go fuck themselves. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:00, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
I don't think it's necessarily about being "selfish". If you are making $40k/yr as trucker, how much could you really afford to pay, given how frequently you "need" your fix? Without sex trafficking and drug addictions, there simply wouldn't be enough supply. True legalization of prostitution risks increasing total demand, which if it is not met by additional people becoming sex workers, provides even more opportunities for human traffickers. CorruptUser 00:12, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
I mean, most of my advocacy should really be read as part of a broader platform. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:15, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

onlyfans will still do porn now.AMassiveGay (talk) 15:01, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Apparently I was reading a related article on the Gran about a prostitute complaining she couldn't advertise those services on OF. I don't feel too bad about that; OF is for porn, not prostitution, and has every right to not want to be involved in that. Like I said earlier, the internet needs some place to sequester all the prostitution so that the dating sites and porn sites don't get filled with either the prostitutes or their clients. CorruptUser 18:52, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Prostitution is generally illegal in the United States (a few counties in Nevada excepted). That would be the issue here, any site explicitly set up for such would be shut down pretty quickly, and even those that aren't set up explicitly for that but still attract escorts etc. risk being FOSTA-SESTAed ala Craiglist and Backpage. The deal is similar to Onlyfans though; FOSTA-SESTA just made sex work more dangerous by forcing workers into streetwalking / pimp scenes. (Certainly with the demand out there sex work will hardly disappear anytime soon, sorry for those of a more abolitionist view who pushed FOSTA-SESTA in the first place). In places like Germany, for instance, where prostitution is legal, prostitution portals online do exist. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 19:18, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
The most frightening this from this whole episode, is financial institutions are still pearl clutching over porn/sex work.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:47, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Game gender advice[edit]

Hi “guys”, I started writing a roguelike thingie, which, as many similar ones, may never get actually to a playable state. Playing characters are going to be referred to with you/your pronouns, so I could play it safe and get rid of gender questions pretty easily. As a joke I was thinking of giving +1 to hit against mammoths to male characters and, with some darker humor, 20% less gold to female characters. The selection would be in the other/female/male order, because other is pretty neutral gameplay wise and would be the default, I guess male/female order is already too common. I’m a bit afraid of Poe’s law making this a kind of sexist statement instead of a parody/criticism of it and was wondering if there is a game-focused community to discuss such things without being surrounded by misogynists or if the thing simply isn’t as funny as I thought (it could easily get boring after a while and is meant to not influence gameplay too much). Sorry if this is a bit of topic, but suggestions about where to discuss similar questions in a productive way are welcomed.— Unsigned, by: Singlepurposeaccount / talk / contribs

I think it is all in your tone. It sounds like a satire of gendered stats in games, and if portrayed well I think it would be received just fine. You can also have gendered dialog in a game and characters have different opportunities in a game for different genders and be totally justified if you are trying to tell a story about a character experiencing discrimination. Usually this is the kind of thing you expect from a game trying to take place in a brutally realistic representation of medieval Europe or something. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 21:53, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
One consideration is that if you nerf women characters by too much trying to satirize how they're treated, you could risk them being Tier-Induced Scrappies, and validate the very thing you're mocking, as players won't choose women characters for balance reasons. (talk) 13:50, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
You could do something like Mount and Blade where you get better achievements if you conquer a medieval world as a woman in spite of medieval misogyny. Southpark did something similar in one of their games where "easy mode" you play as a white person and the harder the difficulty the darker the skin tone of your character. There is a gamer shame in playing the "easy mode", so you could use that to your advantage and still have the satire be experienced by a good percentage of players. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 15:31, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
I still don't understand why Gamers hate casual gamers for playing in "easy mode". Does it really matter? Are they going to put their achievements in their CV when solicitating for a job (yeah, I'm a casual one that always plays on easy mode, because I play games for fun and not for "serious business".)? 2A02:1812:2C66:D000:38FA:53CC:93EC:4D46 (talk) 12:04, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
my 100% in rdr2 is on my cv, ta.
i will work for food AMassiveGay (talk) 12:40, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Did Trump redeem himself?[edit]

By telling people to get vaccinated and even getting booed? 2607:FB90:1800:B259:3ABB:9E27:CF0:8056 (talk) 15:53, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Not really. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:58, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Well, he's still promoting a bunch of other lies that greatly harm America...-Flandres (talk) 16:00, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Is the bar set so low, that simply doing something any reasonable person should do...you are redeemed? ShabiDOO 16:37, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
You don't get rewarded for doing the shit you're supposed to do; moral desert ain't in it. This is just a sign that the mob is moving on without him. The monster can't be controlled, just fed, and if Trump won't do it right, they'll find someone else. There's always another Great White Right-Wing Hope. Semipenultimate (talk) 16:42, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Trump recently said that he thinks the booster shots are probably a money making scam by the vaccine companies. I doubt he carefully studied the issue. He is not a good fit for a president during a pandemic. Neither is Biden. Both are too divisive. CThrash (talk) 17:10, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
I don’t think so. What is redemption, anyway? How do you stack up wrongs and rights and compare them? Personally I think his actions thus far outweigh him in this case. The entire length of his RW article, with a caveat “one time he said go get jabbed but got booed” doesn’t vindicate him. Probliknaut (talk) 17:37, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
This is less redemption and more schadenfreude. A "leopards ate my face" meme moment. Trump's career was possible only due to amplifying the "paranoid style" river of shit that's always been an undercurrent of US politics, but until now usually was kicked to the curb in the Republican mainstream. The river of shit he promoted has bitten back a little bit, funnily enough merely for him promoting a vaccine that he himself has taken (and also helped kickstart with Operation Warp Speed). I will say that as an aside I hope Trump continues this course, boos or not, as it might be helpful for the vaccine-hesitant Trump supporters that haven't fallen into QAnon whackdoodle land. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 23:14, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Anthony Fauci's boss, France Collins, gave the Trump administration credit on Operation Warp Speed. U.S. government health officials are notoriously slow.

Vaccine/mask production is useless though unless people are willing to use them. A ton of people around the world received only one dose of the coronavirus vaccine and then never followed through to get the second dose.[1] And then there is the vaccine hesitant/resistent. CThrash (talk) 18:32, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Glad you point that out. Why are folks who like Trump so quick to ignore that it was his administration that promoted Warp Speed? Somewhat unrelated: didja see that Pfizer’s vaccine is now approved? Maybe it’s old news. Probliknaut (talk) 18:44, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
No person is entirely wrong or entirely bad or good. But on balance Trump is pretty far along the wrong/Bad axis.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:59, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
"Did man who burned building to the ground redeem himself but putting gasoline and lighter down?" Lol-RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:18, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
And Pope Francis promoting vaccination is coming from a better angle. Anna Livia (talk) 19:39, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Trump is pretty much irredeemable; he's skirted convictions for committing two actual crimes because of party lines. If he'd redeem himself, he'd go to the nearest police station and hand himself in for attempting a putzsch. -- Techpriest (talk) 20:34, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Trump will not ever redeem himself, he spent his entire presidency spewing lies on a 24/7 basis.April Chat? 23:40, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Okay, we can safely put ADOC on a list of people who "occasionally" shitpost. I stress the "occasional" part but I also stress the "safely" part. ShabiDOO 12:56, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Now I think about Trump and medicine some more, he was also the guy who suggested on live television that the American medical establishment should investigate the idea of injecting bleach into people. One can only imagine how the toes of the medical professionals were curling at the time.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:35, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

the light murmer of disapproval that was the booing trump was forced to endure contained less outrage than the audience at a panto. it wasnt exactly ceausescu's last speech kind of event. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:03, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witness came to our door today.[edit]

All was normal today until we found this piece of paper on our porch asking us of the usual shmeel of Jehovah's Witness' good news. We read the paper, had a good laugh, then threw the paper away. Aaronmichael5 01:06, 25 August 2021 (UTC).

i thought they stopped going door to door, opting to setting up a stand in the street and waiting for people to approach them. AMassiveGay (talk) 01:58, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Interesting. We had a pamphlet left in our door a few months ago, too. I guess some of them are just too adamant to stop. Probliknaut (talk) 02:45, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
i suppose posting pamphlets isnt knocking on your door for a chat. its no more intrusive than any other flyer. i raad they stopped going door to door in 2018 in the uk, but on american sites it talks of only halting that due to covid. so dunno what they doing. AMassiveGay (talk) 03:24, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
I remember hearing once from an EX-JW on a podcast that almost none of them actually like doing it. It's forced upon them from above. When you think about it, it probably isn't the most enjoyable way to spend your free time. That's not to say that some of them may be heavily into it, but but for the majority I understand it's an unpleasant chore.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 13:44, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
In my experience witnessing was something almost nobody wanted to do, but everybody felt like you had to pretend to like it. After all, if you didn't pretend to like it somebody might report you to an elder!-Flandres (talk) 19:36, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
At least it's good to know that they're leaving pamphlets on doors, rather than standing back six feet and trying to conversationally proselytize in a loud voice. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 22:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
They provide a truly terrible sales pitch: “If you want to go to heaven you must join the Jehovah’s Witnesses.” But who in their right-mind would want to go to heaven with a bunch of Jehovah’s Witnesses! LeucippusSalva veritate 22:50, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Andrew Cuomo[edit]

That son of a bitch finally resigned on August 23, and Kathy Hochul was sworn in. Cuomo should probably have an article. Also, can we add this to a vote of how you feel on the voting area? Gale5050 (talk) 18:07, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Also they better rename the Mario Cuomo Bridge on i-87 back.--Gale5050 (talk) 18:07, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to create the article. CorruptUser 20:04, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
How? I could barely pull off 2014 midterm elections, and that was partly a copy/paste. How do you make a RW article? Andrew5 mobile (talk) 20:13, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
There, I created itCorruptUser 20:30, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll try to improve it.Gale5050 (talk) 21:30, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

No matter what...[edit]

...do not think about an elephant dancing on the moon. Are you thinking about an elephant dancing on the moon? Stop it! Do not for any reason think about an elephant dancing on the moon for the next 30 minutes. ShabiDOO 17:44, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I can't help it Ariel31459 (talk) 01:10, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Why wouldn't you think about this? It's awesome. Artificius (talk) 19:41, 27 August 2021 (UTC)


I know the logic isn't important to these people but this just makes no fucking sense.

  • People are willing to pay money, for a deworming medication, and inject it into their bodies.
  • These same people are not willing to take a free injection of a vaccine.

None of this makes sense anymore. Why does there need to be a miracle cure? Why would a government spend billions on a vaccine that didn't actually help people. Why is the word of individuals with no actual scientific knowledge, taken over people who are paid to keep people healthy. At this point, I think it is time to let these people poison themselves and be done with it.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 18:35, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

For about 2 years I worked at aTractor Supply store in Arizona part time- worked (and am still working) an office-type job otherwise, so it was a pretty profound shift in clientele. It was amazing to throw hay into some persons truck, listening to their political opinions. I can tell you that sometimes, a stereotype exists for a reason: ignorant right-leaning people, spouting nonsense about how “the heat will kill the virus”, masks are oppressive, don’t tread on me, bla bla bla. It was a lot of Grade A Bullshit coming from those asshats. But I digress. We had to pull ivermectin from the shelves for about a month when there was a wave of idiots taking the stuff. Also, if you have ever given a horse ivermectin you know that the stuff is yucky. Probliknaut (talk) 19:14, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
"You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y'all. Stop it."[2] The FDA left out "You are not a sheeple." Sheeple apparently need ivermectin. Bongolian (talk) 19:39, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
I saw that yesterday- love it! But anyway. It’s a weird thing. Some folks just seemed distrusting of the govt, some seemed distrusting of pharma. Some were just overtly political about it. Some (most) were just ignorant and thought they found an easy fix (“well shoot, I vet my livestock myself, and ivermectin works for them!”)Many, many, many, though were a combination of all that. It was infuriating but also sad. I sometimes think we should just let fools be fools and poison themselves but I just don’t know. Seems hopeless. Probliknaut (talk) 19:47, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
I say that we let natural selection take care of these brainless drones. --Get Vaccinated (talk) 22:54, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps the stupidest thing though is that both Big Pharma and Big Government have everything to do with Ivermectin getting onto the Tractor Supply store shelf. Bongolian (talk) 02:02, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
I challenge you to educate a TS customer, in AZ, about a supply chain ;) Probliknaut (talk) 02:43, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
@Get Vaccinated I disagree. These people are also doing this to their children and hurting the lives of helpless people around them and their dependents. We can't just let them kill their kids. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 02:40, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
They're now forcing Ivermectin on incarcerated people in Arkansas.[3]-RipCityLiberal (talk) 18:46, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
I want them to just explain to everyone WHY. What method of action do they think it takes to supposedly treat COVID? And why does the sheriff in that article not question the doctor, but questions the FDA (by not accepting it’s guidance)? Ivermectin is basically poison. Worm poison. It’s supposed to be safe at prescribed doses for animals, but it can be POISON at high doses, and how do you determine a dose for a human??? Asinine. Probliknaut (talk) 21:58, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
@Probliknaut It's actually pretty simple. They've been taught that backing down and admitting ignorance is bad. So they're trying everything but that. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:01, 26 August 2021 (UTC)


FYI ivermectin is also a human medicine... at the right dose. Ivermectin for humans is marketed under the name "stromectol" at least in the United States. From what I see, typically the drug is packaged in 3mg tablets. As you might guess, of course, the prescription is for certain diseases where you are infected by a worm, such as river blindness, strongyloidiasis, trichuriasis, and ascariasis. Not for COVID or any other virus at this point, of course. Ivermectin acts as a nerve agent against some worms (helminths) and insects.
As one who is even slightly familiar with drugs could guess, drug dosage amounts are adjusted by body weight. A human is around 70kg or so. A horse, of course, is at least 400 kilo or so. (Some of the bigger draft horses like shire horsesWikipedia can weigh more than 1000 kilos!) A horse therefore obviously needs a much higher dosage for treatment to be effective. To look at one example, a drugs.com page on a 1.87% ivermectin paste for horses suggests that there is enough in the tube to treat a 566 kilo horse. At the recommended 200mcg/kg listed, seems like there's about 113mg of ivermectin in that tube, or well over 37 times what is in a typical 3mg tablet.
Even adjusting for some human worm treatments needing multiple tablets per dose... that's a lot. This could cause some... issues, I'd say, if someone was dumb enough to take the whole tube (and I bet this is happening for someone hard-headed enough to even think about taking horse paste instead of a vaccine). If ivermectin were proven to work against viral agents, I suppose, that would be one thing. But it hasn't been. Scientists have looked at the drug in several trials. The results have, er, not been very good. True, there have been a couple of positive preprint type papers on the drug, but they have either been in vitro type studies, or have been small, or in one case was booted off a platform due to concerns about plagarism and data manipulation.
I'd love to hear more about the whys myself too, but I'm going to bet it's the usual aggressive anti-intellectualism and mistrust of expertise that you see in the conspiracy crowd, along with the boneheaded stubbornness GC mentioned. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 22:40, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
That’s insightful, thank you. The whole “poison is in the dose” thing is what gets me, and yeah, we were pulling paste AND injectable from the shelves, which leads me to assume people were scarfing down yummy apple-flavored paste. Probliknaut (talk) 23:09, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
I have dosed myself with ivermectin, some years ago. I uaed horse wormer, which comes in a tube of sorts that enables you to measure it out by weight of the horse, and I did the same for myself. This had nothing to do with Covid. Rather, it had to do with some unwanted wildlife in the bedroom. I became the bait; the poor little dears would come out at night, suck my blood, and then die. After about a month of this they were gone and I haven't seen one since. I know, a terrible example of cruelty to innocent animals who just want to live free and feed. It does seem to be effective for this purpose, though. All of this is without medical advice and not intended as such. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 01:56, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I was looking up the Dead Space lore videos on the Church of Unitology and noticed something funny[edit]

In the video results on YouTube I got a few results involving the Church of Scientology. Arguably the Dead Space creators might have been making a jab at Scientology when inventing the Church of Unitology for the Dead Space games. We all know what Scientology is like. As for the Church of Unitology in Dead Space they have tons of money, political influence and milk their followers for money. They also believe that aliens created life by using a rock structure known as the Marker. They try to act like that they are peaceful but they use fanatical violence to get their way and will happily commit murder or mass suicide.

Do you think that Dead Space was making fun of Scientology? --Get Vaccinated (talk) 00:21, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I believe the developers themselves said Unitology was a more generic parody of cults in general...but it's certainly got many similarities to Scientology.-Flandres (talk) 00:25, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
It's not unheard of. Grand Theft Auto pretty clearly makes fun of Scientology through the Epsilon Program. You can even rob them while playing as Michael. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 00:55, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
In fact, there are so many parodies tvtropes has an article dedicated to them. Scientology is, after all, very easy to mock.-Flandres (talk) 01:03, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
The GTA one is so good. When you join them, the Scientologists scam you out of tens of thousands of dollars and make you go on all sorts of pointless quests to prove your loyalty. Then, when they trust you enough to give you a task to transport their money, you steal all of that shit and the car they brought it in, kill the cultists in the convoy trying to stop you, and make off with millions. Their leader calls you in a hissy got to say that you’ll never be enlightened. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 01:23, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Another good parody was the New Dawn in Watchdogs 2. You get to bring down the whole church. 2603:7080:8F03:C3BE:515:6F7E:F895:FA0E (talk) 14:09, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Why do I have a feeling that some of these video games could make good articles here? --Get Vaccinated (talk) 16:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
At any rate, funspace (or sometimes essays) could cover interesting themes for some games.
I've not played Ultima VII, but I've read an article comparing its 'Fellowship' to Scientology, which in part the story was written to satirize. There seems to be a decent degree of philosophical sophistication to the parody. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 17:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
crazy death cults and religions are 10 a penny in video games, played straight or as parody. theres not a lot notable about any of them beyond 'i've just been playing...' and any article that might result will be a list longer than war and peace. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:17, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
A disposable faceless mook gunning for you becomes even more loathsome and fun to kill when he wants you to sing his hymns and give you homework before the eventual mandatory fun of what passes for baptism and communion too. "SERVES YOU RIGHT! NOW DIE WITH YOUR FALSE GOD!" Artificius (talk) 19:18, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Does the Bible have anything to offer atheists?[edit]

Like as a moral guide while not believing in the supernatural aspects and reading it as the work of ancient people not a deity. Or as a literary work, enjoying the stories and characters while not actually thinking they are real or divine. Or as a study into the perspectives of the ancient Jews. Anything the Bible offers to atheists? 2607:FB90:1800:B259:50DA:8760:122:E416 (talk) 02:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I find it a fun source of quotes for dramatic occasions.-Flandres (talk) 02:31, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Biblical sayings are common in American English, and many Biblical stories are referenced frequently in everyday life and in media. Historical figures also frequently drew from and quoted the Bible. I think a working knowledge of at least the major Bible stories is a worthwhile thing to have. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 02:32, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
I would ask why you chose the Bible, specifically. Sure, it's more common in "western" culture, especially American culture, but why the Bible? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:35, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
I think OP is just asking whether the Bible offers any benefits to atheists. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 02:37, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
@DuceMoosolini But don't you find it interesting that the Bible is the "default" religious book in a multicultural country? Should we not seek to explore such a state of affairs? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:43, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
I have to admit that I have read more Taoist and Hindu literature than Christian. Of course, that was for college electives… Probliknaut (talk) 02:48, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
If you enjoy Western classical music, as older works back in more religious times, Biblical stories form the narrative of many works in the genre. (Amusingly, this includes some composers who were non-believers / agnostic at best. It's kind of like how a fair number of American Christmas pop songs were written by Jewish composers.) This is something you'll find in many other historical art of the West overall. So a little background helps there.
The other aspect of the Bible, is that having a holistic understanding of the themes will allow you to easily see when a so called Christian is actually abusing the principles in the book they claim to follow. There is no way, for instance, in my opinion, that anybody who has read the Bible would see "prosperity gospel" as anything but completely wrongheaded to the principles of the Christian religion. Which is why even many evangelicals describe prosperity gospel as heresy. Yet it continues today as a popular route for "preachers" who (again, MHO) are more looking to scam desperate poor people than anything else. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 03:18, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
The King James Version of the Bible is absolutely essential to understanding the development of the English language. The paradox is that (like Shakespeare) the proof of its influence lies in the fact that we use expressions from it all the time without knowing it. Peace offering, a sign of the times, and a wolf in sheep's clothing are just a few. And besides, every other holy text from ancient cultures is a window into what they were thinking and how they interpreted the world around them; why would the Bible be any less interesting in that regard? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:25, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
The right to say that you've read it, at least. A lot of people don't like the Bible because it is basically a list of things that have happened, But I think the shopping-list structure is covered up well by the in-my-opinion outstanding and almost comedically flowery prose, alongside the fact you are reading arguably the most influencial book ever. An Advocate (talk) 04:27, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────grab a copy and dive in. some bits are an easier read than others, going cover to cover isnt the best idea. maybe try the gospels for all the jesusy stuff. thats not all awful morality wise, with the turning the other cheek and not judging and stuff. most of the really hateful stuff is old testament. AMassiveGay (talk) 03:47, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

The KJV Bible is useful for understanding English literature, including especially parts of Shakespeare, and the origins of some common phrases. It is even useful for understanding some popular music, like Nick Cave's Kicking Against the Pricks.Wikipedia Beyond that, it is useful for debating fundies, if one is put such an unfortunate position. Bongolian (talk) 03:50, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
If you read it as "a book from the past", it's actually quite interesting. There's a lot of "wisdom of the ancients" sort of things, especially when you remember that the people of thousands of years ago are pretty similar to the people today, and for all their differences they had some quite relatable problems. The problem is when you take the gospel as, well, gospel, and insist that all the stories are 100% true with no embellishments or propaganda mixed in. CorruptUser 04:38, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
It's certainly interesting culturally. For it's impact on the language etc. But if the question is, "Does it offer spiritual advice, useful moral lessons or whatever?" then I say the answer is "No". Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 07:07, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Personally, I think it does offer some useful lessons, but not ones you can't get elsewhere. And I wouldn't limit exploration to just the Bible, either, if possible. Although, the Abrahamic religions are lucky in that there is one definitive book for each that gets you a good start in the religion, and consequently the ancient culture. Whereas, I'm not aware of any "most important book" for any Eastern religion or philosophy. (A Google search revealed that Confuscianism probably has Four Books and Five ClassicsWikipedia though.) PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 13:46, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Spiritual lessons? They are a collection of stories that a culture thought had useful messages, basically Aesop's Fables. It's when you try to make it more than that, you run into the problems religions can create. CorruptUser 14:04, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
No atheist will get "spiritual lessons" from anything, methinks. As for "moral lessons", though, it has some that are decent. Like the Golden RuleWikipedia for instance. But something similar to this is in a lot of religious and non-religious texts. In the meantime, a lot of the weird shit in books like Deuteronomy should be ignored. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 15:01, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
There is the Jeffersonian Bible which takes away the contradictory supernatural crap. Even then, I would side with Satan. He rewards his followers and has not committed the inhumane crimes like God did. --Get Vaccinated (talk) 15:09, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Satan's original job in the Jewish lore is that of a combination of District Attorney and Chief of Police. Just know that if you support Satan, you also support Blue Lives Matter. CorruptUser 15:37, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Satan rewards his followers how? And what crimes has God committed that would warrant loyalty to Satan? An Advocate (talk) 15:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Examples of God personally killing people.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:05, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
In terms of a strictly narrative context, Satan does not oppose God. Satan works for God. The concept of "the devil" and "hell" is mostly non-canonical shit that's been added in what amounts to sticky notes on the pages. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
@GrammerCommie Fair point, but I don't think Satan works for God, directly anyway. As I understand it, Satan serves God in that he is an angel created by God (Ezekiel 28:15) and can only act in the rules created by God (Job 1:12), but rebels from God and seeks to twist and/or get around the rules created by God (Isaiah 14:13-14). An Advocate (talk) 18:11, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The bible is useful to atheists, in that it is a poor piece of fiction, but has stories that could be effectively adapted to another form of art. -RipCityLiberal (talk) 18:21, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

@An Advocate That's Lucifer, not Satan. Additionally, I'm being somewhat informal when I say "works for" rather than "serves", though in a more fromal framing yes, "serves" is more accurate. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:46, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Ok, my mistake then. I don't want to get into the trashfire that is the "who's who?" between Lucifer, Satan, the Anti-Christ, Beelzebub, et al. An Advocate (talk) 18:56, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
@An Advocate Well the conflating of these characters extra-cannonically is what I meant by "mostly non-canonical shit that's been added in what amounts to sticky notes on the pages." ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:06, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Satan is almost unique among angels in that he has Free Will, the only other angel with this is the angel of death. However, Satan still works for God, again Satan's purpose in the universe is to prove to God that you are a bad person. The Christian version of Satan being the ruler of hell and effectively a god in his own right is effectively heresy. CorruptUser 19:18, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Probably the most rewarding parts to a non-believer would be the stories of Samuel, Saul, David and Solomon, obviously written by a palace insider, and some of the best journalism from the ancient world. Among the poets and prophets, Ecclesiastes and Job anre probably the most interesting, and Ezekiel wins the prize for best imagery among the prophets. New testament highlights include the Sermon on the Mount (Mt. 5-7) and the Gospel of John. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 19:44, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
If God actually existed (lol) and created everything including Satan (lmao) and is all powerful (all things the bible unambiguously claims multiple times), then there is absolutely no getting around it: god is responsible for and permits EVERYTHING satan does. God may as well be a puppet master for Satan, because he knows everything Satan is going to do...doesn't stop him...and permits humans to be manipulated, suffer and inflict suffering on others because of it. For whatever reason god purportedly permits this (ex. testing people), you may as well replace Satan with God in every phrase you quote. "Satan made you do it" is, effectively, no different than "God made you do it". And if God makes you do something, then how can you possibly be responsible for it? Just because Satan was created with a "level of autonomy", doesn't mean God isn't responsible for every single thing Satan does to humans if God doesn't stop Satan from doign it. Of course...we all know that Satan is just an invention created by religious people to help them escape the paradox of evil. An all powerful and all moral and all caring God...and yet there is pain and suffering (most of it pointless?) and God's creations do terrible things? Satan. Convenient. ShabiDOO 20:00, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
I noticed that to, God is supposed to be omnipotent but very rarely acts so. Guess it's just a big plot hole. An Advocate (talk) 20:02, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
But surely there are as many versions of "God" and the "Godverse" as there are Christians to invent them.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 20:16, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Definitely, there can indeed be many interpretations of the Bible and God's actions. You are exactly right. An Advocate (talk) 20:26, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Let me ask you this: is Buddy Christ canon? (Bearing in mind he was introduced by one of Christianity’s most revered prophets) LeucippusSalva veritate 20:33, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
To quote Hitchens: “Religion isn’t provided to us by revelation, it doesn’t come from the heavens, it doesn’t come from the beyond, it isn’t divine—it’s man made!—and it shows, it shows very well that religion is invented, created, imposed—by a species half a chromosome away from the chimpanzee![a species whose favourite pastime involves slinging its own faeces.”] LeucippusSalva veritate 20:54, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Either the bible is true in its entirety, or it is a "take whatever you like" guide. If it is the earlier, then you have a ginormous mountain of contradictions, inconsistencies and logical impossibilities to work out (which no one has done and almost certainly could never do). If it is the latter, then you must work out an undeniably rational and straightforward system (and the clearly most superior one) to identify which parts are true and which aren't (a system where anyone else using it will draw the same conclusions). If you do not do that (and so far, nobody ever has) then your interpretation is merely "intuitive opinion" and it is absolutely fucking ludicrously insane to base your world view on an intuitive opinion based cherry picking of an ancient book...and everyone would be fully justified in not taking a single word you have to say about it seriously. Throw Satan into this mess and we are left with a giant WTF? ShabiDOO 20:59, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I think the Bible is metaphysically primitive and boring. If you find some Christian mystical writing aligned with your own ethics and aesthetics, however, this may make it much easier to make something more interesting out of parts of the Bible, separately from the literal story. There's more sophisticated metaphysics in the works of some mystics, but while such mystics quote the Bible, their selections and interpretations of passages are less straightforward.

Some mystics seem to use the contents of the Bible as raw material for an unconsciously driven artistic process, in which they project their own richer worldviews and aesthetics onto the, in my view, rather crass mentalities expressed in the old text, and also seem to truly view the old authorities which were part of establishing the orthodoxy as having been divinely inspired, while likewise interpreting the words of said authorities just as creatively in order to support their own positions.

For example, Boris Mouravieff views God and the Universe in a multi-layered way, the full view of the cosmos having a fractal-like structure, where God is not at all like a person in the sky. The worldview leaves room for science, while the supernatural is viewed as a larger world containing the smaller world studied by science. "Satan" is viewed as something more impersonal which is part of the structure surrounding and in part defining the nature of this world, a sub-logos within a larger logos. The existential struggle of souls is about discernment of and choice between conflicting currents of influence of different natures active in this world and leading in different directions / to different results. An open question for the future is whether humanity will grow up and evolve into greater consciousness, or whether it will perish. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 21:39, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

My interpretation of what the Bible has for non-Christians is: through story telling, tall tales, and even a few true stories and other conventions as the establishment as a historical moral/ethical basis, a standard of conduct and moralities more or less suited to its time. From this, I believe the Bible has something to offer people as at least as a starting point in explaining the morals, ethics, and standards of conduct in the Western World. This is my reading of it anyway. An Advocate (talk) 23:07, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Others have already made good points, but assuming you live in the US or some other country where the Bible and its themes are already prominent, you would arguably get more out of reading the sacred text(s) of some other religion. You have likely already been exposed to some extent to the major ethical themes of the Bible, and studying some other holy work might offer the opportunity to see a novel ancient perspective, ethical system, or literary style. On the other hand, relevant resources may be less accessible, and it may be more difficult to find others who are able or willing to discuss or analyze the themes of the sacred text of a religion less prominent in your area, if that is of any interest to you. In any case, if you are interested in, say, the ethical ideas of the ancient world, you would do well to investigate beyond the Bible alone in any case. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 talk 03:08, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
i get by with merely the gist of what most religions about. all the relevent information of all the worlds religions can obtained in less than 30 minutes scanning their articles briefly on wikipedia. thats all that is necessary when you are not bound by the rules of other peoples religions. you need only enough for what good manners demand. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:49, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Surprisingly, Satan is mention very little in the Bible. BeardOfZeus (talk) 02:26, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
The Bible itself may not have much to offer atheists, but religion can and always will have something to offer godless heathens (such as myself) even if the price seems high. A lot of the self-described was-an-atheist types probably went back because a church was and is a warm place if the right people are present (this may be denominational, Lutheran churches immediately stir these feelings for me) and it’s easy to subsume doubts about the source material and experience the divine in that setting, even if a critical observer would insert quotation marks and emphasis at various points in this sentence. Artificius (talk) 18:28, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

The COVID pandemic has made me lose any respect that I had for bikers[edit]


These bikers refuse to wear helmets and want others on the road to look out for them yet they refuse to wear masks and get vaccinated. They claim that "their freewdum being taken". Thanks to their fucking biker rally in Sturgis, SD there has been a massive spike in infection rates. Bikers are the definition of hypocrisy. --Get Vaccinated (talk) 16:13, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

If you ride a motorcycle instead of driving a car, you are probably not very safety conscious. I never expected Sturgis to cancel due to a pandemic.
Get your motor runnin'. Head out on the highway. Looking for adventure. In whatever comes our way. Like a true nature's child. We were born, born to be wild. We can climb so high. I never wanna die. Born to be wild. Born to be wild. CThrash (talk) 20:44, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Who are less likely to get vaccinated: Fundamentalist Christians or Bikers?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:27, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
"Yes." Bad jokes aside, self-described fundamentalist Christians would seem less likely than self-described bikers to get a vaccination. A biker can wear a helmet (or secretly get a shot) ironically and not have it conflict with their identity, but most Fundies I'm aware of have pitched their flag on the anti-science hill and will die there even if no one's asking them to. Artificius (talk) 18:17, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Board of trustees election concluded.[edit]

Say hello to the new board members! Best of luck to all of them. -- Techpriest (talk) 22:42, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Congratulations guys and girls.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:29, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Kabul explosions[edit]

The Afghanistan situation couldn't get much worse after this, let's just hope it doesn't escalate. Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 22:56, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I had chatted a bit about it over in WIGO talk, albeit in the context of US deaths. I think NPR says “dozens” dead, ~146 wounded. BBC says no UK soldiers dead, 12 US dead. Probliknaut (talk) 23:39, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Yeah that's pretty bad, how do you think the situation will develop from here? Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 00:12, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Considering the Taliban's de facto control over Afghanistan, the rise of other affiliated terror groups in said country and the Chinese being interested in Afghanistan's natural resources- it is difficult to say. One scenario I could picture is China helping the Taliban develop a functioning puppet government. --Get Vaccinated (talk) 00:22, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
I've talked to someone before about the comparison between historical and contemporary Sino-Pakistani relations and whether or not Sino-Afghani relations could develop along similar lines. I personally disagree with that idea and think the China-Taliban relationship would be more comparable to the China-North Korea relationship due to Afghanistans geopolitical position and the radical political/ideological temperament of the organizations involved. Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 00:31, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

The influential scholar Francis Fukuyama predicted liberal democracies would be extremely influential globally in the future.

After the Afghanistan debacle, Fukuyama said that the USA is not likely to regain its earlier hegemonic status, nor should it aspire to. According to Fukuyama, what it should and can hope for "is to sustain, with like-minded countries, a world order friendly to democratic values. Whether it can do this will depend not on short-term actions in Kabul, but on recovering a sense of national identity and purpose at home."[4]

Afghanistan was a sign that liberal democracies being highly influential culturally on a global scale is over. It was insane hubris to believe that Afghani, local, Islamic cultures that have existed for hundreds of years were going to be radically changed by foreigners who were occupiers.

Liberal democracies in the West are being challenged on their home turf. Political polarization is increasing.

The fall of Afghanistan is only the beginning of the unraveling of the liberal, global order. CThrash (talk) 02:17, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

90 people were killed btw, not just us troops AMassiveGay (talk) 12:25, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

As for the above, thats not really what happened was it. corruption that wormed its way into level of society, needing bribes for everything, even medical treatment had lot more to with things than a rejection of 'liberal values'. its bullshit to even suggest this with no evidence. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:20, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Sometimes accounts appear that reek of old whiffs of Conservapedia, they can be safely be ignored.
As far as Mr. Fukuyama is concerned, the first commentary I could Google on this is an Economist article (paywalled, sorry) that argues that America's primary weakness at the moment is deep polarization. We are at a point where vaccinations are political markers and where asshats like Tucker Carlson think hobnobbing with shitheads like Viktor Orban to "own the libs" is much more important than democratic values. The "soft export power" of old, where our democratic values (no matter how surface level it was) were seen as something to strive for in many other nations, is dying. But there is no obvious replacement for it at the moment. (China values? In an error of Xi Jinping shittery, please...)
In conclusion, as far as Schlaflys go, it is better methinks to ignore the divisive stupid failures like Conservapedia these days and instead have a Schlafly beer. (Yes, Phyllis Schlafly's nephew Tom makes a pretty kick-ass pumpkin ale. Who knew? You'll definitely at least find people abroad who think America's craft beer scene is something worthwhile... much more so than our domestic politics, at least...) PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 14:02, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
This attack has been claimed by ISIS-K, another Islamist trying to compete with the Taliban for influence. Obviously the death and destruction is terrible, and it's such a soft target it was certainly expected. In the grand scheme of things, it illustrates that even though the Taliban controls most of the territory, they don't have all the terrorists groups under their control. I would hope that this may give a reasonable reason to extend the evacuation mission, but it would require Taliban buy in, which seems unlikely. But the Taliban does want the US to reopen their embassy in Kabul, which I find very interesting...-RipCityLiberal (talk) 16:01, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Current Afghan death toll is 169. @RipCityLiberal, I’m curious where you found info re: the Taliban wanting a US embassy? Probliknaut (talk) 16:14, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Fukuyama always seems like this really nice and well-read dude whose books I lose patience for after a few paragraphs and then regret buying even though an excerpt or a quote was good. I loved the idea that history had ended in some sense after the fall of the Soviet Union, and then history kept happening and I got old and jaded. Artificius (talk) 17:58, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
@Probliknaut[5] Apparently it was discussed during a meeting with the CIA director.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 18:05, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
@RipCityLiberal On the issue of evacuation, do you think getting planes in and out of Afghanistan would be a safe goal at this point? The Taliban have also declared a ban on Afghans leaving the country recently. Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 18:09, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
@Nebuchadnezzar7658 Everything relies on the Taliban. They have most of the cards in this situation. I think as long as they tolerate American troops on the ground managing the airport, planes can keep coming in and leaving. The problem is the Afghans that know how to operate the airport are already gone or leaving with Americans or NATO partners. Again there is some conversations about maybe getting help running the airport, but is the Taliban a reliable partner. It's honestly just wait and see right now.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:28, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm gonna post pictures of tits here, cause why the hell not?[edit]

Eurasian blue tit Lancashire.jpg

Hm? What, why are you all looking at me like that? What the, were you guys expecting something else? Seriously, what the f@ck...

Perverts. ALL of you. - Rairyu75 (Talk) 23:36, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

The only way one can respond to that is with a dick pic. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 23:46, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I was going to point out that if you wish to share tit pics, at least you should share pics of some Great tits. But I can't figure out how to give the credit when uploading a picture under Attribution-Share Alike 3.0. So I'll just let you know blue tits are subpar. Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 00:36, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

No Boobies, Hooters, Peckers, or Cocks? CorruptUser 01:07, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
They may not be as sexy, but I'm partial to Loons as well. Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 01:10, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
I rather enjoy shags myself. Though, being a New Englander, my best bit of bird trivia has to do with bald eagles (in the winter they hang out in droves along the rivers, and in summer the zoos around here have them); the raspy, spine chilling scream you all think is a bald eagle is actually a red-tailed hawk (which are quite impressive birds in their own right, and omnipresent around here year round). If you've never heard a real bald eagle, prepare to be thoroughly underwhelmed (it starts around halfway in); somehow it's even more unimpressive when you hear it in person. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:00, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Watch as RationalWiki gets de-listed from the search engines. An Advocate (talk) 04:32, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Molon labe. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい)

if we had no euphemisms for our genitalia we wouldnt have sex. nothing is as unsexy as referring to your bits by what they actually are called and not much in the field of biology could be accomplished if every mention of penis or vagina resulted in giggles or inconvenient erections. what kind of world would we be living in if you couldnt call your penis literally anything but a penis? 90% of all human culture revolves around not saying penis when we mean penis. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:51, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Speaking of pussies and tits, I would imagine if you put a pussy and a pair of tits together, they wouldn't get along with each other. LongStylus (talk) 23:17, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
If you put those together, you get this cutie. Say hello. She's a bushtit.
American Bushtit 6731.jpg --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 00:10, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Certainly haven’t seen any of these in the latest issue of Hustler... LeucippusSalva veritate 00:14, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
You wouldn't, you usually had to pick up a copy of NatGeo for bush tit. Artificius (talk) 00:13, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Did the Afghanistan flag change?[edit]

I remember for certain we were using the new flag of Afghanistan in the news section. Has it changed and I have not been privy to such a change? An Advocate (talk) 15:05, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

We get our flags from Wikimedia Commons.Wikipedia You were seeing the effects of a small edit war on File:Flag_of_Afghanistan.svg. Our own Afghanistan page uses the Taliban flag regardless. Christopher (talk) 16:00, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Smokey the Bear demands human sacrifices[edit]


It is implied in this video that a fire department sacrifices people to appease a monstrous creature. --Get Vaccinated (talk) 22:41, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Length between vaccine shots[edit]

I wonder if the reason for the rise of serious side effects of the COVID vaccine over the last few months is due to that they are given within weeks between the first and second doses.Cms13ca (talk) 13:13, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I think that's all going to be "citation needed".Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 13:30, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Looking at the Canadian covid report on adverse side effects, it appears there are more reports of severe side effects over the last few months compared to the when the first doses were administered and the second dose was not given until several months later.Cms13ca (talk) 14:50, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
But - doesn't that graph show adverse reports going up from the start of the campaign in January , peaking in May, and then steadily coming down? And that, even though the number of vaccinations was going up during the whole period. "While the number of doses administered have increased over time, the rate of serious reports has remained low." So the data you have given is pretty favorable in respect of whatever Canada is doing.
Also I can't quickly find on that page any reference to Canada actually reducing the time between doses. So I'm still not sure that your initial comment stands up. But if I'm missing something I'm sure you will point it out.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:25, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Why is Conservapedia so bad as an encyclopedia?[edit]

Even fundamentalist textbooks that deny many scientific facts are not this bad. Conservapedia seems to be less about being a conservative encyclopedia and more obsessivly writing attacks against things like atheism, liberalism, or anything that the admins apparently hate. What makes it so bad as an encyclopedia with not even basic informative value? Why is it so obsessed with making personal attacks? What can it do to be a decent encyclopedia? 2607:FB90:A8DE:391C:254A:FEF8:8419:3C66 (talk) 00:47, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Delete the database and drop it off the internet. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 00:51, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Unless they can somehow (not sure how) tone down the anti-science levels, there is no hope for them. Even if their wiki had a conservative bent but accepted most scientific and historical facts then it would be better. However that is a huge stretch. --Get Vaccinated (talk) 01:23, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
CP has no interest in presenting reliable information. It's a circlejerk where a group of far-right nutjobs rewrite reality together in order to further entrench themselves in their own viewpoints. It's why they're immediately hostile to new contributions and use page protections on almost every page. It's not a wiki, it's a clubhouse. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 02:22, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Which is worse - Conservapedia or Rightpedia? I know Conservapedia believed Donald Trump won the 2020 U.S. presidential election. Andrew5 (talk) 00:53, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Conservapedia doesn't want to be an encyclopaedia but a sounding board for their fairly extreme point of view. How could they become more like an encyclopaedia? It should start with "wanting" to be one. ShabiDOO 20:59, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
It was meant to be an alternative to Wikipedia which the founder thought was too biased. And it does have "-pedia" in its name. So it is an encyclopedia in name and advertised as one. And has some entries even if they are inferior to Wikipedia or other encyclopedias. Though it seems too often focused on ranting about or attacking the stuff the founders seem to detest. 2607:FB90:A8DE:391C:254A:FEF8:8419:3C66 (talk) 02:45, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

DON'T POST STUFF ABOUT CONSERVAPEDIA IN THE SALOON BAR. Post it at Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP? Spud (talk) 12:58, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

How to avoid woo?[edit]

I like to write little scifi stuff in my spare time, and I like to try and incorporate real science into them, but actually finding real information about things like quantum mechanics or general relativity can be frustrating. Every time I search for it I end up getting a ton of conflicting information with people claiming which stuff is or isn't true, and while cranks are usually obvious, sometimes it can be hard to tell. Other times I just get useless pop-science garbage that try to wow me with simple facts like "DID YOU KNOW QUANTUM PHYSICS IS STRANGE? IT'S TRUE!". I used to think ResearchGate was a good source, but I've seen some pretty obnoxious cranks get pretty highly rated on the site, so now I don't know. The top rated posts on Quora are often some weird homeopath talking about "quantum nodules" instead of real experimental science. Right now I'm trying to figure out if this (warning: pdf download) source is legit before I spend hours trying to understand it. I feel like the wall of disinformation online makes it almost impossible to learn anything new. I miss being in university where I could get comprehensive books on the subject and trust the source material because I was able to do experiments to validate the equations using the university's laboratories. Now I just have to look at a stack exchange post and hope the random anonymous poster knows their shit. How do other people deal with this? MirrorIrorriM (talk) 02:57, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

The paper you link to was originally published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it appears to have nearly 5000 citations, so I suspect it's legitimate. Searches for both the journal's name and generic searches for physics journals indicate that the journal is legitimate. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 talk 03:49, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Also, this is a literature review; they're just reporting on what's been done in the field, not presenting new research. This strikes me as a suboptimal woo-pushing technique. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 talk 04:09, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
If you are getting confusing, contradictory information on extremely complex and difficult to test things like quantum mechanics, then my advice would be to just ignore it and focus on more productive research on better founded concepts (like biology, for example). TL;DR physics is really hard, especially for (what I presume to be) a layman. An Advocate (talk) 04:21, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
I won’t pretend to be a great writer or anything, but I think sometimes it’s better to hand wave some things. Asimov’s “positronic brains” were positronic just because it was a cool word at the time, after all. Probliknaut (talk) 04:54, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
@An Advocate Giving up is not a good solution to this problem. I want to have an accurate representation of quantum computers and quantum teleportation. It is integral to the technology of the setting.
@Probliknaut I do intend to do some handwaving in the setting, but I want to get as far as I can with the real science before I start doing that. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 13:08, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
I am not saying give up, I am saying leave it and come back to it later. You yourself have said that very few people even on science sites seem to have a faintest clue what their talking about. An Advocate (talk) 14:58, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Try joining relevant groups on 'discussion platforms of choice'.
Anyone wishing to write 'Science for Fiction Writers', 'Medicine for Fiction Writers' and similar works, will make a fortune/get a lot of hits. Anna Livia (talk) 19:33, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
If you're trying to gain an understanding without a background in the field, I wouldn't recommend focusing on journal articles. The target audience is really other researchers and field experts, so the presentation is going to be high level. While you might not have access to a university library and a lot of databases, you might still find it more helpful to pursue university textbooks. Old editions that aren't much used anymore are relatively cheap, and much of the content will be the same, and they're aimed at increasing understanding of the field, to a (much) greater extent than pop-science presentations aimed at a general audience. Obviously, you probably won't be able to run experiments to verify the claims, but textbooks shouldn't pose much problem as far as reliability. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 talk 20:26, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
I've been a subscriber of New Scientist for years. They do both superficial and in-death articles for the lay reader. It's a long-term plan but it would give you lots of stuff.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:05, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
There are some fairly good popularisers of science/physics who make good intro youtube videos. Some of them go on to make more advanced ones. If there is a more specific topic you are interested in I can see if any of them have made a video on it. I don't recommend going the way of articles. They are extremely technical. I don't think you need to do massive research on an issue to write well on it. You are, after all, more commenting on it and/or weaving the concept into your narrative. Most sci-fi writers go well beyond current scientific knowledge into the highly speculative and/or outlandish working out their own consistent "future" science with only a need for minimal understanding of more exotic concepts in science/physics. ShabiDOO 21:02, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Science is not done by Twitter or Facebook posts, Quora answers or the words of scientist. It is done by the peer-reviewed papers in respectable journals. BeardOfZeus (talk) 23:05, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
BeardofZeus, unless the people who read Mirror's stories are reading those scientific articles I do not see why Mirror would have to read them as well, unless Mirror is interested in those articles anyways or in the unlikely case Mirror wants to write a story that delves profoundly into the technical details of a specific topic in science (which is not a prerequisite for writing quality science fiction). A basic understanding of any topic or sub-topic will, for most cases, do. I have studied philosophy and I do not believe that someone needs to read Plato's monologues or Kants lengthy books, let alone contemporary journals, in order to write good fiction on philosophical concepts. The same, in theory, should apply to any topic unless, again, you specifically wish to be very detailed/accurate. The few exceptions I can think of are niche writing or extremely detailed fiction (historical, crime, medical etc). ShabiDOO 23:26, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Agreed on that. Now, if one *wants* to read the journals, they are out there too. The problem is, they often are not free. For instance, the top end multidisciplinary research magazines (from what I can tell, although such is a bit subjective of course) are Nature and Science. Good magazines, but it costs money, and not sure how much it is worth shelling out to improve ones science fiction. (Research papers do tend to be dry reading after all.) However, those two are the heavy hitters for those who want to keep up with what's going on in the science world and don't mind a little bit of dry research paper-reading.
One alternative here is the increasing amount of high-quality open access sites. You have to watch, because there are some shit open access sites out there. In quantum science, however, an online open access site called Quantum seems to get decent reviews based on the Googles.
Popular science magazines are to me a great alternative well. The problem with popular scientist magazines is that sometimes they... er... dumb down and go through decay (with cable channels like Discovery and History being very prominent examples of the trend). Scientific American and New Scientist seem to have pretty solid reps still from what I can tell. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 00:13, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

If you just want to write sci-fi then yes do whatever you want to do, after all fiction only constraint is the imagination. However if you want to avoid woo, then understand that science is only done by peer-reviewed papers in respectable journals. BeardOfZeus (talk) 00:59, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Sure, but give it enough time, and a whole bunch of the current crop of peer-reviewed papers on the subject will turn out to be pretty hand-wavey and woo-adjacent. That's not a criticism - just an inevitable consequence of investigating the properties of stuff at the outermost limits of our ability to observe & measure it. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 01:43, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Woo is a natural product of the human mind. Often it consists of speculative guesswork that doesn't pan out. Unless disproven it should be classed with everything that cannot be verified and it should not be used to demean academics who try to work outside of the formats presented by academic societies. Newton thought there was something true in astrology. I like to think he had a few other ideas worth considering.Ariel31459 (talk) 16:02, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Sex Offender Registry: A False Sense of Security[edit]

When someone who commits sexual assault or similar crime against children they register as a sex offender. They must stay away from schools and have signs in their yard saying that they are a sex offender. Seems like it provides security and keeps said criminals in line. However, a lot of these sex offenders end up on the streets and it is more difficult to keep track of them. These homeless sex offenders are essentially have free range to commit sexual crimes over and over and they are able to run. The sex offender registry does not actually protect anybody. --Get Vaccinated (talk) 17:56, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Homeschooling, living in an area with high moral standards and associating with friends/family with high moral standards are some of the best ways to protect your kids. Most child molesters are people the children know.
If you want to protect your kids against homeless child offenders, live in an area that has low levels of homelessness and have strong home security. For example, areas with harsh winters and decent social safety nets are going to have lower levels of homelessness. Putting thorn bushes in front of the first story windows of a home is one way to better secure a home. Snellvee (talk) 19:31, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Although the sex offender registry has problems, homeschooling is hardly a solution. Public school and public socialization of children at least gives recourse to reporting of sex offenses. Putting children in permanent lockdown (homeschool + high security) puts them in a position of being unprepared (or at least less prepared) for society at large and gives little or no recourse when the sex offenders are within the family — a not uncommon situation. Bongolian (talk) 21:04, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Homeschoolers score higher on SAT/ACT exams.[6]
Homeschooling families often provide various venues to socialize their children such as having regular socialization opportunities for their children with other homeschooling families. A systematic review of the current research on homeschooling, which was published in the Journal of School Choice, reported that not only do homeschoolers do very well academically, but they also appear to be well adjusted/socialized.[7] Snellvee (talk) 21:16, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
(Oh, my Spider senses...) Hey, stranger... you wanna let us know how you feel about atheism on the internet? Would you say it's... ya know. Doing well? - Rairyu75 (Talk) 21:18, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Considering that many child molesters are family members and the fact that tracking homeless child molesters is insanely difficult, the Sex Offender Registry does not provide actual security. It is more along the lines of security theater much the TSA in which that they act like their tedious protocols stop terrorists: said security protocols don't mean a thing when the FBI and CIA already keep track of terrorist threats. Like the TSA, the Sex Offender Registry is simply a false sense of security. --Get Vaccinated (talk) 01:28, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

When it comes to public safety/military/computer security/medicine, a layered defense (also called defense in depth) is often used. The UK police use policemen, security cameras, forensic labs, etc. to maintain public safety. Doctors recommend vaccination, the wearing of masks and social distancing to lower their patient's risk from a coronavirus infection, but they also advise their patients to eat healthy, exercise and get adequate sleep to aid their natural immunity.

The Sex Offender Registry provides security, but not complete security. It is merely one piece in a defense in depth strategy to improve public safety when it comes to stopping sex offenders who prey on children. TerraFirma (talk) 01:49, 30 August 2021 (UTC)


I heard Ida is gonna make landfall as a C4 in New Orleans. Wondering if it could be worse then Hurricane Katrina.

Btw since there was some dispute on WP - would you consider 20 Venezuela deaths as a part of Ida? Andrew5 (talk) 23:47, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Depends on the severity of the storm surge and rainfall. Flooding and storm surge is the deadliest killer in a hurricane. --Get Vaccinated (talk) 00:37, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
What about it would make you think it could be worse than Katrina? Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 01:15, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Katrina was cat 3, Ida is forecast to be cat 4.[8] The storm surge is expected to be 10-15 feet. Rainfall is expected to be at least 5-8 inches. It will certainly be a test to see if post-Katrina measures work, as no really severe hurricanes struck after. I mean, Gustav largely spared the area, Nate was very weak at landfall and even Zeta, which had 115mph winds at landfall (cat 3), it was only a 105mph cat 2 over New Orleans. Andrew5 (talk) 01:24, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Considering how many variables are involved in weather events like these, I suppose we'll just have to wait and see how it plays out. The fact that the east coast would experience worsening hurricane seasons has been known for a while now. Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 01:39, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Katrina was huge news a day or two before it made landfall. I don't know why Ida isn't dominating the news cycle again, even with the fiasco in Afghanistan right now...CorruptUser 15:04, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Partly because Katrina also already had impacts, by striking Florida as a category 1, where it caused 11 deaths and $523 million (FYI, the Wikipedia article on it says that 3 deaths and $100 million in damage in Florida was in the panhandle once it had struck), and therefore already had significant impacts. While Ida might have caused 20 deaths, it is disputed, as no reliable sources picked up on it, and therefore probably won't be included (albeit it did hit Cuba as a category 1). But Cuba or Venezuela also isn't the US, we recently had massive floods in Tennessee, and other floods, as well as Afghanistan and COVID, might be drowning it out.Andrew5 (talk) 16:38, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
I wonder if people are taking the evac seriously this time. My guess is they aren't. We are looking at another situation where hundreds if not a thousand+ die. I don't see anything about the national guard being on standby. Fun times ahead. CorruptUser 16:52, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
I don't think quite so many. I don't think it will be like Zeta, in which only a single person died and did only $1.25 billion, but I also don't think it will cause 1,464 deaths and $70 billion. I think it will be like another Laura, which killed 33 and caused $17.5 billion. Note all amounts are Louisiana alone. Andrew5 (talk) 17:13, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Katrina was a monster category 5 at one point and thus brought a massive storm surge of 20 feet with it, despite making landfall only as a cat 3. Ida isn't predicted to be as bad so far on storm surge -- "only" 10 to 15 feet. According to one sources, the city of New Orleans (at least the parts within the levees) in theory is prepared for *much* higher storm surges these days (30 feet), so they aren't worried there. Overall I think forecasters seem to be thinking this is more like a Laura as well. Not that this isn't a big deal, but not as bad as Katrina (at least as forecast). So it's definitely battling news headlines with Afghanistan and the covidiots right now. We'll see if the forecasts hold up. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 20:57, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Laura does seem more reasonable. The storm has since intensified into a category 2 with winds of 105mph (4pm CDT, 21:00 UTC advisory on August 28). They are predicting 8-16 inches in that report. Still, Afghanistan brings up 539 million search results, and COVID-19 has 4 billion results. So certainly Ida having only 292 million results is something. Considering there was just an airport attack that killed 182 people, there is certainly a lot else. In 2005 though, Afghanistan and Iraq were in the news, and so was probably the aftermath of Hurricane Dennis, a category 3 that recently (at the time) struck Florida. Considering Joe Biden's approval rating has plumeted to 47.2% and his disapproval skyrocketed up to 46.9%, we will likely have a lot of Biden in the news. Andrew5 (talk) 21:19, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand, Ida is a category 4. Winds of 150mph. Andrew5 (talk) 13:11, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

1 dead so far. More likely to come over the next couple of days. CorruptUser 17:30, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Ida up to two million customers w/o power, up to 2 people dead, and $15 billion in damages. Meanwhile Ida is nominated for Wikipedia's ITN at wp:Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#Hurricane_Ida. Andrew5 (talk) 23:08, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
How much worse do you think it'll get? Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 00:57, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
If I had to guess? 30 more deaths and $5 billion more in damage.Andrew5 (talk) 01:13, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
However, this YouTube video claims it could be $40 billion. If that's the case and there is a political fallout, it could be missional enough for a RW article. --Andrew5 (talk) 01:48, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Afghan survey[edit]

It is actually difficult to get ahold of surveys done for Afghanis. One that was taken four years after the Taliban was overthrown by US forces, it seems that Afghanis showed overwhelming support for the end of the Taliban, women going to school and voting and that half of Afghanis believed the biggest threat/danger to them was the Taliban. A notable majority was against poppy growing and had a very unfavourable opinion of Osama Bin Laden and an enormous majority supported de-arming militias and local groups. I understand the challenges of getting good statistics and that these may have changed over time but, such large numbers point at least to a populous that was pleased with the end of the Taliban and supported at least minor improvements to women's rights.


ShabiDOO 10:05, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Yet when push came to shove, too many Afghans weren't willing to fight to prevent the Taliban from taking over. CorruptUser 11:53, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Probably because the alternative was seen as "foreign occupation" or "the corrupt current government." The Islamic Republic of Afghanistan just lacked the legitimacy needed to utilize ambient anti-Taliban sentiment.-Flandres (talk) 14:14, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Then perhaps Afghanistan should've been organized into a federation of mostly independent but allied regions so that the locals could keep the corruption under control, with the central government only getting involved in trade dispute resolution between regions, etc. You know, what the Northern Alliance originally wanted. It's strange too. That Sanjir province where they still remain was unconquered by the Taliban the first time around and is still unconquered, but now that the Taliban has access to hundreds of planes and thousands of humvees, I expect that before the year is up there is going to be a massive invasion... CorruptUser 17:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
@Shabidoo conducted by whom? Was it the US army,? If so, there was probably a conflict of interest going on, since it was a foreign occupation government anyway. An Advocate (talk) 18:19, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Aside from domestic issues, we also failed in how our troops trained theirs. That is to say, we trained them to fight like us, then pulled out vital parts of that military structure like intel and air support, both of which US troops were in charge of. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:36, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
It is one of the only surveys done, commissioned by NBC. This is in counter to the completely speculative claims that Afghanis are embracing the Taliban or were indifferent to fighting against them. I would speculate that if the US ended up in a similarly terrible situation where a foreign power had armed religious radicals in creating a fundamentalist Christian religious state, then came back later and bombed the country and occupied it creating severe economic and political instability along with frequent terrorism, sectarian violence, general insecurity and endless unknowns, a flimsy puppet military with that previous radical government funding itself with drugs which that foreign power never got rid of nor ended the drug problem, then a later leader of that foreign power makes a deal with the previous radical Christian group yet a little later that power suddenly pulled out in an insanely unstable and dangerous environment...the typical unarmed confused American citizen would stay the fuck home and hope for the best and its badly equipped puppet army would abandon their posts in a snap. The average American has never protested anything in their lives, I doubt the average American has been in a fist fight as an adult, I doubt the overwhelming majority of Americans (or in any country) has the slightest idea how to fight a fundamentalist violent organisation and that the extent of the Average American's activism is maybe signing an online petition to free Britney...that they would fight in an environment of extreme danger for their freedoms. ShabiDOO 19:16, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

One of the strictest governments in U.S. history that was greatly influenced by the Christian religion was the Puritans in the New England colonies. Life under the Puritans was a lot freer and tolerable for the average citizen than under the Taliban.

"Puritan law recognized the principle that no one should be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process. They also explicitly limited government power. Puritan law prohibited unlawful search and seizure, double jeopardy and compulsory self-incrimination. It also guaranteed bail, grand jury indictment and trial by jury." - New England Historical Society.[9] Snellvee (talk) 21:04, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the people who conducted the Salem Witch Trials were much better than the Taliban. In other news, did you know that gravity is fake? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:09, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
The average New England Puritan citizen was not a defendant at the Salem Witch Trials. 200+ people were Salem Witch Trial defendants and 13 were found guilty. It is estimated that 91,000 people lived in the New England colonies around the time the Salem Witch Trials occurred.[10] Tom4836 (talk) 21:29, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
I think a better Christian comparison to the Talibn - and prehaps ISIS -would be the activities of the Spanish Inquisition.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 10:46, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
@Bob M They brought up the puritans, so I was responding to that. I'd also like to note how they somehow changed "conducted" to "were killed by" in their response. Interesting change that. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 11:22, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Sure I was just trying to think of the worst example of Christian excess in government. Although the Puritans were pretty obnoxious, I just think the Inquisition was worse.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 12:05, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Yeah probably. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 12:09, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Don't forget that some protestant countries had their own inquisitions. England hunted down secret Catholics and burnt plenty of them alive. But it is hard to compare that with a small intense religious community. In such a place, religious fervour can be so extreme that forgetting a single prayer can invite problems, devil/posession talk is rife and neurotic unpredictability goes wild (plus all of the patriarchal abuse, completely unchecked). I think some small fervent religious colonies could be a whole lot worse than a generally quite religious Kingdom with a selectively menacing inquisition. ShabiDOO 12:12, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Never forget that Nov 5th was a holiday dedicated to committing hate crimes against the Catholics. The tame stuff was to burn effigies of the pope and public drinking, so you can bet a few drunken mobs would hunt down a Catholic or two and beat them in the street. CorruptUser 14:11, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Honestly, while the Taliban are extremist religious shitheads, it is hard to take any red herring discussion of such seriously from a troll from an extremist dogshit Wiki who tends to be a cheerleader of some imagined secularism decline. Some Christian societies of the past certainly have been dogmatic and close-minded, too, as noted. Having said that, following the non-sequitur, I'll take the Puritans over the Taliban, because the Puritans actually strongly believed in a solid education. Which to me is also one up on the extremist dogshit Wiki, which tends to be fundamentally anti-science at its worst. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 14:50, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Recently, I have a growing appreciation of theologically conservative Wesleyanism. John Wesley founded Methodism. Wesley's preaching is often credited with averting a violent revolution in England (like France had during the French Revolution). Conservative Weslyanism is peaceful branch of Christianity that has built a lot of hospitals, orphanages and schools. It also stresses good works and righteous/holy living.

As far as secularism/atheism/agnosticism declining at the present time, it is debateable whether that is happening right now globally due to the somewhat murky situation in China/Africa. But there is evidence that China/Africa are seeing an explosive growth of Christianity. Over the next two decades, nearly half of the world's population growth will happen in highly religious Africa.[11]

On the other hand, after the fall of the Soviet Union, there was a rapid growth of Eastern Orthodox religion in Eastern/Central Europe and some growth of Protestanism in Russia so global irreligion/nonreligion did decline for a lengthy period after this event. In 2010, Professor Eric Kaufmann says the secularization rate of Protestant Europe and France was zero.[12] In December 2018, The Times indicated: "The number of atheists in Britain has fallen in the past year, according to a survey suggesting that more people are attending church, albeit irregularly."[13] The Guardian published an article in 2017 entitled Nearly 50% are of no religion – but has UK hit ‘peak secular’? which declared: "But, Bullivant told the Observer that the “growth of no religion may have stalled”. After consistent decline, in the past few years the proportion of nones appears to have stabilised. “Younger people tend to be more non-religious, so you’d expect it to keep going – but it hasn’t. The steady growth of non-Christian religions is a contributing factor, but I wonder if everyone who is going to give up their Anglican affiliation has done so by now? We’ve seen a vast shedding of nominal Christianity, and perhaps it’s now down to its hardcore."[14]

Pentecostalism, evangelical Christianity and Islam are growing in Europe. TerraFirma (talk) 21:58, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Really Terra Firma? What about the internet? Is Christianity growing there too? How about atheism? Is it popular? - Rairyu75 (Talk) 22:10, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
@TerraFirma Do you reckon search engine optimisation has a role to play in African Christianity? - Rairyu75 (Talk) 22:22, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Lee Scratch Perry[edit]

Dormiat in pace. I grew up listening to the man. This joint is worth frenching (surfing to this track on lsd, that’s the dream) :

LeucippusSalva veritate 23:14, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Aye, sleep well. Thanks for the music. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 00:56, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
@Helena Bonham Carter The Good the Bad the Ugly, and the Upsetters; could’ve been Sergio Leone’s final instalment for his “Dollar franchise”. LeucippusSalva veritate 17:22, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm in a distinct minority, but I prefer to imagine there's no such thing as TGTB&TU, and that Leone proceeded directly to Once Upon a Time in the West. If it has to exist, though, I'd much rather someone fired up the time machine and retooled it as a psychedelic romp with Scratch in support. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 23:15, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Breitbart is the second most popular political website in the US[edit]

Acording to this source: http://www.ebizmba.com/articles/political-websites - which also states that the site has approximatively 60 million visits per month, this statistic was taken in March of this year.

I will add that the title is misleading, Breitbart is not the second best political site, but the 2 second most visited one.

And people wonder why there are so many hateful misinformed people like the Qanon idiots, Trump's cronies, etc. 2A02:120B:2C60:8280:7DD9:F7FE:B7AC:907D (talk) 22:12, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

People who lack education tend to buy into conspiracies. They pretend to have hidden knowledge. --Get Vaccinated (talk) 22:58, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Believe it or not, per Alexa (who currently has Breitbart at #106 in the US), they've actually declined by a decent bit. At one point after Trump's election, Breitbart ranked as high as #29 for US traffic. There was a significant decline when Steve Bannon left, which it looks like they've recovered a little bit of (largely, it appears, by engaging in Facebook during Angry Baby's impeachment trials. Figures.)
That, of course, still is way too high for a site demoted as "fake news" spam by Wikipedia and basically just existing for various Angry Babies to take potshots at their "enemies", liberals and minorities and educated people "elitists" and whatnot. I suppose it's comforting that Wikipedia itself is at #9, and several sites with more editorial integrity (such as CNN at #32, the NY Times at #34, and MSN at #39) rank much higher than Breitbart. And it's also kinda comforting (speaking of Qtards) that 8kun, the sputtering, resurrected 8chan (that drove a lot of the Q shit in the past), currently sits at #102,133. But yeah. There are a lot of angry babies in America, perhaps searching for horse dewormer to cure their COVID, and trying to find the next school board meeting in order to yell incoherently about how facial mask requirements somehow are akin to Nazi Germany. Hooray us. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 23:07, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Feedback on my draft article.[edit]

Hey guys. I have just finished my draft article on 0.999... Draft:0.999... and would like some feedback. I am new here. Thanks. BeardOfZeus (talk) 01:32, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I'd say, for one, it requires more sourcing and references. Andrew5 (talk) 01:36, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Does the proof needs to have a reference? I don't think so but I might be wrong. BeardOfZeus (talk) 01:40, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
As a former math major, I feel like the proof is so basic that it doesn't really need a reference. It doesn't hurt to add one though. The Wikipedia article on 0.999...Wikipedia seems to have a pretty rigorous reference for the proof. LongStylus (talk) 11:54, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm just wondering what this has to do with the mission:

  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.

Is there some special sort of woo or some group of cranks associated with this? Remember - we are not a general encyclopedia.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 12:08, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing. I don't think it belongs in mainspace right now due to its lack of missionality. Spud (talk) 12:52, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
I agree, but maybe it could belong in fun space? Besides, that's where our other number articles are in. @Bob M and @Spud. Andrew5 (talk) 13:35, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned anything could be in fun space.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 13:38, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Yeah. Fun space would be fine. Spud (talk) 13:50, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I think it can be moved by a Sysop into fun space. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 14:21, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

What is missing is a citation for anyone claiming that 1 ≠ 0.999… If claiming that 1 ≠ 0.999… had any consequences, and I don't think it does, then it would at least be missional for pseudomathematics. Bongolian (talk) 17:39, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
@Bongolian I still think a move to funspace is fine, as it doesn't necessarily have to be missional there. However with that being said, I found this source, and this source do claim 0.999 is not 1. I'll add them in, and then we can move to either mainspace or funspace, where other number articles are.Andrew5 (talk) 19:59, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
I wasn't necessarily disagreeing with that. After all, pi is in funspace, and it contains Biblically knowing pi, which has real-world consequences. Bongolian (talk) 20:08, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
I think it should be in the mainspace because there is tons of people out there who think that 1 does not equal 0.999... and there is huge debates over the internet over this fact in places where you wouldn't think they would discuss it like World Of Warcraft. I think having an article in the mainspace will show everyone a simple to understand proof that 1 = 0.999... without need to understand complex maths. BeardOfZeus (talk) 22:50, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Also saying 0.999... doesn't equal 1 is a crank idea. BeardOfZeus (talk) 23:14, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
If that is the justification then the cranks and pseudo-scientists should be the main focus of the article. Wikipedia already has a very complete article on 0.999...Wikipedia. Our objective is not to compete with Wikipedia on this stuff but to give our own angle.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 09:33, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, if you want to compete with Wikipedia, @BeardOfZeus, and do so in a humerous way, go to Uncyclopedia. But be warned, you have to have to make it actually funny, and I don't know how likely it is to be accepted.
If you want advice on Uncyclopedia writing, I would recommend, if you want to stay here for now, go to User talk:Shabidoo or User talk:Celeste as both have powerful Uncyclopedia writing accounts. Andrew5 (talk) 13:07, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Bet that I will piss off Pro-Russian weirdos with my next YouTube video[edit]

My video is going to be called "Annexed: An EAS Scenario" in which Alaska in the US and the Yukon Territory in Canada get illegally annexed by Russia. It was inspired by the Russian Annexation of Crimea. In my video the Russian Federation fuels civil unrest and terrorist activity in Alaska and the Yukon in order for both places to declare independence and join the Russians.

Obviously I will paint Russia in a negative light. How many far right Pro-Russian supporters will I piss off? Then again it would not be the first time I made fun of the far right, Trump supports and pseudoscience promoters. --Get Vaccinated (talk) 23:07, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Considering the Russian military buildup in the arctic, is this an idea you're experimenting with because you believe it's plausible? I mean, that would be the post-Soviet Eurasian bloc encroaching upon the territory of NATO, which is the most apocalyptic military scenario one could imagine. Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 06:58, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Not sure if it is likely but it will be an interesting hypothetical. --Get Vaccinated (talk) 18:19, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Would you let your kids be on a little league team if you knew the coaches were Trump voters?[edit]

My kids want to be on a team with their friends so bad, but I know who the coaches are and all four of them are Trump supporters. I do not trust Republicans around my children, especially ones who support Donald Trump. What should I do? Catman (talk) 23:05, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Why? Is there a problem with Trump voters? BeardOfZeus (talk) 23:09, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Yes. 2603:7080:8F03:C3BE:515:6F7E:F895:FA0E (talk) 18:00, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
You should try to not let your politics interfere with your children's lives. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs
If they were ordinary Trump voters I would agree. But not the ones like Ted Cruz, or even worse, Josh MandelWikipedia, who believe that the election was stolen from them, and Mandel even supporting the violence that came with it. Earlier today, while driving through Smithaven, I saw a sign saying "TRUMP WON", as I did when driving across I-76 in southern Pennsylvania. These people I'd try to avoid.This is my opinion. ~ Andrew5 (talk) 23:30, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Is there such a thing as "ordinary Trump voters"? Never mind things like YEC, most of them believe in Qanon conspiracy theories and shit, can't imagine any sensible person would be okay with their kids being around that garbage. And I don't know which is worse, the football coaches with their man crush for Trump, or the cheer coaches who are apparently okay with "grab 'em by the pussy" while they influence young girls. Maybe I'm just too sensitive, but I just can't bring myself to be okay with that. Catman (talk) 01:22, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Yes - people who were upset that Trump lost, but who admitted Biden had won and moved on. A good example is Lindsey Graham. See his statement on the objection of AZ and PA electoral votes.Andrew5 (talk) 01:50, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Oh look, an obvious bait post. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:43, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
I sense that as well. Later it will be "Those heathens over at RT say children shouldn't be coached by Trump voters. I thought this was supposed to be Rational Wiki!"-RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:52, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, this is suppose to be RATIONALWIKI!!!1!!!1!11!! BumblinBrook (talk) 23:55, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
HowDareU!! BumblinBrook (talk) 23:57, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
I wouldn't want a Trump supporter as my kid's coach, because how the heck is he going to coach sports when we all know Trump supporters ain't got no balls? CorruptUser 05:36, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Politics aficionados, please brace yourselves. I have some news that you might find disconcerting.
Most kids don't care about politics. There is much more to life than politics.
That is all. Carry on. Jasmar (talk) 08:09, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
I wouldn't want a YEC teaching my kids geology or a homeopath teaching them medicine - but I'm not so sure I would be so concerned about the political opinions of an athletics coach.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 09:49, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

If the coaches are Donald Trump supporters, they might emphasize the importance of winning. Jasmar (talk) 11:45, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

100% true. Thats a good thing.--Andrew5 (talk) 12:25, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
It is inappropriate for sports coaches to discuss politics or religion with kids unless that team is explicitly a religious one or is under a political organisation. I would not be worried about who the person voted for but whether they were discussing these topics at all (or making off-hand comments). I believe the only social issues a coach should discuss are the cliche ones of self-confidence, integrity, team-work, doing your best and yada yada. In addition to this, I believe coaches should discuss issues of rape-culture and consent with either all boys or all girls teams if they are in their teens or adults...especially as all boys/men teams are absolute breeding grounds for rape-culture. ShabiDOO 12:30, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Why are you all engaging with obvious baiting and sockpuppetry? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:59, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie I suspect these other accounts are Ken. The only reason I made an account was because I was editing from work and the internet doesn't need to know who my employer is. Catman (talk) 14:13, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Would a shit extremist Wiki user actually even consider participating in Little League? According to shit extremist Wiki, among other errors, apparently Little League promotes the homosexual agenda (due to something about girls being icky, it seems). That is all I will say here. :) PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 14:35, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Ken just likes to start shit in the saloon, I don't think the topic at hand really matters to him as long as he finds a way to put his two cents in. Catman (talk) 15:43, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
I'd be suspicious of all accounts with redlinked talkpages here. However, this is still a nice discussion for right now, and at most warrants a collapse if they are found to be socks, not removal, due to outside comments.Andrew5 (talk) 18:11, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Grammar Commie is off his mind again it seems. This is what happens when you can't reliably tell whether someone is a troll account. Don't the techies have some sort of way to identify the IP address of Ken and ban that permanently from the wiki? (Profile) - (Spoke!) 18:36, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
No, it's obviously a shit bait post, doesn't matter who it is. Nobody probably gives a damn unless said Trump voter possesses a noxious element that would also be problematic for a Biden voter.
Although -- would these trollbaiters let their kids (assuming, that is, that they aren't one) be on a little league team if you knew the coaches were *gasp* atheist? Now that's a question to pose to Trump voters! PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 18:46, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Your comment perfectly exemplifies Poe's law. (Profile) - (Spoke!) 19:03, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── We don’t have check userWikipedia here, and consensus is strongly against it. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 19:09, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
47% of the country voted for Trump. Good luck avoiding them all-Hastur! (talk) 02:18, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but regions matter. For instance, just a smidgit under 70% of Wyoming voted for Trump, but in DC it was only 5.4%. In my home state, I know around 37% voted for Trump.Andrew5 (talk) 12:49, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

So I recently got a new phone[edit]

My old one was slowly showing itself to be a huge chunk of shit. It was pretty much stuck on Android 8.0.0 and it wasn't getting any security updates, plus it already suffered water damage and it wasn't performing the way it needs to be in 2021. Since I'm an Android nuthead, I preordered a Pixel 5a, and my god that thing meet & exceeded my expectations. The battery lasted me two days, the camera is actually really good after it processes photos, it has a headphone jack and stock Android. Probably the only bad thing I can say was that I can't receive SMS texts due to Verizon being shit. I heard the 6 was supposed to be really great with Google finally catching up with other flagships, but I couldn't wait for it any further since my family is transitioning to TMobile soon. Highly recommend it if you need something right now. PoorlyDrawnRockford.jpeg Rockford the Roe boop my snootpraise Oscar Wilde 15:40, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

What was the old phone? Was that a Samsung? I'd bet on it. Darkmatter2525 (talk) 16:42, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
A Moto Z Play. It was great for its time. PoorlyDrawnRockford.jpeg Rockford the Roe boop my snootpraise Oscar Wilde 15:08, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
From August 2018 into November 2019, I actually had Motorolla. A Moto G6. Now I am stuck with an iPhone8, and I'll probably get a new phone at some point in the near future. Andrew5 (talk) 15:32, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

What is big tech?[edit]

Can someone help define what big tech is? I hear it so often used in right wing and conspiracy driven circles as a bit of a snarl term akin to big pharma. I was thinking this could also be a new RW article at some point too.SensaurC-137 (talk) 11:18, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Big TechWikipedia. You know Google is a thing, right? But, you are right that "big tech conspiracies" might be an article.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 12:43, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Meh, Big Tech is what would happen if your opinion-based cable news company had the ability to change the channel for you. There's valid reasons for wanting them broken up. CorruptUser 13:26, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Big tech is much like big pharma: a core of shady shit with a bunch of conspiracy nonsense surrounding it. An Advocate (talk) 14:16, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
I find it mildly peculiar the way 'big' has come to become an all purpose pejorative when attached to an industry. It seems to want to suggest excessive clout or collusion. People still talk about 'Big Tobacco', when in fact anti-smoking has been a civil rights emergency for decades. Anti-smoking killed Eric Garner. It has invented new forms of segregation and pariah-hood, and requiring the makers of tobacco products to vilify their own product on the packaging. (Which would likely be a First Amendment violation in the USA, if anyone chose to press the point.) That does not look to me like a dominant industry with plenty of political clout. As a rhetorical ploy, 'big' in this sense should be automatically suspect. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 15:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Eric Garner was not killed by anti-smoking; he was killed for tax evasion. He'd purchase cartons of cigarettes in NJ where there was minimal tax, then resell on the street for less than half of what the legal cigarette cartons would cost. Framing his death as "racism" (in spite of the sarge involved was Black) was a misdirection; we should really be asking why avoiding a few dollars in cigarette taxes got far more police attention than any of the billionaire tax cheats ever would... CorruptUser 15:24, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
I don't disagree, but why were those taxes so high that this became a workable hustle? Likewise, there may be justification for 'Big Pharma' but Purdue Pharma got a very raw deal. They came up with what looked on paper to be a great idea, in one of the most overregulated industries in the US, and then get sued from here to Sunday for their trouble. The real solution here is OTC opioids. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 15:39, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Because taxation is the art of plucking the most feathers from the geese with the least amount of squawking, and taxes on booze/cigarettes has the best noise/feather ratio. Meanwhile, New Jersey didn't bother raising their taxes, in part because NYC's tax policy ended up increasing NJ's sales anyway.
Honestly though, the whole country should work to make certain "productive" hustles better so that the "loosie" and related hustles aren't worth the bother. The 5 cent recycling deposit effectively creates a hustle to keep many homeless people occupied with digging through trash for far less than we'd have to pay people to sort it manually, we should probably 1) make that national so that ALL the homeless have that option instead of just a few states, and 2) raise the rate to 10 cents already so that the homeless can make more money doing that than panhandling... CorruptUser 16:30, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Part of the reason I think Purdue Pharma got slammed so bad was their overaggressive "pill pushing" marketing. They really weren't the only ones doing this, and also they aren't the only company that got slammed... but they came up with the first formulation, started the first big marketing drive, and "led the way" for other pharma companies to do the same. From my perspective, pharma marketing is one of the very problematic aspects of the industry in the United States that most other countries handle a lot better. So in a way its fine to represent Purdue as "Big Pharma".
Generally speaking, the opioid class of drugs is not terribly suitable for OTC due to abuse potential, and it seems like places which had some opioids OTC are scaling back these days (eg it looks like Australia just ended OTC codeine medication). We have a couple OTC pain meds (aspirin, Tylenol, ibuprofin) already. As far as new OTC pain management goes I'd rather continue working to get marijuana fully legalized instead. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 17:38, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Big tobacco is still a thing: it's just morphing into e-cigarettes/vaping. Same companies, same hustles. They still use the same hustles of 'safer', etc. while hiding their research. Their research on cancer sticks was finally digitized and the massive warehouse of their research, which was used for lawsuits, is now closing.[15] Bongolian (talk) 18:23, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

For right-wingers, big tech is primarily large, politically left-of-center tech companies that: limit free speech (namely, their speech); politically discriminate in their hiring and donate a much higher percentage of their political donations to Democrats and/or left-wing causes.
Texas Instruments is less big tech than Netflix because it gives 20 times a higher percentage of their political donations to Republicans.[16] Texas, right-wing, engineers with Texas Instrument calculators and pocket protectors in their pockets are solid Republicans. Pureflix, a Christian/family friendly streaming service, is too small of a company to be big tech and too politically right-leaning to be big tech. TerraFirma (talk) 19:47, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
The problem is that "big tech" is also sort of a thing really. It's not a political thing, although many conspiracy nuts, conservatives and other drivel sellers like to harp on about that, but there is no denying the fact that the internet has been heavily homogenized over the years. Most of the internet using audience uses the same 20 sites; a few social media sites, Google and that one place where they have to fill out their taxes. Companies like Cloudflare wield pretty enormous control over the internet, and at this point that's not even passive like their DDOS protection was. Everyone who uses Firefox on the default settings has their traffic pass through Cloudflare's "HTTPS over DNS" service, and you know how few people change that. Add to that with them doing services like providing domain names, and you have a pretty terrifying Oligopoly that has the ability to pretty much hijack the entire internet at the behest of the US government if they wanted. It's rather horrifying to think about that organizations like Cloudflare (they're the biggest one doing this, but Google pretty much does it too) can effectively sidestep all the original protections put in place on the internet to avoid this kind of nonsense. When I grew up in the 2000s to 2010s, you'd not have this sort of thing. The most centralized the internet "got" was through ICANN, the organization controlling the TLDs. The entire internet was pretty much set up like layers; even if say, the controller for the .com TLD got hijacked by a malicious actor, you could use another TLD such as .org, because they were ran by different organizations and ICANNs only role was to act as an international organ providing TLD registrations to interested parties, at first being limited to governments but later expanding to more generalized TLDs. This way, no single organization could hijack the internet, and even if ICANN was compromised, the organization providing IP addresses wasn't and that one was layered too. Basically the internet was set up with the intent of not giving full control over the fundamentals of it to any one individual, and now companies like Cloudflare are attempting to completely circumvent this for the sake of profits.
And that's without delving into the obvious concerns of Google and Facebooks datamining to sell shit to advertisers, which is it's own rabbit hole entirely, but most people know about that one by now. -- Techpriest (talk) 21:42, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
@TerraFirma Re the obvious sock on how right wingers view "big tech". The way right-wing media portrays "big tech" is considered laughable by most leftists. That is to say, the idea that it's some sort of left-wing or left leaning cabal is hilarious. No, it's the inevitable result of ineffective and/or non-existent regulation in a market system, specifically under the current system, capitalism. Unchecked markets inevitably lead to monopolies, no ifs, ands or buts. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:10, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Does anyone still use calculators any more? I do share concerns about the reach of tech companies, who control so much territory that it's difficult to compete with them. I did an experiment on Facebook some time ago, where I used the word 'COVID' in a post where it was ultimately an aside, to see if Facebook would blindly and officiously link the post to official information; it did. [17]. This is one reason why I have tried to keep our page on free speech mentioning online content control, as opposed to people who think that free speech can only be violated by a government. This is the perennial problem with marketroid libertarianism, substituting unelected and unaccountable social control for the kind you used to get to vote against. But if there's any specific ideological agenda in Google or Facebook stifling opinions and viewpoints, it seems to boil up from the employees themselves. And they at least aspire to a different tribal affiliation, one that rejects Trumpery as a badge of identity. And I've come to the point where I can at least see the point of 'something must be done about those ignorant savages.' Commitment to free speech means checking these tribal affiliations at the door. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 02:28, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Philip Morris, of Big Tobacco fame, is now show signs of end-stage denialism: They will fix that which they denied that they caused.[18] Bongolian (talk) 18:58, 2 September 2021 (UTC)


Now that September begins, I have a question. How come people underestimate September temps? September 1 in NYC has an average high of 80F (26.5C) and low of 65F (18C) - which is still 70F (21C) high 55F (13C) low on September 30. Andrew5 (talk) 00:38, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

(Note: I am a weather geek. Andrew5 (talk) 00:38, 1 September 2021 (UTC))

Because people associate September with fall, a lot of things like school going back are often considered the unofficial beginning of fall. Same reason a lot of people look at Memorial Day as the unofficial start of summer, despite being almost the same length of time away as Labor Day is to fall. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:23, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
There are weather seasons and there are astronomical seasons. Here, for instance, spring and fall weather get about a month apiece; the rest is all summer or winter weather. Spring can start around the first of March, with alternating periods of hot and cold making for thunderstorms and rain. Fall generally begins in late September or early October, and by Halloween it's definitely winter already. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 02:29, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Ah, the month of stress has begun. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:49, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Quite a few places in Northern Europe and Canada have September clearly enter fall mode with summer temperatures well over. Don't forget that we have users here from the southern hemisphere where September is winter/spring time. ShabiDOO 08:22, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
September is usually quite nice in Spain. Autumn doesn't really start until October - and even then it depends on the area.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:58, 1 September 2021 (UTC)


I always considered September to be the transition between summer and autumn, as much as I consider late-February, early-March the transition between winter and spring. Senioritas (talk) 10:27, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Going back to your Memorial Day Weekend point, um, here in the Northeast was actually frigid! As you can see, in New York City, it failed to get above 54F (12C), and whatnot, ultimately being around 20° below average and comparable to late March, (with lows of course in the upper 40sF (around 9C.) which this year was far above average and even then across the city, it got to [https://www.ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/weather/2021/04/02/from-cold-to-hot--a-look-back-at-our-weather-in-march-2021 82F (28C) in March. (Of course, the low that day was 50F (10C), so...) Newark, too, got to 81F (27C) with a low of 49F (9.5C).
But that's taking it very off topic. In New York City (using this too avoid revealing my true location), there are average 75/61F (24/16C) in September, 64/50F (18/15.5C) in October and 54/42 F (12/5.5C) in November.
It also depends on what you consider fall and whatnot. Is 70F (21C) summer, is that cutoff 80F (26.5C), blah blah blah. According to this article, it certainly felt like spring on July 3 across NYC, with highs of 66F (19C) and lows of 59F (15C). Of course, as March 26 showed, when it got 32F (18C) above average, you can have heat spurts, and as Memorial Day Weekend showed, which was 20° below average (11C below average), you can have cold spurts. We are seeing a start of fall again, with lows forecast to be 58F (14.5C) here in the city and its metro area in just under 2 days after Ida passes. It's also going to feel colder after a very hot August, which even for me led to it being up to 95F (35C) just on Friday! It's really all relative and perspective kind of thing. It went from being in the 30sF (around -1 to 4C) (as a low, high in the upper 40sF (around 9C), to being 94F (34.5C) in a single month. (Check 2nd point). That can happen in the fall too, as even in last November it got to the 70sF (20sC), after Halloween brushed on freezing. Andrew5 (talk) 12:45, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, being from southwestern CT this was definitely an odd Memorial Day weekend (and the 4th of July was miserable too). New England is known for its very temperamental weather, just because that's the tendency is no guarantee of anything. It's why I like the place, and the same reason lots of people move out when they get old (you couldn't pay me enough to move further south, though). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:40, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Seasons aren't about heat Andrew (With the exception of Summer and Winter). Spring is characterized by plants growing back or re-awakening from winter, Autumn is characterized by the opposite happening, that is, plants going into hibernation, September is the month when that starts happening. You can already see leaves turning yellow or brown on some trees, this characteristic is far more pronounced in October and by November, the trees have almost no leaves remaining, late-November early-December is when winter starts fyi. Flowers enter hibernation a little earlier and I think it's partly due to the Summer's heatwaves, you stop seeing flower by the time you get to August. Also Spring and Autumn are generally at the same temperature over all with Spring getting hotter as Summer closes-in and Autumn getting colder as Winter closes-in. Senioritas (talk) 14:17, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
@Senoritas I generally see the leaves turn in October and November. I don't see the leaves come back until April or May. Also, that's meteorological. Fall is when the days are short and get shorter, while spring is days are long and getting longer. Andrew5 (talk) 14:50, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
You realize the day-night cycle length is what contributes to the temperature which Senioritas responded with that being false in how the season is defined in the first place. I'll also back him up on his claim since yes, Autumn has just begun for both the celtic and meteorological season and the astronomical fall season will start soon in September 23rd. It also directly contradicts your argument because the days were getting shorter ever since August first. Wikipedia adds that most people characterizes Autumn with leaves dying and falling which also starts in September and possibly even sooner than that, I have a tree right next to my window and its leaves are visibly turning yellow or brown (Some are still green though). Just get educated for a moment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autumn
If the trees around your home aren't turning brown, then you must live in a hot climate like Texas or California which will def cause the cold of winter to retard behind and the plants' hibernation won't start until way later like in November or December.
Heck, if you live in very hot climates like Africa it starts even later, as late as February in fact. (Profile) - (Spoke!) 15:34, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Actually the days get shorter after the solstice, but please read it carefully - "Fall is when the days are short and get shorter" - by that I mean under 12 hours. Right now daylight in New York City is still a modest 13 hours and 4 minutes. Also, I think like 2% of the leaves here have turned brown already. Calendarpedia and the Weather Station Advisor note that there are two different falls - one from September 1 to November 30, and one from September 21-24 to December 20-23. This leaves 20-23 days "disputed" on either end. The celtic season is indeed August 1 to October 31, but is rarely used and tbh, I never heard of it before you brought it up. (I think it has to do with when the angle of sunlight is ~65° at the start and ~35° at the end, at least at 41°N. A better description is "within 15° of what it is on the equinox".) Andrew5 (talk) 16:26, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Autumn is still within September which you seem to have a great deal coping with since you've been complaining about that throughout this discourse and my pinky tells me that whole thread is just a massive troll in itself. The dates are not disputed, the meteological autumn starts today and the astronomical one will start on the 23rd which are two different ways scientists study seasons, your calendarpedia (Which I should add, looks dated as hell) uses the astronomical date, most people use the meteological one. Either way, it doesn't matter, I just don't understand why that matters to you so much and why you're been having a conniption fit about that month being the month that starts Autumn. (Profile) - (Spoke!) 17:29, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I know September is within autumn. I am saying this part of September isn’t. There is also the ceremonial summer which ends at Labor Day. Why does it matter to me so much? Well, I don’t like hot weather (I also don’t like super cold weather), so I want it to cool down faster. Though I have learned now that making these posts in the saloon bar is a bad idea. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 20:10, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Excuse me for jumping in and not addressing most of the above, but something dumb: in my part of the country, way too many people underestimate how HOT it is until maybe November. I was going to post a link but really just Google “Arizona news hiker” or “Arizona overheat dies” or some similar combination. Folks going out for a hike in “fall” or “autumn” or whatever without water. Ahem. Carry on! Probliknaut (talk) 14:23, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
That's because the "season stereotype" in the United States is essentially the astronomical seasons of temperate climates, with perhaps a Northeast locale bias (or at least a temperate broadleaf forest bias). This doesn't work for subtropical Florida (where it's still over 80F and humid in November in Miami), this doesn't work for subarctic Alaska (where it's already below freezing in mid-October in Fairbanks), this doesn't work for some of the Pacific coast (in San Diego, your August high of mid 70Fs isn't too much different than your December lows of mid 60Fs), and yes, while there certainly are seasons in the Western desert, it's still an average high of 100 in September and 89 in October in Phoenix. There are no leaves to brown / turn pretty colors / etc. because many of these climates either don't freeze, or have vegetation that handles cold weather without the dormancy cycle that broadleaf trees may have (like boreal forests). I imagine other countries have various "season stereotypes" that match their local climate (if they have seasons at all, that is, the tropics don't, in a temperature sense at least), the United States however is big enough to encompass a lot of very different climate types, and it's no surprise that the stereotype kind of revolved around the familiar and what was first. So Floridians will just to have to laugh anytime "White Christmas" comes on. Unless you are in the panhandle where it does snow once in a blue moon, ain't gonna happen. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 15:01, 2 September 2021 (UTC)


I want to ignore all the problems in the world today. My mental health sucks and I just want to relax. Therefore, I am going to resign from my position as a sysop in order to focus on my health. I might be back to make an occasional edit, but I have more problems to worry about. I hope that everyone here gets successful. Goodbye, and good luck.Jeh2ow Damn son! 11:58, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I think this belongs at RW:ATIM talk page. Andrew5 (talk) 12:47, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
No. He is just a Sysop. It's a friendly message to all. Jeh2ow, enjoy your mental health break and best wishes for a speedy recovery. Highly recommend avoiding the internet in general! It's certainly a pleasure to have you around, but mental health should always come first! ShabiDOO 13:08, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
I hope you feel better soon.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:56, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Best wishes to you, Jeh2ow. Bongolian (talk) 19:51, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
It understandable. Speaking as a person whose politics is left of center, the amount of disheartening news can be overwhelming. Religious fundamentalists retaking Afghanistan. Joe Biden's job approval numbers are continuing to go down. Texas Republicans just passed the most restrictive abortion law in the country.
If the news is making you sad, stay away from the news for awhile. Coltsfan1 (talk) 06:29, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
All the best Jeh2ow and hope things improve for you soon. Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 06:32, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Question about red link hunting?[edit]

I have been removing the red links in main space that were created by the George McGovern deletion. If you guys click here you will see that the remaining ones are in people's user pages, talk pages, archives etc. I'm technically not allowed to edit those right? And it doesn't really matter, since our readers will never stumble upon them. What's the tradition regarding this? Do we just leave them, or should I continue cleaning up? - Rairyu75 (Talk) 23:25, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Tradition says leave the archives, talk pages and user pages alone. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 23:28, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Aye, aye, cap'n! To my slumber I return... - Rairyu75 (Talk) 23:37, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
To be fair it's pretty much all comments from nobs. That said yeah, just leave them alone. -- Techpriest (talk) 17:35, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

How do you spot spin?[edit]

Hello, I have been researching "Spin" (as it is called) and have been wondering how to spot and avoid it. Is spin and PR the same thing (Wikipedia tells us no)? How about spoting "Spin"'s main tool: misidrection (what is that? is it the same as a limited hangout)? Can anyone help me of this front? An Advocate (talk) 00:47, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

RW would seem to differ from WP as to whether spin and PR are different. It's easy to spot: essentially all politicians and advertising/marketing (in the broadest sense) use spin. The more difficult question is how much spin is there in a particular instance. I.e., how much truth is there behind the spin? If the politician changes the topic at hand completely, then it's obvious misdirection. Bongolian (talk) 07:09, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
I would say our article on PR is mistaken in saying PR and spin are the same the thing. PR is basically managing the information put out by an organisation to the public and present it in a good light. Spin is just one tool that is used for PR. letting the public know about an organisations charity work, or if they have won some kind of award, for example, is PR that is not spin. Spin is taking a specific bit of information, that would ordinarily make an organisation look bad and present it in such a way that it makes them good instead. its not lying, per say, often just stressing some facts over others and wording things such that public's perception of an event and an organisations role in it will be more positive.
in politics its easy spot - if a politician is saying it then its spin. always. the only way to suss whether the spin is broadly true or not is to keep informed, and dont take anything said on face value. always see what the opposing views on something are. try to find neutral sources. often spin from opposing parties, with both claiming the opposite of the other, will be broadly accurate for both, depending on how you views on the issues involved and your own ethics and biases. other times it will be really obvious, like if some politician is sing the praises of something or some event that they would normally be expected to vehemently against.
its also can be the case that you are more likely to believe the spin, or at least give it the benefit of the doubt, if whos doing the spinning is someone who you consider more trustworthy or honest, regardless of if you like their politics. if they often take responsibility for mistakes or concede the point on occasion, its makes them more credible when they when they tell you something is a good thing or a victory for them. if its someone who spins everything, so that every defeat is a victory, they always take the credit for good stuff, always blame others for the bad, you'll doubt whatever they say, no matter how accurate it maybe.
sadly it seems alot of a lot people dont look to closely at whats being said - if their side is saying it then all true. if the other side is saying it then its lies and spin. there is so much disinformation out these theses days and everything is so polarised, deciding where the truth really lies is often more a question of faith. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:50, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Quarantine at Liberty University[edit]


There are so many freaking COVID cases just in one small area. Can bet that most of them refused to get vaccinated. How bad can this get? --Get Vaccinated (talk) 00:55, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I too am betting that their vaccination rate is low. They say "It's the same as last year" - but last year they didn't have Delta. So it will interesting to see how this goes.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 10:15, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Progressives are the Target of The Economist[edit]

Frequently I find myself in my head, trying to determine how radical of a liberal I actually am. Because I am an American, I am limited in the parties and policies I can support, because although my goals may align with the Democratic party, I find myself more voting against the racist and nativist policies that now define the Republican party. This week, The Economist main articles focus on the illiberal left[19]. In general, I tend to find that those that use that language either fail to understand the difference between progressive and liberal, or they are attempting to paint anything left of center of Communism. But Classical Liberalism is indeed at the base of The Economist founding, so I dived into their analysis. The main piece[20], (which I think I've made this link available for the paywall) does a good job identifying the primary threat of the right-wing, but does I think provide a good critique of how the far poles on the left are growing in influence and how that could be negative. I don't agree entirely, but I do find that debate is central to understanding and dealing with societies ills, and there have been many cases of the left shunning debate on topics where more debate can only improve future decisions. But this article[21],(this is paywalled) has me a little shook. It identifies a few methods that find their roots in Medieval Europe rather than the liberal West.

  • Imposing orthodoxy
  • Proselytising
  • Expelling heretics
  • Book banning
  • Creeds
  • Blasphemy

The ones I have bolded are the ones I find the most concerning and also clearly present. Though other factors are at play, other than just politics, I feel as though there is a certain level of liberal elitism leaking into the progressive ether.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 16:27, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Some of the most foolhardy progressives indeed are picking up on the old tactics that the churches used against "sinful" material in older times, just as modern conservatives have adopted the victimization whine that the left traditionally had. I guess the question is, why the cover story? What actual political power has these illiberal "progressive" side wrought?
Sure, some universities do need to cut out pandering so hard to the hardline woke, and the Twitter cancel culture and woker-than-thou mobs on the "left" are as annoying as the "right" mobs angrily reaction to whatever policy point was handed out to Fox News that day. But, most of the times, when I hear of some wokeish stupidity in government or by an activist or whatnot, there is heavy push back. Even in lefty left San Francisco, when the school board wasted tons of time proposing to rename schools named after supposed racists like, er, Abraham Lincoln (lolwut?!), there was pushback from pretty much everyone and people are progressing on recall a few of them. Even those "commie San Francisco" types would prefer a school board that actually does its job instead of trying to score far-"leftie" woke points.
There is nothing in that list that the populist right doesn't do as well. Were a more sober version of the right wing present and there was push back against populist stupidity, that would be one thing. But the Republican Party literally engages in much of the above at a party level (at minimum the creeds, expelling heretics, "book banning" (ya can't teach X Y and Z!) and imposing orthodoxy for sure). They have political power up the ying yang right now. And the pattern repeats (albeit usually with less power, Hungary and Poland excluded) in most of Europe. The populist right party is the populist party nipping at the buds of power.
So, okay? I guess thanks for the warning, I suppose. Seems a bit of a balance fallacy though to say "hey, now, a few students are acting stupid!" in times where Republican governors are literally trying to forbid municipalities on making policies on face masks. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 17:38, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
@PanGalacticGargleBlaster From what I've seen and read, Lincoln probably held racist views, though not to the same degree of his more infamous contemporaries. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:52, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
I always view it like this-
There is a credible (but no means absolute) chance that in ten years reactionaries under the direction of a Pence/DeSantis type figure will have turned the USA into an authoritarian procedural democracy like Hungary or Poland, where right-wing populism is the de facto state ideology. On the other hand, if you unironically believe that woke twitter mobs/university students will dominate America and turn us into Venezuela but with "identity politics," anytime soon, you are a buffoon who should consider joining your local right wing militia outfit.
What I'm getting at with this is that the recent fear of the "illiberal left" is overblown, kind of like the fear of Satanists back in the day.-Flandres (talk) 18:08, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie: In modern terms, I'm sure, but:
A) I prefer not to evoke presentism, Lincoln easily was more on the civil rights side of things when you adjust for the time he lived in.
B) Many progressives mistakingly seem to assign a binary to social justice issues where such views should be more on a sliding scale. Especially for someone like Lincoln, whose racial views tended to evolve in a more positive direction over time.
C) Names are "symbolic shit". In some cases, sure, it's good to adjust imagery or names that may be of offense. Abraham Lincoln, the one who actually freed the slavesWikipedia, however, is not exactly going to be a great candidate for directing hurls of charges of racism. And even in the cases where a name change is appropriate, I would personally argue that there's something lazy about the annoying trend of the "woke" about focusing on names and statues and other things of a symbolic value, instead of actually focusing on the economic injustices of the present caused by racism and other social inequalities. If that school board was spending time figuring out ways to help the disadvantaged at school (including those left behind due to America's systematic racism), it would be a helluv a lot more helpful, I think. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 18:16, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
@PanGalacticGargleBlaster By that logic acknowledging Marx, Proudhon, or Bakunin's antisemitism would be "presentism". Can we be adults and acknowledge that historical figures had shit views while acknowledging how that fit into their contemporary climate? Please? We don't have to demonize them or lionize them, just to show them in their totality and context. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:21, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Right, discussion is fine. Lincoln definitely said some things (and did some things) that were racist, particularly by today's standards. There is no problem with a detailed examination of Lincoln's view on race, and whitewashing his racist moments would be incorrect as well. However, holistically, looking at the history of Lincoln's career, a "must forbid his name on school" is basically, I think, proving The Economist's point. An orthodoxy where even the person who freed the slaves is "too racist" to adorn the name of the school? (Why, next thing you know, you'll tell me that the person who spearheaded the Civil Rights Act of 1964 also made racist statements, and we should rename/deface anything LBJ for his racism! Shocker!) People are complicated. Well, at least, some people are -- certainly both LBJ and Lincoln had kind of complex views on race that could veer in both directions, and it would be problematic to misrepresent this one way or the other. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 19:08, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
If any of us had been alive 200 years ago it's pretty certain that we would have held views which our modern selves would regard as horrific. It's likely that people who live 200 years in the future (assuming that global warming has not destroyed civilization) will look at us in horror.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:37, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
@PanGalacticGargleBlaster I never endorsed purging historical records or achievements. (I'm actually vehemently opposed to such positions, something that has resulted in a bit of flak from other leftists in the past.) All I did was address "(lolwut?!)" in your first post, which I took to be a question as to why one might view Lincoln as a racist. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:04, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
We are at a peculiar juncture in history when many of us both despise the past and are horrified by the future. Not a good spot to put yourself in. One might try to build a better airplane while flying the old one. I prefer to watch from the ground.UncleKrampus (talk) 20:29, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
@PanGalacticGargleBlaster When you have all of these several attempts to turn political activity away from things that make a difference and towards tribal totems, you first need to ask 'who benefits?' The billionaires in charge seem mostly happy to do this. Most universities have Departments of Granfaloon Studies dedicating to cultivating grievance, and whatever the merits of the research done there, it all seems to have this goal. Somebody has to be paying handsomely for all of this. (The Ford Foundation was very active at the beginning.) The tragedy of identity politics is that it cannot propose - and indeed reacts with hostility against - any ameliorative strategies intended to improve the situations that give rise to these grievances. If racism, sexism, etc., became solved problems, they'd lose their meal tickets. All they can do is endlessly dramatize their grievances, and if you point out that the situation for racism (though certainly still there) is better now than it was in the 1920s, this is heresy. And the thing about all of this politicking aimed at symbols is that it threatens people's core identity and sense of self, and so a desire to tear down some statue or erect another turns into an existential threat that draws a gut reaction and pits one group of citizens against another. I thank God that I am very ill, and getting worse, and that I won't have to see the future. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 01:27, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
I have given up on progressivism. It's contrary to human nature. Coltsfan1 (talk) 21:17, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
@Coltsfan1 What, pray tell, is it you are refering to when you say "human nature"? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:31, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Also, is the implication that something else is better? Because there really isn't any evidence that there is.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 22:36, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Human nature is like pornography: I hope you know it when you see it. A better question is what are you referring to when you say "progressivism?" Many of us take it as a synonym for "the common good." I would say that particular connotation is ambiguous.UncleKrampus (talk) 01:43, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
This is why there's a need for words like 'wokism;' and 'regressive left'. No one should confound this zeal and hostility with 'progressivism'. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 01:49, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Resources to become an informed voter for 2021 Canadian election?[edit]

Oyez, oyez, my fellow Canadians!

I was wondering if any of you know good websites one may consult for this year's election. A website that lists the political parties and their ideologies/policies, analyses of proposed/passed policies by experts, the voting records of MPs, their past and present stances, etc. Basically, a place where I can concisely get relevant info about the election. Thanks! —Earl wilmore (talk) 18:54, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah Unfortunately almost nobody cares about that kind of stuff, even fewer people in Canada, so good luck with that>'Legionwhat do you want from me 20:13, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Political parties of Canada is an article of ours that may help you. LongStylus (talk) 21:31, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
I find that the CBC has a lot of good coverage on the election. I don't know if this goes quite into the depth of detail you're looking for, but this link might help: https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/elections/federal/2021/party-platforms/. You can find the results of any vote in Parliament here: https://www.ourcommons.ca/members/en/votes, and with a little poking around you can find any given MP's voting record there as well. I'm less familiar with this site: https://openparliament.ca/, but it seems like it might be a good one. Hopefully some of that helps.AcidTrial (talk) 13:50, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Best thing to do is check out each party's platform on their websites. Also, you can try the political compass and see how close you are on the scale to other parties. I would basically say unless you are rich, care little about social progress and rights for minorities and the marginalised and like cuts to important programs and would like minimal action over climate change...then vote for anyone but your conservative candidate...preferably the one likely to beat them. ShabiDOO 15:45, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Question about 2021 California recall election[edit]

In the California recall - if Gavin Newsom is recalled, is the vote for a new governor on the same day, same ballot or in a different ballot? Andrew5 (talk) 16:51, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

It's all the same ballot, which is terrible for several reasons, which I can detail, if you like. Semipenultimate (talk) 17:41, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
I think the ballot has two "parts," that go something like-
Do you want to remove Governor Gavin Newsom?
If he is recalled, who should replace him?
If a majority of voters choose "yes" on the first part, Newsom is recalled and the guy who got the most votes on the second part is put in charge.-Flandres (talk) 20:02, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
That is correct. If you vote "no" to recall Newsom, you can still vote for a replacement if he is recalled (Newsom's campaign is telling voters to leave that blank). Early numbers from mail in ballots show a significant majority voting no.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

How did Jesus become so popular? How does he continue to be beloved today?[edit]

If he was not a deity, was it because he was a great Jewish teacher? 2607:FB90:A8DE:391C:115:9FAE:E1E4:D1B7 (talk) 01:20, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

He sold his soul to Satan for popularity, duh. Then Satan wrote a bunch of bibles. CorruptUser 01:35, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
People loved hippies back in the 60s. GeeJayK (talk) 01:37, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
From what I know there are two things: the Apostles (who preached the good word) were really good at their jobs, and Constantine the Great, who was the fucking Roman Emperor. An Advocate (talk) 01:43, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, I was about to say something similar. Actually existing Christianity owes remarkably little to Jesus.-Flandres (talk) 01:45, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
(EC)That explains the first part, but it's not all. As Richard Pipes once said, the Pope and the Church by that time were basically the only authority uniting Europe. Then, Christianity was also lucky that the two main European powers, Spain and French, were ruled by Catholics. Then the power moved North, to the United Provinces and to England. All Christian countries too. It is up to debate whether or not and to each point Christianity helped the European powers to build their institutions, especially after the Protestant Reformation (I personally disagree with Max Weber's analysis). But there are many too many coincidences. Christians do have more merits than we usually give them credit. GeeJayK (talk) 01:56, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
The (simplified) answer to the second question is simple-the romans had an obvious vested interest in Christianizing Europe as soon as their leadership converted. The later roman emperors often used Christian motifs to legitimize their rule. Enforcing orthodoxy now had political rewards. Furthermore, "barbarian" tribes would have a powerful incentive to convert, as it made relations with Rome easier. By the time roman power receded, Christianity was too interwoven with most of European society to remove.
As for the continuing worldwide reverence of Jesus, owing to the global reach of Christendom...that is owed to colonialism/imperialism and all the associated horrors.-Flandres (talk) 02:17, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
That has always been true. Constantine himself had to supress Paganism in his own time. An Advocate (talk) 02:27, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
And sometimes Paganism/heathenism was good soil to plant on. Mithras, Zoroastrianism, Apollo, and Bald(e)r come to mind. The adoption of pagan customs to make Christianity more palatable and how accepted they are in different schismatic sorts of Christianity is all kinds of fascinating. Kntai (talk) 10:39, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

The Bible has far outsold other books. 3.9 billion copies of the Bible have been sold over the last 50 years. As far as the top 10 read books in the world, the Bible blows away its closest competitors.[22]

Jesus is a central figure of the Bible. CThrash (talk) 02:36, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

That's more of a consequence, not a cause IMO. GeeJayK (talk) 02:41, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
The pen is mightier than the sword. CThrash (talk) 02:47, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Jesus does say some good things. Like turning the other cheek and forgiving people for faults. BeardOfZeus (talk) 02:59, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
(EC) I don't think that explains why the Bible is the best selling book of all time. The Bible became the best selling book of all time because Christianity was successful, not otherwise. GeeJayK (talk) 03:00, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
As the book title goes, "Christ was an Ad Man". Bongolian (talk) 03:03, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
(EC) Yeah I agree with you GeeJayK. BeardOfZeus (talk) 03:04, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Jesus Christ was the most influential figure in history. No one else comes close. The devil, the god of this world, can't even compete with Jesus. CThrash (talk) 03:08, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
You know, I don't think that trying to use book sale estimates as a sign of greatness is the wisest idea, consider that Mao Zedong's "little red book" is #2 on that list. :) PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 03:11, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Also, Harry Potter ahead of The Lord of the Rings?~Come one... GeeJayK (talk) 03:15, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Comparing Harry Potter and the Bible. There is going to be a difference between "bought by individuals" and "bought by groups and given away"- there is also going to difference between "not read and left in a drawer" and "read eagerly from cover to cover".
I'm guessing that the Bible will score highly in the categories: "bought by groups and given away" and "not read and left in a drawer"; while Harry Potter is going to win in "bought by individuals" and "read eagerly from cover to cover".
So if book engagement is the metric: All hail our Lord and Master Harry Potter. Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:16, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
You’re not joking: at boot camp in Great Lakes they used to hand out camo-covered copies of the New Testament like they were pamphlets (I wouldn’t be surprised if this has changed). One can take a message from discarded scripture clogging a storm drain regardless of one’s affiliation with its attached religion: this apostate got that the evangelical faiths probably didn’t (and don’t) have a proper reverence and understanding for what they consider "holy." Print enough copies and you’ll have spread the Good News apparently, even if it’s become ridiculously trivial in the process. Numbers, numbers, numbers.
They’d probably counter that printing and distributing so many copies increases the chance that the message will be there for those that need it when they need it, but the pervasiveness of Christianity in the states makes me think it’s just because they covet the #1 spot on the charts and fear its loss, at least the message it would send (Christianity on the decline yet again). Artificius (talk) 17:28, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Jesus, the historical figure, is not beloved. Jesus, the fictional character, is. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:37, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
What do you mean by this? isn't that contradictory? An Advocate (talk) 22:20, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Fictional Jesus is whatever you want him to be, historical Jesus was an unsatisfying stub in an orphaned wiki for a largely illiterate and fractious audience (how far we’ve come) before Constantine and his mother became sysops and filled it out (one can best understand Andrew Schlafly in this context). Artificius (talk) 23:15, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
What seems muddy and contradictory you have made clear as day. An Advocate (talk) 23:19, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
@An Advocate The Bible contains so many fantastical elements that using it as a history book would be amateurish. Independent evidence suggests that there was a real person behind the "Jesus" myth, but we'd have to look outside the Bible to actually learn about that person. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:26, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
I find it hard to go past how Christianity spread so rapidly in the Roman Empire - so much so that Constantine found it politically expedient to make it the state religion. Basically - if you were a common Joe or Josephine in the Empire your life was shit by todays standards - short, uncomfortable, prone to being stabbed in the guts by a passing bandit or invading barbarian, being turned into a slave, or dying of disease or childbirth, or suffering any one of a gazzilion other fates we would consider quite nasty. Then along comes Christianity - with a promise of Paradise(TM) - WTF is not to like? So the religion spread among those who had essentially hopeless lives - it gave them hope, a reason to be good little citizens (or non-citizens as the case may be), obey the PTB, etc - sure recipe for popularity. The rest, as they say, is colonization, the continuing harshness of ordinary life (by our standards), and then EVENTUALLY the realization by the powerful that this religion is a great way to help keep the masses downtrodden and supporting your own wonderful lifestyle. Now, of course not so much - life isn't quite as short and harsh for many, there are better explanations as to why the rains will or won't come, and it's become just another self perpetuating LGAT and power retaining scam.... Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 04:15, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Male Sexuality and how I view being gay[edit]

Warning icon orange.svg GAY EMOTIONS conversation ahead may rot your brain!

Man photographing himself in cornered mirror to generate illusion cropped.jpg

Machina...your biggotry is transparent for anyone to see no matter how much you disguise it in terrible arguments. Kindly take your biggotry and fuck off. ShabiDOO 17:45, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Icon fedora.svg * dons Mod Hat *Icon fedora.svg

Machina, this is a quick and formal warning; your behavior would have gotten any new user blocked. This saloon thread ends here. Until you can stop being a narcissist and consider that other people may experience feelings and emotions different from yours, I would suggest not pursuing this topic further. We cannot help you with doing that; it's clearly been tried in this thread and all that happens here is going in circles now. Consider this a mild letoff instead of the ATIM case this could very well be. -- Techpriest (talk) 20:33, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Do not revert a mod collapsing something. Nobody gives a fucking shit whether you comprehend or agree with what we are saying. What we expect from you is respecting human dignity and for you to knock it the fuck off with your bigotry. If you don't then it will be ATIM with the minimum of topic bans. ShabiDOO 09:12, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I just finished reading this thread and the only thing I have to say is that cis-heteronormativity was a mistake. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:27, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm just gonna conclude this dumb brabble with this quote: Offensive fits some of what he said. "I would say that your love is fake simply because you are a man falling for another man. It simply isn't so." "Takei is a what I would consider a bad example [...] and as mentioned before it isn't real love because it's two men". " Well the thing is that love between two black people is real, but not between two men as I have already said. It isn't the same thing at all." Less offensive, but pretty disruptive: "Be more reasonable with other people and afford them basic human dignity, agency, autonomy, individuality and humanity. Yeah...those are luxuries not rights, there is no basic human dignity, agency, autonomy, or any of that stuff. You've been too conditioned by modernity if you think such privilege actually exists. But that's beside the point." I would call Machina's position homophobic; I don't know that I would call Machina a homophobe or a bigot, though. Machina's thinking seems to me to stem from something distinct from the attitudes with which I associate these terms. (Profile) - (Spoke!) 22:28, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Need some feedback on the video I created from non-EAS creators[edit]


I am working on a video I call "Annexed" which I mentioned in a previous post here. Just need some constructive criticism. --Get Vaccinated (talk) 00:55, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Is there any use for chiropractic?[edit]

What exactly makes chiropractors different from doctors who treat bones? Are they in any way as useful? — Unsigned, by: 2607:fb90:a87b:e9fc:ff8a:3911:faf5:e091 / talk / contribs

Chiropractic "medicine" is based solely on pseudoscience. The idea is that adjusting the spine cures disease. They oppose vaccinations, believe in homeopathy and will charge mountains of money for treatment. There are Chiropractors out there who support vaccinations and modern medicine. There is actually a split between Chiropractic organizations on the subject of vaccinations. --Get Vaccinated (talk) 00:52, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Why don't you read our article on the subject first, before JAQing off here? —cosmikdebris talk stalk 03:41, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
A Doctor of Osteopathy (DO) is is a quasi mix between a MD and a chiropractor, but DOs are less likely to give misinformation than chiropractors in terms of alternative medicine that is ineffective/harmful. DOs commonly work in hospitals and do much of the same work that MDs do. MDs and DOs in practical terms of everyday family healthcare medical practices are the same. I go to a DO because he is the closest doctor that my medical insurance company works with.
I have noticed that DOs seem to care more about their patients and look at the person as a whole (like take a more systems view of the body), but like all things "let the buyer beware" (caveat emptor) applies. For example, my DO gave me a mix of very good advice and some bad advice also.
I hurt my knee while working and a chiropractor did some kind of manipulation on my knee that fixed it immediately and it never bothered me since. I saw some MDs for months who couldn't diagnose some kind of lung infection nor treat it. I went to a Russian-American chiropractor who was previously a medical doctor in Russia and he gave me some nutritional advice that turned things around in about a month.
There is ineffective/harmful treatments in all types of healthcare. I went to a medical specialist several years back and he said he doesn't trust new medical treatments due to all the fraud that is going on in the medical literature and medical field. The specialist only trusted medical treatments that had a credible amount of replication in the medical literature. And there are good/bad professionals in healthcare. You have to do your due diligence and it has never been easier due to the internet. You don't have to be at the mercy of healthcare professionals who give bad advice due to incompetence, greed or ignorance. Erno (talk) 07:33, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Anecdotes aside pure chiropractic is pretty much pseudoscience.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:46, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
There is no such thing as "pure chiropractic". There are several chiropractic schools and some are more empirically based than others. There is research that indicates that spinal manipulation for lower back injuries works and that is why there are some government medical systems that use chiropractors and some hospitals that grant chiropractors privileges. The Olympics community uses chiropractors also.
When it comes to consistency in rendering quality healthcare, my experience is that dentists do the best work. It's a shame there is dentist/doctor divide. Teeth/gums don't seem know that they are supposed to confine their problems solely to the mouth.
I am glad there are DOs. And there are chiropractors who do good back work and give some good nutritional advice. Spinal manipulation for lower back problems often works and manipulation seems to work for some neck/knee problems too. One major weakness of the medical doctor system is doctors are often not given adequate nutritional education.[23] In addition, doctors are often paid for doing procedures and not the amount of time dispensing advice. So there are a lot of doctors who treat their patients like cattle and spend a minimal amount of time advising them. Erno (talk) 09:47, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
By "pure chiropractic" I am referring to the nonsense originally coined by D. D. and B. J. Palmer and which is still practiced buy those who call themselves "straight chiropractors".Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 20:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)