RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive402

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 25 December 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>, <395>, <396>, <397>, <398>, <399>, <400>, <401>, <403>, <404>, <405>, <406>, <407>, <408>, <409>, <410>, <411>, <412>, <413>, <414>, <415>, <416>, <417>, <418>, <419>, <420>, <421>, <422>, <423>, <424>, <425>, <426>, <427>, <428>, <429>, <430>, <431>, <432>, <433>, <434>, <435>, <436>, <437>, <438>, <439>, <440>, <441>, <442>, <443>, <444>, <445>, <446>, <447>, <448>, <449>, <450>, <451>, <452>, <453>, <454>, <455>, <456>, <457>, <458>, <459>
, (new)(back)

James Bond![edit]

Some comedic genius has been vandalizing the saloon bar for weeks now. I have protected the page for pi days in order to prevent them from continuing, feel free to change the protection if you please.--April Chat? 03:58, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

The option I have is to ban all non autoconfirmed idjits from posting files. But I'm not sure this is something others want. Would anyone object to this? CorruptUser 05:56, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
I oppose. Trolls can bypass autoconfirm protections. Plus, if we enforce the ban, the trolls would get what they want, a reaction. LongStylus (talk) 17:09, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Misspoke. Not a ban, but addition to the filters. The problem is if someone is editing on their phone, in which case they wouldn't be able to add or change any of the files on the page.CorruptUser 17:47, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Not sure what the difference is between a ban and a filter. If a user can't add or change files on their phone, then that's a problem. Keep in mind, there have been good-faith uses of files by non-autoconfirmed users such as the Spanish draft for StoneToss. I'm wary of making editing more difficult for good-faith users at the hands of trolls. LongStylus (talk) 00:46, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Okay, the James Bond hair loss puns in the user log made me laugh. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 13:00, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, it's worth a chuckle. But it brings up a debate almost as big as Kirk vs Picard; who was the best James Bond? Going to create that PP... CorruptUser 14:44, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
its a moot point. the best bonds were in the best films. was sean connery a good bond in goldfinger was he still a good bond in you only live twice? was timothy dalton a shit bond or was the bond films he was in shit? from connery to moore to craig the character shift and the type of films shifts accordingly. its more a question of taste comparing apples and oranges.
its different to the kirk vs picard debate, because the bond thing is about the merits of the films and the actors playing a character, kirk vs picard is about nerds who have trouble understanding why klingons in next generation look convincingly alien and but in the original just looked swarthy AMassiveGay (talk) 20:25, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Kirk vs Picard is about whether the best captain is one who solves problems through clever thinking, seduction, and punching things in the face, vs the one who solves problems through careful analysis of the situation, relying upon the advice/expertise of others, and epic speeches. CorruptUser 21:09, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
no it really isnt. its how many hoops must you jump through to have these two characters exist in the same world? AMassiveGay (talk) 22:12, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
I always liked Daniel Craig's preformance as Bond if we're not counting Connery (Connery is just straight up the Bond if you ask me). -- Techpriest (talk) 22:50, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
There isn't one I don't like, especially if you read the books (I read all the Fleming books, plus the first Gardner) you can see how they fit (mostly) Connery and Moore to the adaptations. It's also for the best, and in the case of The Spy Who Loved Me at the explicit request of Fleming, that they changed some/just about all in each movie; the closest to the book was the Lazenby movie, On Her Majesty's Secret Service, and even that isn't 100% for obvious reasons. And as much as people complain about Pierce Brosnan, you have to remember Goldeneye took a Cold War-era story line and resurrected it for a post-Soviet landscape. That said, I was with No Time To Die till the last 5 minutes; I have a very bad feeling where the franchise is going, and I just hope I'm wrong. My bar is they don't go full Ghostbusters, which simultaneously distorted a familiar name beyond any recognition and aggressively played the racism/sexism card about anyone who dared point out it was a soulless money grab (for the same reason I refuse to read Go Set A Watchman, per the AVGN's reasoning I refuse to watch anything labeling itself Ghostbusters). We'll see, there are several Fleming storylines to work with; as an easy start they've never used anything from the actual story A View To A Kill, almost nothing of the story For Your Eyes Only, and only the first half of the book Live And Let Die, so they aren't for lack of authentic material. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:18, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
So, no "Jane Bond" who seduces a new Bond Boy every movie? Wait, James Bond is supposed to be the male fantasy of what every guy wishes he was; badass death machine, able to date and dump supermodels, always has a witty retort, wears expensive clothes and has the latest toys. What is the female fantasy? Who does every woman wish she was? CorruptUser 06:31, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
at its core bond has always been varying degrees of rapey murderer in the movies. each time the actor is replaced they essentially reboot the franchise, and while this has bond taking on slightly different style to fit the new actors strengths, sexual predator remains a constant of the character. continuing that pattern of reboot, it would be difficult, though not impossible, for a 'female' bond to retain this element of the character. it would significantly alter the sexual and power dynamics of the staple bond characters to such a degree it would be a stretch to consider it a bond film. i'd have to reserve judgement on that point until its been attempted, its just going to be a tough sell.
not yet seen the latest bond flick, but knowing a little of the ending and trying not to spoil it for anyone, there is a suggestion that a new bond film wont follow that same new actor/reboot model and will be direct continuation, with no hand over to a new actor playing a new bond, but a hand over from the current character of bond to a new character entirely taking over his job. that cannot possibly be a bond film at all. bonds specific flaws and strengths are what makes a bond film and not a generic spy film (just barely in many of them). for all the pitfalls of changing the race or gender or what have you of bond, done right would still be a bond film. a film where a new character has his job, cannot be a bond film. same universe as the current run, but a spin off, not a new entry. its just a generic spy flick at that point. go watch kingsmen. thats essentially bond without bond.
honestly, the franchise should just die now. its been on life support for years, the daniel craig era breathed new life into it briefly, but where else do you go with it? how many more ways you repackage the same character and still be fresh? as it is the only thing that the craig films brought that was genuinely new for bond was the fight scenes where properly bruising and it had a talented director instead of the usual hacks at the helm.
for one last bond before it dies properly and for good, they should stop trying humanise him or try to make him likeable and they should lean into the amoral hitman, make so ruthless, so murderous, and so unambiguously a rapist to such an extent hes the real villain of the movie and not merely a flawed antihero. show bond as a real monster. that might give a couple more films before it dies. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:32, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Bond's sexuality was from an era when Dr "No" often meant "Try Again". This was the era where people really did interpret "Baby it's Cold Outside" as a romantic song. In those days, there was this complicated "dance" that women had to do when they wanted to hook up with someone, where they pretended to be uninterested and more prudish than they really were in order to avoid being viewed as promiscuous. This was obviously a problem for women who really did mean "No", such as in Pride in Prejudice. Eventually, Third Wave Feminism came along, we made progress on the whole "slut-shaming" thing, women are more open sexually but contrary to the fearmongerers, are actually having less sex than decades ago, and now you just assume "No" means "No". CorruptUser 16:00, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
The female fantasy isn't hugely different, but it probably involves less dominating ideas. Women love to have someone to take care of them, het women would looove to have an amazing smoocher, but at the same time, don't need no man. They also like to wear nice pretty clothes, cycle through nice clothes, and carry probably expensive bags and look pretty with makeup maybe. I guess women like to have networking and social connections, and they looooove decorating, customizing, and using gentle delicate colors. We love cute things too like babies, puppies, chickens, ponies, etc. The Sims and Animal Crossing are like female fantasies brought to life lol. I'm not a grand arbitrer of female fantasy since I'm like ace, a nerd, and I'm outta loop with clothes and makeup, but as a woman, I know for sure dominating over others and violence is not mine. I know it's all arbitrary in the end as there's probably a lot of guys who are like "hey I love this too" but I've seen twits grifts on Twitter like Ian Miles Cheong go toxic ballistic over a man snuggling with kitten. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 20:24, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
So... Jane Bond would be an interior decorator fashionista super-spy who convinces Lord Balderdash to become her doting servant, as she saves the world from her disfigured high school bully Helen? I also feel like she should become the life of the party for her hobbies alone in spite of also being attractive, like Kaylee from Shindig, but even then that's a bit of a stretch...CorruptUser 20:44, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
To put things in perspective, it is a fictional world. The very nature of fiction is that you can craft and change whatever you want. Shakespeare is frequently reimagined in ways that radically depart from anything he would have conceived including through the Italian mafia, a high school kegger, the holocaust, a communist gulag, a dystopian pansexual future and even the truly surreal and incomprehensible where characters in one of his comedies kill one another at the end. To go apeshit over James Bond being portrayed as a woman would be as reasonable as say, screaming bloody murder over Star Trek TNG being reimagined or rebooted with Picard being replaced by a female Vulcan or a Multi-gendered Android. If it is done well...why the shit not? If the very idea makes you enraged...then we have hit a conservative nerve. If we held on to traditional forms we would still be seeing Greek theatre with roaming Choruses, Gods interrupting the narrative, only male actors, all in meter with an extremely complex yet predictable structure. If you are happy with how radically things have changed since then, then a James bond switching to a Jane Bond should be a fairly mundane change. I hope one day Rambo is reimagined by an African American lesbian puppy and that Belle from Beauty and the Beast is portrayed by sleazy raunchy Norwegian troll falling for a dainty Hawaiian wandering spirit stuck in the nether realm. Sounds a thousand times more interesting and opens up the possibility for something more adventurous, creative and insightful. ShabiDOO 22:05, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
But would the public want to see a woman cast as a sexually aggressive, masochist in a tuxedo? :D Personally, James Bond has run out of steam. The Nietzschean hero just isn't as appealing these days. Or maybe it's just my age. Although, the Bond as portrayed by Robert Newman here https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000n5yy is definitely more interesting that Fleming's creation. Speaking of which, anyone try reading the books lately? Jaysus. Live and Let Die is a doosy of questionable stereotypes. Cardinal Chang (talk) 22:18, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Obligatory Dresden Codak reference. "I was hesitant to (adapt) Grapes of Wrath due to its similarities to Attack of the Killer Tomatoes..."CorruptUser 23:29, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
For the record, I never found these strange Shakespeare adaptations particularly entertaining because they always come off as forced beyond belief; I'd much sooner watch one in original pronunciation. That said, screwing with James Bond is nothing more than a blatant money grab; hijacking a character produced within living memory for a lot of people is a slimy way of making money off someone else's name. If your creations aren't worth watching, just use someone who's now dead and can't defend himself. I'm sure people would be so sanguine about hijacking Lara Croft or Nancy Drew in a similar manner. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:01, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Wait, I thought the entire point of movies was to be blatant cash-grabs... CorruptUser 03:05, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, but the good ones at least make it look like they're trying to be something more... The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:02, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
It's more like "we will provide you entertainment in exchange for money, and hopefully establish a Brand such that similar movies have less financial risk on our end". Don't underestimate the importance of the Brand. Nobody saw Star Wars prequels because they were good, but because of the power of the brand. But if the movies are bad enough, eventually the company just cuts its losses on the brand. That's the real problem with a reboot you don't like, because it presents two very bad possibilities; either the movie is successful and the movie is one which you personally despise, or it's a flop and the franchise itself is killed forever. CorruptUser 08:06, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Christ Church Moscow[edit]

This seems to be within RW's remit, but I am otherwise busy (and UK besides). Anyone interested in creating the article? Anna Livia (talk) 19:06, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Refrain from linking the article to'Kinktober.' Anna Livia (talk) 19:23, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

The Times has gone full tabloid[edit]

I normally don't look at The Times of London, but I was looking up a quote there and got redirected to the front page. Apparently, Murdoch has done the inevitable and turned The Times into a tabloid: two double-column puff stories, one moral panic ("Christmas Plans Thrown into Doubt…") and one encouraging more alcoholism ("Hic! Turns out I can organise a piss-up in a brewery: my own") on either side, squeezing single-column human interest story with some news content. Murdoch put The Sun in The Sunday Times. Bongolian (talk) 20:00, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

That's kind of depressing. I've not been back in the UK for years, but I used to enjoy the occasional Times.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:45, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Why do I have a feeling that when future generations look back on the COVID pandemic...........[edit]

That they will think that previous generations were the stupidest people to have ever existed? There are politicians in office that believe wildfires are caused by evil Jewish Death Beams, people who believe that vaccines contain depopulation drugs and others hoarding toilet paper for some reason. Future generations will see us as the stupidest people to walk the Earth. --Ja milch. Nein brot (talk) 19:36, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I mean it's currently already observed that antivaxxers and climate change deniers are the stupidest ilk in the modern era to dare tread on the same ground the rest of humanity does. They're not going to look better in hindsight. I just hope the future generations don't collectively group people that tried to overcome them as complicit failures. That being said, I really doubt conspiracy theories today are any crazier. The only thing that changed is visibility of them caused by the speed of spreading irksome ideas. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 20:16, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
It's how those irksome ideas not only spread but stuck that is most worrying. What is it about these ridiculous contrarian ideas that are more plausible than evidential, factual ideas? In Ireland the tabloid/news aggregator/blog site, Broadsheet.ie has almost fully embraced the anti-vax stance, and as for the comment section, buckle up before reading through. (BT, Broadsheet was one of the first promoters of the utter shill that is Ivor Cummins, professional backseat scientist, fully versed in bullshit and faux epidemiological verbage. Former printer cartridge designer and keto woo-woo merchant too.) Cardinal Chang (talk) 20:50, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Conspiracy theorists aren't stupid; they just don't want to put the work into being smart. CorruptUser 20:55, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
And yet they do put work in. They spend time reading books (of questionable quality, it must be said.) Collate 'evidence'. Come up with a hypothesis. And then utterly believe it. Cause it has to be true. It's a weird case of "if it's printed it's the truth" or for more modern idiots, "I saw a netflix documentary about that". Healthy skepticism goes out the window, toxic gullibility replaces it. Cardinal Chang (talk) 21:02, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
It's true. Every previous generation is stupider than the next - that's a core tenet of Progressivism. So every enlightened generation tries to embalm itself into perpetual institutions, which then gives rise to things like systemic racism. Dutchbag (talk) 21:00, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
I think you mean a "youtube documentary". CorruptUser 21:08, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Both, Netflix AND Youtube documentaries. Any documentary that is free of broadcasting standards (I'm on the EU side of the Atlantic, documentaries made by BBC, ITV, Channel 4, RTE etc have to be able to back up what they present. Meanwhile straight to DVD, Youtube and Netflix documentaries don't. Mind you, when I see what is passed for programming on supposed 'serious', 'educational' and 'informative' channels in the US like History, and Discovery, I find myself at a loss for words.)
Then again, didn't Chariot of the Gods win a bleedin Oscar. Christ.Cardinal Chang (talk) 21:16, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Nominated, not won. But still. Cardinal Chang (talk) 21:18, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't think I watched too many documentaries on Netflix. I watched one by the BBC on Netflix, the one about the Hiroshima bomb, and found one error and two very serious omissions. In terms of bomb design, while the earlier bombs were indeed "gun" designs, in the case of Little Boy, the uranium rings were the part shot at the rod, not the rod into the rings, something the documentary got wrong. As for omissions, the movie completely neglected to mention the 8000 Koreans killed in the Hiroshima bombing, as Japan was using them as slave labor at the time. The movie also failed to mention that the US sent numerous medics to Hiroshima/Nagasaki as soon as the war ended; obviously the ulterior motive being as a form of research, but still. CorruptUser 21:28, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
You wouldn't be the first to think that stupidity is the only explanation for some varieties of tragically deranged behavior.

Ariel31459 (talk) 23:17, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I like this theory a lot because it doesn't rely upon intellectual ableism. It argues that ignorance is a moral and societal issue rather than something that occurs due to disabilities.--April Chat? 04:20, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
As someone with mental illness and Autism, it bugs me when someone who believes conspiracies is called "mentally challenged". It is demeaning and makes handicapped people seem incapable of having morality. --Ja milch. Nein brot (talk) 23:29, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
I know right?! It's such a common claim that's extremely discriminatory and engages in scapegoating of Disabled, Neurodivergent and Mentally-Ill lives. In reality, conspiracy theories are accepted for a wide range of different reasons, from crank magnetism to accepting whatever authority figures say is real.--April Chat? 04:57, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
I've definitely been guilty of that in the past. Didn't realize it was hurtful to actual disabled people. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 10:28, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Possible chance at building peace between the State of Israel and the State of Palestine[edit]


I am not holding my breath as both governments are ruled by dinosaurs focusing on hate rather than peace building. Will it happen? --Ja milch. Nein brot (talk) 00:30, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Watchlist Notifications[edit]

I'm having trouble with watchlist notifications. I've added various pages to my watchlist. I've even added "RationalWiki:Saloon_bar" for testing since this page is updated frequently. In my user preferences I've verified that all of the checkboxes under "Notify me about these events" are checked and that my email address is correct. Yet I don't receive any email notifications. Is there another setting that I missed somewhere? I'd like to receive an email whenever any of the pages in my watchlist is edited. Thanks. Hansen128 (talk) 04:35, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

There are various bugs with WikiMedia software around notifications, which you can find on their bug tracker (not all will apply here). In addition, notification emails might be disappearing into spam, and some email companies seem to block or silently delete automated emails rather than file them nicely. Not sure what to suggest, other than come by RW more often! --Annanoon (talk) 12:56, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Checked my junk mail, nothing there. I did have luck setting up my watch pages using VisualPing. It's a free online service that sends an email when it detects a change to a webpage. It seems to work alright. It's too bad the baked in watchlist tracker isn't working. That strikes me as a pretty big issue. There could be discussions going on for pages you've contributed to and you wouldn't even know about it. Hansen128 (talk) 04:37, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

In regards to society[edit]


I'm referring to the first post by Alan Stone on the page. I mean I can get on board with getting by with less and finding out what you need (or rather what is truly important). But I think the concept of "need" is a bit odd. Sure one can get by with basic survival stuff, meaning not needing tasty food, the most comfortable home, etc. But what about stuff like art, music, things like that? Would they classify that as necessary and important. I mean one could just be in a box with an exercise wheel and have food and shelter, I doubt such a prospect is nice to them. So what exactly do they mean by "need"? I do agree that in the pursuit of comfort we have sacrificed the planet in the process. But to suggest humans would be different from any animal without environmental limits is folly. Any animals would do the same thing we have given no restraints on their ability to breed.

It just gets me thinking at times about what to do and what is best.Machina (talk) 02:43, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

That's entirely up to you. As for Alan Stone, he should stop eating mushrooms because he is not doing it right. UncleKrampus (talk) 22:37, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
I didn't know there was a wrong way to do it.Machina (talk) 18:38, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Yes. Yes there is.Ariel31459 (talk) 22:26, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Tell me a fun RationalWiki fact…[edit]

…and everyone else will rate it based on how interesting and unknown it was.𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 talk stalk 08:58, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Did you know that 0.000000000000001% of rational wiki users are Aliens from the Garble-burb galaxy with sock accounts pretending to be atheists while secretly trying to spread the word of their saviour (a mouse like rodent which with bring destruction to the universe)? ShabiDOO 09:31, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
My secret is out. Damn. Cardinal Chang (talk) 13:14, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
I seem to remember reading something about that in the Daily Mail. Kencolt (talk) 16:43, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
I'll give this fact a 25/27 on the Sugondese scale, very obscure and interesting. Jake Holmesyell at me 18:33, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
If the Earth's moon had been a gasball instead of a big rock, the first words on the moon would've been "it's one small step for man, one giant leap for man-KIIIiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiind"CorruptUser 19:09, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Random technical wiki fact #5

The pipe trick can save you from some fidgety editing, especially when trying to link across namespaces.

For example: by typing in [[Forum:Loya Jirga|]] the software will automatically place [[Forum:Loya Jirga|Loya Jirga]] for you when saving, resulting in Loya Jirga.

Another useful trick is disambiguations such as [[mass (physics)|]], which is automatically replaced with [[mass (physics)|mass]], resulting in mass.

You can even use this to link to other wikis, e.g, [[wp:Help:Pipe trick|]] produces Help:Pipe trick.

Bongolian (talk) 21:26, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

That’s actually the reason I asked the question… I was getting bored of the same fucking 5 boring facts over and over again.𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 talk stalk 13:05, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
How often is 'But I thought this was Rationalwiki - Drink!' invoked? Anna Livia (talk) 13:25, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Good idea!𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 talk stalk 04:55, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
{{RATIONALWiki}} has been invoked in 141 Talk pages and was used in 330 other pages PoorlyDrawnRockford.jpeg Rockford the Roe boop my snootpraise Oscar Wilde 16:17, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

School shooting in Michigan[edit]

https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/school-shooting-oxford-michigan-12-01-21/index.html Feel sick reading about it. I don't understand why we still allow these kinds of things to happen, even after Stoneman Douglas and Santa Fe. Something has to give at some point, right? Jake Holmesyell at me 20:04, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

What a goddamn poser. Grab a gun and shoot up a school, oh how original, that's never been done before. Couldn't school shooters just do something less harmful but original? I don't know, dress up in a chicken outfit and release a bunch of hens, call yourself "The Cockmaster". Something that's memorable that doesn't get people killed. CorruptUser 20:26, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
"Gun violence has killed over 1,380 children in the U.S. this year." Don't know if this is true - 'twas a tweet - but even if it's not the fact that I find it believable is awful. America is broken. Scream!! (talk) 20:36, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
That number includes suicide and teenagers. Not that it's not sad of course, but that tweet makes it sound like we have an epidemic of toddlers bringing guns to daycare. CorruptUser 21:04, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
News outlets should have to refer to mass shooters simply as "Shooter #86, Shooter #87" etc. never say their names, never show their faces, never promise future copycats a shred of glory, only present them as the grim growing statistic they are. It'll help us keep track of how many times the US has failed as a society AND remind wannabe shooters how deeply unspecial and uncool their violent urges are. Cardinal Chang (talk) 22:18, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
To say nothing of making huge mistakes in a rush to get a name, the early reports on Sandy Hook accused the guy's brother (who was in New York at the time and hadn't spoken to him in 2+ years). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:39, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
On the flip side, there's the dogwhistle-y "News media X isn't telling us who did crime X, you know what that's code for..." CorruptUser 01:27, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
In fairness, that's not for nothing; somehow the legacy of the DC snipers isn't that they were BLACK MUSLIMS ZOMG (which is a good thing, they were just two apeshit crazy people who happened to be both things), and more recently a couple teenagers hijacked an Uber and killed the driver in the ensuing crash (after which one was moaning about needing to get her cell phone) where absolutely no one just said what we could all see from security footage. But if they did it for everyone that would pretty much take care of the problem. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:12, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
For comparison - how many comparable school and related shootings have there been in other countries of the world? Brevik, Beslan (which was a different category) and where else? Anna Livia (talk) 13:13, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Dunblane, Kazan,Perm State University, Winnenden, Kauhajoki & Tuusula, Finland. But while there have been others around the world, there most certainly have not been as many outside the United States as there would be inside the US in a 12 month period. Or to restate, in a 12 month period in the United States there have been more school shootings than the combined school shootings for a 100 years or so in every other country, including Russia. Cardinal Chang (talk) 14:52, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
well, maybe not the last 12 months, which has so far 26 school shootings in the US. Actually, you know what, who cares about the exact number. It's a massive fucking disgrace for any country to have such a repeated, heartbreaking tragedy occur with such frequency. And yet the US repeatedly, at least on the political stage, do nothing about it. Cardinal Chang (talk) 14:57, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── “I don’t like Mondays” sums up the both senselessness of school shootings and the senselessness of your second amendment. What disturbs me the most, however, is the lack of adherence by these school shooters to the second amendment—none of them are using muskets‽ Sure it may be impractical in contrast to your garden-variety assault rifle (and they really are garden variety in the US), but all your school shooter has to do is ask students politely: “wait there fuckface, give me a couple minutes, I’m reloading my musket.” LeucippusSalva veritate 16:02, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

The point of the Second Amendment is that the general population knows how to use a gun. Given that the US effectively subsidizes the EU through NATO, allowing Europeans to spend less on national defense than would otherwise be required, I wouldn't be so quick to criticize the existence of that amendment. That isn't to say the amendment is perfect or is applied correctly; I think handguns should face more restrictions given that 2/3 of gun violence is handguns alone, the laws regarding ownership should be standardized, and requirements to own one should be similar to those for joining the military (with obvious exception for age or physical disabilities). CorruptUser 17:02, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
I think someone has a rather strange take on both the second amendment and cold war Europe. Christ. Cardinal Chang (talk) 17:58, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
"The point of the Second Amendment is that the general population knows how to use a gun." Is that really the reason it exists? Is every US citizen a proficient firearms user in that case?
The second part of the argument is so bizarre I'm still trying to understand it. "The US pays for 65% of NATO so the Second Amendment is a good idea?". Or have I completely misunderstood.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 20:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
1, 2. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 19:47, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Bob, I think you misunderstood something there. 2/3 of gun violence in the US being from handguns means that to stop crimes (and, yes, suicides) we should be more focused on handguns than on AR-15s.
You don't need absolutely everyone to be proficient with firearms, and it probably shouldn't be mandatory, but the more people you have with those skills, the better you'll fare during wartime. From the dawn of civilization to only relative recently, the Nobility imposed various restrictions on weapon ownership but they virtually never barred peasants from owning bows, because bows took a lifetime of experience to learn how to use accurately. Imagine for a moment we lived in a world where self driving cars replaced all drivers, and for public safety we began phasing out manual controlled cars. But in this future, warfare is still dominated by tanks, jeeps, and other ground vehicles, whereas self driving isn't available offroad. If a war were to break out, who would drive those vehicles? Sure, you could train a bunch of new recruits, and driving a tank is obviously different from a sedan, but the guy who spent 10 years driving to and from work every day is probably going to pick it up faster than the guy who didn't.
As for NATO, my point is that the EU's defense strategy relies upon having the US there to back them up in a crisis. The US having guns everywhere, even if it causes problems Stateside, somewhat indirectly makes the EU safer. Combined with the US spending more on NATO than required, allowing Europeans to underspend, means that it's a bit crass for the EU to criticize the US on gun culture.CorruptUser 21:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that to stop gun violence in the US you need more guns?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 12:32, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
So let me get this straight, if the US didn't overspend a ridonculous amount of unecessary money on pointless toys for their absurd military budgets, then the Mongol hordes would suddenly invade Europe? Is that it CorruptUser? Does the safety of Europe (a continent with an enormous combined military force) hide behind the US from their enemies (which countries are those exactly)? Americans can be so insanely arrogant and grandiose sometimes. Zheesh. ShabiDOO 22:12, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Yes. Without the US's bloated military, Russia would've conquered the rest of Europe. Without the US's bloated military, Kim Jong Un (or his equivalent) would be dictator of all of Korea. Without the US's bloated military, Taiwan would've been "reunited" with the rest of China long ago (that one looks like it'll happen in 10 years or so regardless of the US). CorruptUser 00:15, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
And N. Korea having the whole Peninsula has what to do with Europe not being invaded at the moment? I fail to see how that could not have been accomplished with lower spending in unnecessary troops and equipment. You don't need a bloated budget to have superfluous toys and more troops than you ever deploy. If anything, American policies in the last 25 years have gone against European safety in the recent past. America did fuck all as Russia invaded Georgia. Iraq? That ludicrous invasion led to terrible instability in the Middle East which made Jihaddi Terrorism grow exponentially in Europe, which included bombs going off, sometimes on a monthly basis, not far from where I have lived (in three different countries). Europe spends more than is sufficient on their military to avoid invasion from...which country is it again Corrupt User that is planning on invading it? Give me a break. ShabiDOO 13:14, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Say what you will about Europe's theoretical military sufficiency, but they had all the courage of a castrated leprechaun when it came to Slobodan Milosevic. I'm no great fan of Bill Clinton, who also failed to do anything about the initial breakup there or Rwanda, but at least he gave Western Europe the giant kick in the ass they needed when it came to Kosovo and the ethnic Albanians within then-Yugoslavia. And anecdotally, being someone who's handled firearms (though not in quite a long time), if you're properly trained it makes you far more cautious about shooting. There's a range, there's a target, and you do not deviate from it, period. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:54, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
I swear some circuit shorts in some Americans' brains (and even some non-Americans) when guns come up. And that obnoxious American military swagger. And pumping in superfluous money into your military and your world destabilising adventures instead of sufficiently assisting the homeless, starving, sick, poor, jobless, struggling etc...could you try to direct your misadventures to places that doesn't result in Europe suffering increased terrorism please? ShabiDOO 10:43, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Well, the total inaction from Europe (and the US) in Yugoslavia did give us Vedran Smailović, so I guess there was something to be gained... but seriously, why did it take the US to kick Europe in the ass when Milosevic was starting a campaign of ethnic cleansing? Was it a bad thing for the US to lead the charge in putting a stop to it? That the US has made its blunders elsewhere doesn't mean their preventing ethnic cleansing of hundreds of thousands of ethnic Albanians is a bad thing. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:56, 5 December 2021 (UTC)


As an aside, how serious a crime should we view suicide? It can be thought of as "murder" of sorts, but obviously it's not the same thing. Like, if we had the scenario where "Bob is under a lot of pressure, he snaps and he ________", of all the things Bob could do, from shoplifting to murder, where would suicide rank? I would prefer Bob had stolen a cellphone than killed himself, but I would prefer he killed himself over raping someone, but I don't know what everyone else would think. Could make a macabre Pointless Poll. CorruptUser 21:15, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
more crass and grossly insensitive than macabre. such acts of desperation are tragedies, even for cases wherre it might be viewed as a mercy. they are not crimes - not morally, and for most of the world including your neck of the woods, not legally. and ranking it? i know folk here do like a list, but fucking hell. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:57, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
@CorruptUser Suicide, a crime!? The fact that you are unironically thinking of making a poll about suicide … about comparing suicide to rape and murder … shows a bewildering lack of self-awareness and empathy. The only amusing thing about this, is that you earnestly think this is an appropriate thing to do.LeucippusSalva veritate 17:28, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Suicide is 1000% a mental health issue and as far from a crime that an unfortunate event could be. In some cases it is genuinely a case of mental troubles that may have been resolved with support and care, in other cases it is a quick decision under mental crisis and in other cases it is a well thought out and rational decision. Humans should have as much agency over their bodies as possible (that doesn't mean there aren't consequences to decisions like not getting immunised btw or potentially losing custody of children under certain conditions after suicide attempts). I think the state prohibiting a reasoned voluntary suicide is one of the most grotesque violations of freedoms (short of slavery, torture or unjust imprisonment). I would only see it as a crime if it was accompanied by another crime, for example a parent killing themselves while leaving their babies uncared for or suicide by cop (which can traumatise the first responder). Even then, I would be extremely hesitant to have that person be culpable considering the extreme mental health crisis that would accompany the overwhelming majority of such cases. Resistance to reasoned suicide is a toxic hold over from the poisonous ideas of abrahamic religions. Do t be unwittingly held hostage by them.ShabiDOO 17:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Suicide used to be a Felony in most states until the 1960s. They couldn't exactly throw your zombie in prison, out of the risk you might start biting the other inmates, but they could give you an undignified burial and punish your estate. It's been decriminalized in most states, but one person was indeed convicted of it just 3 years ago, but that case was a bit more complex considering his attempted suicide involved a risk to others.
And yes, obviously it's the sort of thing that doesn't get fixed by sending an extremely stressed individual to prison. CorruptUser 18:02, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Going back to an earlier point in this discussion - suicide is not necessarily a mental health issue - the Dignitas option, and eg where it is considered the more honourable option. Anna Livia (talk) 19:44, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
How is unbearable suffering (even from physical pain) not a mental health issue? ShabiDOO 22:14, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
I think Anna is talking about instances when suicide is a cultural expectation, such as when a samurai dishonors his lord. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄Ask about our holiday specials! 00:18, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Ahhh yeah. The "dignitas" threw me there, i.e. Dignitas the Swiss organisation for euthanasia. Yeah, indeed warrior suicide is an exception...though to be honest I would imagine that is fairly outside of the scope of CU's crime scenario, since as far as I know, societies which pressure people into honoruable suicides don't tend to criminalise it as well. I do not believe putting pressure on someone into suicide is respecting someone's bodily autonomy. ShabiDOO 00:22, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
There is also suicide to escape punishment. Revolverman (talk) 02:47, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
India still has suicide as the equivalent of a Felony on their penal code. India also has something called "Sati", which is much less common now, but involves a widow being strongly encouraged throw herself on her late husband's funeral pyre.
Meh, "crime" is the wrong word, so, mea culpa. "Sin" is well, I don't think that's the right word. I need a word that means "Action, connotation; negative". Suggestions?
As far as my original question, on the scale of awfulness, where would "suicide" fall? CorruptUser 03:17, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
There is also 'suicide to save others/avert disaster', and 'an honourable/acceptable death' can be seen as a viable option but not involve external pressure, or the result of present or expected suffering. Shall we say that the reasons for committing suicide can be varied and not necessarily due to suffering of any kind. Anna Livia (talk) 12:13, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
I don't think that suicide is always a mental health issue. If I were suffering from terminal cancer and had the opportunity to chose between six months of medically-prolonged extreme suffering or the opportunity to say goodbye earlier, I might well chose to say goodbye. Would that really mean that I was mentally ill? Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:16, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I will concede sometimes it only grazes the surface of mental health. Keep in mind...a mental health issue does not infer being mentally ill.
OK. Using your terminology. Would someone in the case that I suggest be suffering from a "mental health issue"? Both my wife and I are approaching the age when we need to consider these things. We are both agreed that prolonging intense suffering would be worse than saying goodbye earlier. Are we suffering "mental health issues" for believing this?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 11:29, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
"I imply, you infer." Ariel31459I love being pedantic with strangers20:23, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Well yeah, if the mental stress of future predicted pain and and suffering is enough to motivate you to end your life (and yes that includes the elderly, people afraid of the mental torture of life in prison etc), it is a mental health issue, even if it isn't the same kind of crisis as someone overwhelmed by more severe mental suffering. And even if I am wrong, which I admit could be the case, and it is not mental health in a clinical sense, it still applies as a criticism of CorruptUsers argument about it being a "crime". ShabiDOO 12:30, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
I think you are getting into begging the question here. You are defining the the idea of suicide as automatically indicating a mental health issue. So if someone says they are considering suicide (perhaps for very good reasons) then, using your previous definition, they must have a mental health issue.
I simply disagree with your initial definition, as people in extreme suffering or contemplating extreme suffering for an extended period may have perfectly valid non-mental health reasons for considering, and indeed taking, that option.
And I'm only considering your arguments, I am not taking any other user into account.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 20:50, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
it would seem that the existence of legally assisted suicide outfits like dignitas, would require a considerable amount investigation and discussion to ensure, amongst other things like ensuring against coercion, that mental health is very much not an issue in seeking their services or an impairment to consent at any point during the process. i know living wills cover a situation where informed consent cannot be given, but i dunno if they are respected and/or legally binding for anything more than 'do not resuscitate' orders. i can only recall news stories concerning living wills in areas where there is not currently assisted suicide as option to begin. ive not looked into or really thought about it to be honest. cant imagine living wills requesting assisted suicide, even where otherwise legal, are going fly. probably enough controversy even when you can clearly of your own free will consent to ending your life when asked and at the final point of no return. but just a document signed ahead time but cant physically consent in the moment? assuming they probably havent changed their minds would be legally risky for anyone having to facilitate a suicide. AMassiveGay (talk) 03:45, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm not really talking about living wills. Though I think that they are a good idea too. I'm talking about things like this law is Spain. (Where I live)Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 09:17, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Europe uniting to reform the Roman Empire for some stupid reason in the pointless poll[edit]

The real question is: are Europeans (or their powerful) ready to be given American citizenship and become the last bastion of the American state for like a thousand years, or are they going to need a few more centuries as civitates foederatae NATO members and for the US to finally lose its mind embrace autocracy, only eventually giving up the mantle of the land of the free and the home of the brave when servants of the cybernetic prophet 01 seize the last fortress/orbital tether in French Guiana, forcing Empereur (the American English title didn’t translate 1:1 so they used emperor, adorable) Georges-Howard XI to go out in a blaze of Mormon/Scientological/Bahá’í glory? Cause clearly the future is going to be that fuckawesome/harmonically similar to Roman history.

…And the neo Rhomaioi would speak Greek, you philistines. Artificius (talk) 02:57, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Why would the Europeans wish to re-create the Roman Empire: Rome 1 was ended by Odocar in 476, Rome 2 (Byzantium/Constantinople) was taken over by the Ottoman Empire and Rome 3 (the Holy Roman Empire) was wound up by Napoleon. Also 'America' is not the pinnacle of civilisation (only of using resources). Anna Livia (talk) 12:17, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
"last bastion of the American state for like a thousand years". Who was the lat person to claim that his civilization would last a thousand years? (Sorry Goodwin)Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 12:29, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Belief that the EU (then the 'Common Market') was a 'revived Roman Empire' and the future realm of the Antichrist was stock false dispensationalist end times prophecy in the 1970s. At some point there would be 10 countries in it, whuch aligned it with some dragon from the book of Daniel or something. Like most dispensationalist prophecies, it required revision. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 15:34, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Trust me, I'm not seriously advocating for or professing a belief in the continuance of American cultural hegemony like some star-spangled Godwin-bait: the mention of Roman anything just brings out my geeky side. The arc of Roman history is long, and for about a thousand years the Roman state (as opposed to the beneficiaries of the "donation of Constantine") exclusively spoke Greek partially as the result of a short-sighted but long-abiding tax grab by the emperor Caracalla, and partially as a result of the Greek city-states being immersed in Roman society even while retaining nominal independence for hundreds of years: they were usually even allowed to mint their own currency, it just wasn't enough to keep Roman culture and influence out (there was also the association of ancient Hellenes with increasingly gauche pagan religious practices, it was better to be Roman). People's eyes tend to glaze over when discussing ancient history though, so I try to draw (tortured) metaphors to current political situations: hence the current American political hegemony in Europe going on long enough for Germans and French to get social security numbers whether they want them or not, a strange new religion born out of reaction to imperialism becoming the state's official faith, and the final battle occurring at some constructed capital which becomes central to trade in the coming centuries (the ESA space port in South America in my metaphor/Constantinople).
Personally I think some sort of European federalization would be preferable to that schizophrenic fever dream of an arc I wove out of whole cloth, but it seems more unlikely. Any time the EU tries to conduct itself as a sovereign entity its members hamstring it, and that's by design. Artificius (talk) 16:37, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Stupid poll. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄Ask about our holiday specials! 12:49, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Not one of mine either. CorruptUser 19:54, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
@DuceMoosolini you can thank me for that poll. --Ja milch. Nein brot (talk) 01:05, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

A weird side of YouTube[edit]

If you search "open carry owns cop in the search" weird shit shows up. VerminWiki (talk) 10:47, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Wondering about living in general[edit]

A thought that comes into my head every now and then. I wonder why people continue to live and in that vein why I do as well. I mean I'm only alive because suicide seems painful, and from what I see living is something one HAS to do if you are deterred by that. Along that line one "has" to make life meaningful and enjoyable by filling it with all these things and we just keep doing that until we die. Something about that just seems off.

I get that suicide is something people say they regret when they survive it (though I have my doubts, especially given the stigma against it or death in general), in my experience though every day I live is more like regret. I HAVE to get a decent paying job and I have to eat but not too much junk or else you'll suffer later and then having to find something enjoyable or else the free time is suffering. It just seems like so much work that I never signed up for. I hear the argument about "what about shows or games or etc in the future to look forward too" to which my counterpoint is "doesn't matter if I'm dead".

I'm also sick of people calling it depression when it's a valid question and the only reason we do so is the stigma we have against death and the bias to life. We assume living to be an absolute good and wanting to terminate that as there being something deficient with us. But I think it's good to question it and remove our bias towards life. I mean just looking out at nature the whole thing is a cycle of suffering with animals reproducing for no real reason besides to continue life or to be food for other animals, and it just keeps on because that's what it does (this was partly what got me believing there isn't a god as I can't imagine a loving creator making life as it is now). If people want out then that should be their right or option, stop trying to dress things up and force your rosy view on others. Sure it might hurt those who love them but it's honestly selfish on their part to want to keep them around for their comfort. Reminds me of people who refuse to put down their dogs despite their pain just because they want them longer.

Part of me also wonders if people are biased towards life because they don't really stop to think much about it. Why do this song and dance over and over and not just end it? Some might enjoy life but not everyone does and some see it as work and not an opportunity. I hate parents who think they're giving their kid the "gift" of life when really it's just a selfish decision on their part forcing another sentient being into the world and making them deal with existence.

I'm not really sure what I ultimately want here. I'm alive because death hurts and there isn't anyone who will help me with it so I'm forced to partake in something I didn't ask for. I just don't see a good reason for going on that is better than never having to do this anymore (meaning suicide), but I'm forced to if I don't want the pain (and from what I hear unreliability) of suicide.Machina (talk) 19:03, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

You don't have to get a decent paying job. Some people abide by simple living, instead taking a low-stress low paying job doing something they enjoy. CorruptUser 19:54, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
That's not really an option as those jobs don't pay enough to actually be able to live on your own and afford necessities. That and they don't exist where I live.Machina (talk) 16:10, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
"I wonder why people continue to live" if you're asking, I don't usually bother thinking about it. I don't often get up thinking about a reason to live, I do however get up wanting to do something. Or sometimes I like laying in bed a little longer. Sometimes when you catch me on a more lively day I focus my attention on hedonistic pursuits, especially other people. There are much more serious people out there who ask the question "what makes a good life" as if it is one of the most important things to ask, and it is, those people are often politicians in say, the EU; https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Quality_of_life_indicators_-_overall_experience_of_life
If you think about it, that should be one of a politician's primary concerns shouldn't it? Maximizing the amount of happiness of the people and themselves, living in a good world. What else would you spend all the money on? Why do you make improvements to where you live? To make life 'better', the expectation you'll be happier, I assume. Even for corrupt bastards, lining their pocket is all about the expectation that their actions will result in an ideal, happier state (this is commonly referred to as 'hope'), being filthy rich and having power will surely make them happier. Otherwise why bother?
I don't know if there is a meaning to life, but what I do know is that discussions about it often give me a headache. BumblingBuffoon (talk) 20:51, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
This seems like a discussion that should be shared with a qualified medical professional and not the internet. No offense to my qualified medical professionals on the internet.RipCityLiberal (talk) 20:56, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
I saw the title, the swath of text, and I predicted successfully what signature I'd find at the end of that post. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 20:58, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
... you mean we have something in common, LGM? Kencolt (talk) 21:23, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Uh, what do you mean by that? --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 01:43, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Kencolt means that both you and he made that prediction, with the implication that you don't otherwise have much in common. As to the topic, I think it's time to link this again. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 01:55, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
I read the title and immediately knew the who and what. We have been down this path many times before. It is the only path that Machina ever travels on RW. Bongolian (talk) 05:35, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
I’ve said repeatedly that this user is a useless narcissist who needs to either get help or stop bitching about shit he’s not willing to change. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄Ask about our holiday specials! 06:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm afraid that I also went: Subject, Signature, Whatever.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 11:05, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

This isn't a conversation for a "medical professional" because it's not a problem, at least not the in way they might think of it. But in regards to the first comment this has been something I've thought about since I was a kid. Sort of the "why should I" whenever I heard people talking about making something of yourself or striving to achieve things. I never got a good answer. A lot of people just said life was good by default and I didn't press that because they would send me to a mental hospital. That's part of why one can't have a discussion on it, they just ship you off and stop the questions. And when you're in the damn place it's more lying to them that "you've changed" when really you can't have any serious discussion with the people there without them just filing it under depression.

I’ve said repeatedly that this user is a useless narcissist who needs to either get help or stop bitching about shit he’s not willing to change

As I have repeatedly said this isn't something a psychologist can help with nor are they qualified to. And it's not like I can change it either. No one wants to talk about the "why" of living because there is usually a bias towards living, and if you don't find their reasons good enough to go on they just assume something is wrong with you. Every time I get the "future" line from people or a therapist I usually say that if I die then there isn't a need to worry about the future (not to mention the flaw that they're assuming the future will be better) and they usually shut up after that. I need an actually discussion of the "Why" behind living and not just people hand waving it away as depression because that's a cop out and not telling to me to "just live" because that's not working either. They're all keen on saying don't end it but don't give good reasons for it.Machina (talk) 16:23, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I used to feel that way a lot. Medication and hobbies really helped. The emphasis is on hobbies though. You have to look forward to something throughout the week. For me, it was game development. Do you have groups of friends you hang out with? If you are intimidated by random people at bars, boardgames nerds are usually friendly. You could find a local boardgames store that has tables where people can play Gamez. Also, do you live alone? I'm much happier now that I live with 2 roommates. I don't think I ever want to go back to living alone or with just 1 person. Always having multiple people you trust to talk to helps a lot. If all of that seems like too much and you are tired of these cynics in the Saloon Bar, you could also DM me and we could talk on discord or something. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 17:39, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
I already explained why the "looking forward to something" reason doesn't work on me. I have hobbies but they wouldn't make me stick around, it's more like something to just kill time with since I don't have the nerve to end it. I don't live alone but I don't have friends (not that I really need them, when I had some I didn't feel any different)Machina (talk) 00:30, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

this all arse about face. one does not require reasons to live, when you are already alive. an end to that state of affairs requires deliberate action on your part. the question is why choose that course? intolerable pain of some kind? unbearable grief? whats the driver here? if you are not in any pain, real or imagined, no pain on the immediate horizon, then whats the hurry? you are alive right now. you dont need convincing to remain so, natural survival instincts and a reluctance to end it take that final step sees to that. its a reason to over come instinct and that reluctance to embrace oblivion thats required. without some kind of impending calamity or hopeless despair as impetus, why give up your own sentience for oblivion? you need convincing to take such a final step, need convincing to let go. you dont need to convince anyone else, just be able to convince yourself to take a step you cant step back from. but you are not convinced. not certain. 'suicide seem painful' is a cop out - really cant think of a pain free method? there are websites dedicated to such things. whatever your reasoning, its not convincing enough for you not hesitate, not certain enough to press on to oblivion. if you cannot come up with a good enough reason to the end your life, if you are not certain, then you may as well focus on the question that leaves you with. not why live - you already are. but what to do with your life while you have it. if you change your mind you can always jump in front of train later. or hedge your bets. take up smoking. AMassiveGay (talk) 00:21, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Giving up my sentience for oblivion sounds more attractive than living, but I can't really do that because suicide overall has been shown to not be that reliable without outside help (and even with it the odds don't seem much better). I've looked for painless suicides but they all end the same way, with people trying to talk you out of it and then offering resources to reach out. It's very difficult. Also your reasoning doesn't make sense. People do have a reason to live and the point of those who don't have one seeking for one is to make life feel like it's worthwhile rather than a prison. People need a reason to live and some even ask why they even bother. It might be what they are doing now but they question why they should even do it in the first place. Survival instincts eventually erode when they can't give a good reason to go on. The real issue isn't "what's a good reason to end your life", that's false logic to me. The real issue is why even continue to begin with? Just because you do? I'm sorry but that doesn't fly here.Machina (talk) 00:30, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
More nonsense about psychologists not being able to help. Keep trying other psychologist until you find one who can help, what do you possibly have to lose? Not doing what you can to improve yourself is just signs of either laziness or a mental health issue which is creating a barrier to getting better. Claiming otherwise insults our intelligence and insults your own intelligence. We aren't qualified to help you Machina. And your "life is meaningless" narrative is just dragging us down which you shouldn't do to people. Get help. Everyone where can see you desperately need it. Your problem is either a stubborn resistance to seek real help or as I said, a mental health issue which is keeping you from doing it. Stop with the excuses already and get help. Stop it with the extreme nihilism please. Get help. ShabiDOO 00:30, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Again you miss the point here so I'm not going to bother with a response.Machina (talk) 00:30, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
@Machina There is a good reason why our users are advising you to seek psychological assistance. It is this: none of us are equipped to help you resolve the kind of question you want to talk about, and doing so would actually present ethical dilemmas to anyone who would try to help you. My dilemma is as follows: If I were to be willing to discuss the question " why should I want to live?" In order to proceed fairly I must be prepared for the argument to go against my intuition, namely, that it is unhinged for one to believe life is not worth living. If I were to injure any living thing possessing the power to avoid further damage by my assault, I believe it would attempt to protect itself. Why do animals behave as though their lives have value? Do you expect an answer based upon philosophical deductions? Pain hurts. We all try to avoid it, whether it is physical or psychic pain. People in pain seek assistance. "It's too much trouble to go on living," is not an argument that we here can contend with except to say we don't believe that. You can't be taken seriously if your premise is unsound, and soundness is determined in this case by almost unanimous consent. Nobody here is prepared to accept your preferred conclusion under any circumstance. Ariel31459 (talk) 19:47, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
The premise isn't unsound, it's just people need to get over their bias towards life in order to have an honest discussion. It isn't unsound just because it makes you uncomfortable, that's not how philosophy works. If you are saying to get help or psychological existence then you're just deflecting....scared. You don't get it. WE need to let go of the notion that living is an inherently good thing. It's clear that you guys aren't prepared for that talk if you can't even do that and just run to calling the person depressed or sick.Machina (talk) 00:30, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
There is in fact nothing to discuss. Entertaining such a question as "is life worth living" is very unethical when conversing with a person who is doubtful. Were I to convince someone that their life were not worth living and they acted on that conviction, I might be prosecuted. Don't pursue this line of inquiry anymore. It doesn't end well for anyone.Ariel31459 (talk) 01:25, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
I will pursue it. It shouldn't be criminal to talk about whether life is worth living or not. It's not doing people any favors. There is nothing unethical about it either, just more "pro-life" bias. None of that is going to stop me.Machina (talk) 19:09, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Reality check for right-wing populists[edit]

"The Hart-Celler Act is the worst bill passed by Congress EVER!!11!!11!!1", says Anthony Sabatini. Well guess what? The Southern Democratic segregationists who compromised the main opposition against passing Hart-Celler on the arguments of "white demographics" signed the Southern Manifesto and obstructed numerous civil rights bills.

And what a mere coincidence... UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 23:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I doubt I approve of this fellow's politics, and there is the 'any stick is good enough to beat a dog with' principle at work here as well. But calling for a politician to resign because he dressed up in blackface in high school barely moves the needle on the scandalometer. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 02:12, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
UShistoryanalyzer's contributions seem to be almost universally stale. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 03:10, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
If only you all never topic-banned me... UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 03:30, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
If UShistoryanalyzer keeps this up, he might find himself further restricted regarding Dixiecrating in the Saloon. Bongolian (talk) 05:40, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
You merely don't like one of my Saloon bar posts? Just ignore it. It's really not hard! I also invite you to point out when I used the term "Dixiecrat" hitherto in this discussion. See, a Dixiecrat was a Southern Democrat who joined the States' Rights Democratic Party revolt of 1948. And not all Southern Democrats joined the revolt (examples being Allen J. EllenderWikipedia, John SparkmanWikipedia, and J. Lister HillWikipedia), deeming the naive notion of Southern Democrats and Dixiecrats equatable to be erroneous. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 17:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
You know....you just came off a 3+ month block, maybe don't troll the Saloon. There are a lot of problematic articles you could spend some time fixing. Andrew5 (talk) 18:02, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Andrew5, perhaps you're in need of comprehending the definition of trolling! UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 18:23, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
An internet troll is someone who posts material on a website to invoke emotional reactions. YEah, you seem to be good at doing that. Andrew5 (talk) 19:11, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
All I'm wondering is exactly what your point is. I figure maybe a time traveling vehement racist from the 1960s making gross hyperboles about an act that doesn't treat nonwhite immigrants like shit doesn't realize his racist friends passed racist acts????? --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 19:22, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Listen, you have already attracted the attention of two moderators with your nonsense. I don't know if I can hold them back, but I'll try! Run! Run! You may get off with a nasty letter.Ariel31459 (talk) 04:06, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Is Romanian a difficult language to learn[edit]

Learning German has not kept my interest nor has Spanish, French, Dutch, Esperanto or Portuguese. The idea of learning Romanian seems interesting. I know that it has similarities to Spanish, French and Portuguese as it is a Romance language (with Slavic influence). I keep going through languages like underwear. --Resident Evil 7 (talk) 01:38, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Probably a biyt harder than other Romance languages. It has a relict case system for common nouns, a lot of unfamiliar Slavic and Hungarian vocabulary, and a somewhat harder phonology. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 02:08, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Since you know German and other Romance languages, you should be familiar with a lot of things. The grammar includes grammatical cases and three genders, just like German, as well as similarities with other Romance languages. The vocabulary includes French/Italian loanwords and Latin cognates. That'd probably make learning Romanian a lot easier than if you were to start from scratch as a monolingual. LongStylus (talk) 03:27, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
In my third year studying French and Spanish at university, one of my French lecturers gave us a short text in a language we didn't know. he didn't say what language it was. I correctly guessed that it was Romanian and was able to give an accurate summary of what it was about. A lot of the words in it were somewhat similar to French ones that meant the same thing. There were only a few Slavic words in that text and having learnt Esperanto had given me exposure to some Slavic words too. Spud (talk) 04:51, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I've got to say that if your attempts to learn German, Spanish, French, Dutch, Esperanto and Portuguese have not turned out well then I'm afraid that I've got some doubts about Romanian. Perhaps you need to consider your motivation. In my general experience, if people don't have a real concrete need to learn a language and don't set clear objectives in terms of both effort and outcome then they don't tend to be very successful. Of course there are exceptions where some people seem to have a natural facility for languages; but your list of attempts suggests to me that you may not be be in that category.

So I think you need to ask yourself questions along the lines of: exactly why am I learning this language, what will I do with this skill when I have it, how many hours a day/week am I going to dedicate to studying it, what level do I hope to achieve in six, nine and twelve months. If you don't have really explicit, believable and persuasive answers to these questions then I suspect that your experience with Romanian may be similar to the previous six.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:37, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

There are other reasons to study languages besides achieving fluency in them. You might just be interested in how they work, how they're put together, and how they relate to other languages. There is no goal here. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 14:49, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
In any endeavor it's usually wise to have a clear about why you are doing it.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:02, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
I want to learn one but just not sure. --Resident Evil 7 (talk) 15:40, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
There is a case for 'learning a language to the level of holiday usage and understanding general newspaper headlines/the sense of the article (general = not technical finance, sport, science, literature etc). Would this be a suitable goal? Anna Livia (talk) 19:43, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
My goal is mainly for personal enrichment. --Resident Evil 7 (talk) 01:10, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
@Smerdis of Tlön I don’t know, being ”interested in how they work, how they're put together, and how they relate to other languages” sounds like a pretty clear goal when learning a language to me(?) ScepticWombat (talk) 08:55, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Need a little help with a draft for Profound and Multiple Learning Disabilities or PMLD[edit]


I am having a difficult time finding in-depth sources for citations and with wording. --Resident Evil 7 (talk) 01:02, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

That's always the first sign that it isn't going to succeed. Andrew5 (talk) 01:13, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
I want to create the article but finding proper sources is a tedious process. --Resident Evil 7 (talk) 02:49, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Got back from the con[edit]

I'm still not feeling the greatest at the moment. I had a blast interacting with the fursuiters there, but now they've all gone home and I still haven't made a new friend in the fandom. PoorlyDrawnRockford.jpeg Rockford the Roe boop my snootpraise Oscar Wilde 21:07, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

As the great prophet Steinfeld would say... CorruptUser 21:09, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
@Rockford the Roe Con-grats! I'll stop now... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:15, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm a little envious! I wanted to go to MFF this year, but a combination of work matters and still not trusting air travel made me reconsider. Oh well, at least there's Furthemore coming up pretty soon. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 22:56, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Help needed with the Larry Sanger draft.[edit]

I created the page on Larry Sanger for more information on this crank. He has some arguments that are somehow even worse than Conservapedia’s. I didn’t even know his name before his blog was linked all the fucking time by Hindu nationalists in my country to somehow debunk all the citations Wikipedia uses. No one would had ever bothered writing a rebuttal to him if it weren’t for his status as cofounder. So I wrote one. The only problem is that my writing can get messy, incoherent, and completely devoid of humour. So that’s why I am writing here. Maybe someone else has the information, time and the creative juices to complete this article.𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 talk stalk 03:48, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Looks solid, but two things on the first paragraph that I'd change. You said that "He is less known for developing Wikipedia and more known for leaving and criticising it because of a perceived leftist bias." This is simply not true, Sanger is not as famous as Wales, but he's still one of the two founders of Wikipedia and quite famous because it (ironically how a project with an allegedly left-wing bias was created by two right-wingers). The second is when you claimed that his criticism on Wikipedia was lapped up by right-wing media on several countries. Probably true, but you'll need a source on that (I'd say at least two or three countries other than India). I'll be a bit blunt here, I think that sometimes you (as well as many others here including myself) abuse of the non neutral POV of RW and, as a result we state our opinions as facts, while relying not evidencie, but our own perception. Also, I believe that, because you said that your articles are devoid of humor, the language might also be too loaded even for RW standards. That being said, the substance of the article is overall very good (though I admit I haven't checked the sources). I think you should focus on form. GeeJayK (talk) 06:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
It looks good enough to me for mainspace as it is. I'll have a more thorough read through later. Bongolian (talk) 21:08, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
I would say at this point he is best known, in addition to his co-founder role, for: A) shitting on Wikipedia whenever he can, generally by concern trolling, and B) starting multiple "alternative" encyclopedias that all pretty much ended in failure. Generally speaking, although Sanger's always been in the "American conservative" wing, I don't recall him always criticizing it for "bias" as much back in the day. Back in 2006, the focus in the Citizendium days was a "lack of "topic experts". As Citizendium failed, the rage intensified, but 11 years ago it was so-called "child porn" on Wikipedia that he was "very concerned" about. Either way, if I see an article on Sanger, it's generally something where he bad-mouths Wikipedia for some inane reason, and promotes whatever project he is working on now. Basically a 15+ year old broken record at this point.
He rages about bias now, of course, but I half wonder if it's because this "trigger topic" gets him attention from (generally speaking) fake news sites like the Epoch Times, Daily Mail, Zero Hedge, and shitty India outlets. Of course, Sanger's Twitter feed is right wing, and in my opinion is an excellent example of someone on the political right who drifted from merely someone who babbled about Benghazi in his feed in 2010 towards incomprehensible alt-right populist insanity in the Angry Baby era, so no issue highlighting bullshit in his feed. Anyone who takes Prison Planet as a legitimate source deserves a-mockin'... PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 21:13, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I've just had my second COVID vaccine[edit]

I've just had my second VOBID vaccine and I'm feeling great.

I had the second dose at 7 o'clock this evening in my local branch of PX MartWikipedia, my favourite Taiwanese supermarket. The same supermarket I was in at the same time the day before to get my Pepsi and Pringles.

Of course, I have said that when I got my second dose, I should leave my job with my very horrible boss that my medical insurance is tied to. That was before I'd heard of booster shots... Spud (talk) 12:13, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Now you got 5G reception! Seriously though, that is good taking the vaccine. --Resident Evil 7 (talk) 18:17, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

It is December[edit]

Big blizzard projected for 7 states. Andrew5 (talk) 20:43, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

You should make this your new sign-off message, the way you did with "American time change coming up." Jake Holmesyell at me 20:51, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
America gets giant blizzards every winter. Nothing new. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄Ask about our holiday specials! 20:53, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Yes, but the blizzards frequently become notable. A comparable example to this from last year is the 2020–21 New Year's North American winter stormWikipedia. Andrew5 (talk) 21:12, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
2010-2011 was the best snow year in New England in a long while. I had to drive a 91 Geo-Prizm that I barely fit into to and from my last semester at college, and fought through several of the most serious snowstorms while doing so. Would happily take that kind of snow again, snow and ice are my favorite to photograph; partially frozen waterfalls are my ideal motif. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:56, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Articles that we should focus on[edit]

So... I'm looking for more articles that can make it to silver if not gold, because we want to have a bit more variety with the main page.

I came across our Abortion articles. Abortion and Morality of abortion are individually, Bronze articles and rather limited at that. I feel like Morality could be rolled into the abortion article, and that would be enough to be a Silver. I'm not sure if that should be done or keep it separate. It's an issue because Abortion really is a Gold-level topic for us, especially now that SCOTUS is considering altering Roe v Wade again. Thoughts?

As I find more I may bring them up here. CorruptUser 20:52, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Our wiki has a major gap in abortion coverage in a few aspects, but the biggest one IMO is the lack of anything addressing the discredited link between abortion and breast cancer. Our article is so meager for what I see is a relatively common talking point among the so-called "pro-life" movement. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 01:45, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

A BBC journalist purposely picked r/detrans[edit]

A BBC journalist, which has been overtaken by TERF propaganda, purposely cherry-picked a hate forum r/detrans in order to get a transphobic take on detransition. This was to be expected from the BBC. The source can be found here, along with moderator whining about posts created by trans people and supporters that refute her bullshit. hopeful taste (she/her) (talk) 01:18, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

TERF island strikes again! Britbongs have always been the biggest transphobes (that heat map of TERFs around the world essentially being a large British light kills me every time). I've given up on journalistic integrity on trans people from British sources. It's just too ingrained in their culture at this point. armed_roomba (she/her)What am I doing wrong this time? 01:42, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
'purposely cherry-picked a hate forum r/detrans] in order to get a transphobic take on detransition' this is dogshit. from their post 'this work will not take a view on transitioning itself: it is purely interested in the work of the service and how it has evolved - operating as it has done as the only NHS gender clinic for children and young people.'
it is also false that detrans is the sole forum they have sought information and is easily shown as by by clicking on the journo's name.
these claims are unvarnished dogshit unsupported by anything that was in the original post or anything at all anywhere. this kind of egregious dishonesty and the regurgitating of lies as unquestioned fact does nothing but play into terf claims of cults generate acrimony. the op should be ashamed of themselves AMassiveGay (talk) 13:02, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
oh and 'britbong'. weird racism/xenophobia. charming. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:20, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Stupid insults aside, I am actually curious why of all things it is British "mainstream" media that has either produced some horrible takes on trans issues lately, or has been over-bleating their single-minded viewpoint that no one gives a shit about after the nth article on the subject. You'd expect dogshit like the Daily Mail to be weird about it, but some respectable sources have also been producing crap lately. The Economist for instance has lately been kind of bad about this lately, not that all of their takes are horrible mind you (some of the issues raised are legit). But they certainly have lately been wasting a lot of space on this issue, and reporting exclusively from one side only. (In this case there is definitely an editor at the EconomistWikipedia to pinpoint for their curious editorial direction). If it were just one magazine, that'd be one thing, but there also have been some shit takes in others, too. Such as the aforementioned BBC shit article, or The Guardian, who a couple months back used the murder of Sarah EverardWikipedia to make a rather non-sequitur take on the bathroom debate (as, er, if the two relate, how?) It's a strange enough phenomenon where it was easy to find a year-old article about the transphobia of British media by a Canadian LGBTQ alt-news source called Xtra and even a recent article by CNN (although the CNN article is kind of a shit article in itself). If the Xtra article is right, what's different here is that the shit trans takes are driven more by British feminism, which (if the take is correct) is a little more unusually TERF oriented then other nations for some reason, tending to play up women's supposed fragility and need for safe spaces, and tending to stereotype trans men as predators. So you find shit trans takes in places you wouldn't expect. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 14:54, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

She apparently posted in transgenderUK too, https://www.reddit.com/user/HSBarnes/ all her posts are currently removed. Ideally she shouldn't have been using detrans as a source at all, considering its unreliability. There were complaints about her twitter account apparently being anti-trans too, so I guess we should look at that. Take into account this amidst another controversy about the BBC, but I'll talk about that later on.

https://twitter.com/hannahsbee Looking at her twitter you can see that she has been active on the transgender case back in 2020 reporting on it since October, I didn't see any personal comments, though it seems like she's reporting mostly on the side of Hyam. You can dig through it if you want. As for the claim that "She didn't ignore other people" @AMassiveGay, if you mean her reddit profile, look at the dates of the posts. It was until three days ago true, that for an entire week she had only posted on r/detrans on that account, unless you mean some other account than her reddit. It was her first choice, and it isn't a very good one.

I think Hannah is just a yes man for the BBC really, she seems to spin the BBC in a positive light and why wouldn't she? Brown-nosing your bosses is probably an easy way to get ahead, referring to how "brave" the BBC was on reporting on Jimmy Savile's behaviour and all (ignoring that other news agencies were reporting on that well before the BBC gave a shit). But hay, go BBC I guess? As for the controversy:

Trans people don't want to talk to the BBC, they just got called sexual predators by them, even on going to TransgenderUK, you can clearly see that trans people are disgusted with the BBC, and I don't blame them. I don't think they should take the BBC seriously, I don't. If you want to know what the BBC thinks of something, you might as well ask Boris since he has the influence to decide whether or not what they think is deserving of pay (how the fuck anyone thinks that the BBC won't regurgitate establishment views on something is beyond me, too much conflict of interest to remain impartial). BumblingBuffoon (talk) 15:57, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

bullshit is all i can say to that AMassiveGay (talk) 17:04, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
It presents the inherent problems of cherrypicking. Are there Transwomen who pressure others into sex? Obviously yes. But how frequently are Lesbians really pressured into sex from Transwomen? Are Transwomen actually any more aggressive than any other group? If they are just as aggressive as, say, Men in general, does this imply that society is accidentally conditioning men to be more aggressive sexually, and this is a lesson that carries over after transition? It's probably an important area of discussion, but obviously not one that can be easily done without controversy, obviously. CorruptUser 20:18, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
that isnt the issue here. its the unquestioning acceptance as fact unsupported bullshit purely because of who it involves. further more the digging into the journo's twitter to justify claims that dont stand up on their own is more baseless assertions and misrepresentations this time attacking the journos character personally, while ignoring the masses of tweets concerning tavistock gids that serve to confirm her stated interests in her request for info. it would even suggest why detrans was the original target for the request, considering the recent court judgement and successful appeal. i recommend reading up on the subject for its relevance here. the claims made generally about bbc are more baseless assertions that fail to justify the original claims.
the only factual claim here is that transpeople are pissed at the bbc over a piece egregiously one sided and of dubious veracity. the bbc deserves the anger directed at it over this piece. but it was in no way typical of the bbc's output around trans issues, it not evidence of the bbc being overtaken by terf propaganda. it is evidence only that in this case they fucked up. assertions to contrary are self defeating as well as false. if stridently declaring they have a 'terf agenda' means you dont engage with the bbc, refuse to talk to them, then they cant report on trans issues from a trans perspective. on the other hand, talk to them, and the terfs perspective gets crowded out.
ultimately, claims made here were obvious bullshit. if they came from the other direction, they would have been dismissed as obvious bullshit. but they didnt come from the other direction. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:22, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Looking at people's past history is entirely reasonable and normal to get a sense of what they really think about people and whatever prejudices they might have. Lily Cade was found to be a rapist herself, which is why she was removed from the BBC article on transgender people, do you think they should readd her to the article because recognizing her past is 'poisoning the well'? BumblingBuffoon (talk) 21:12, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
looking at peoples past is useful to get a handle on someones character, but you know what? its only useful if you dont just twist what you find to fit your preconceived ideas of their character. thats what you did. twisting what you found to fit your assumption that they are a bad person, that are someone not to be trusted. its hardly going to be a revelation to anyone that a senior editor of newsnight is pro bbc. its a pity the tweet you highlight to show her 'brown nosing' and proof she is just a yes man didnt actually crow about the bbc's bravery over the jimmy savile affair at all. it crowed about the bravery of 2 bbc staffers. 'how two bbc journalists risked their jobs to reveal the truth about jimmy savile' is what she tweeted. its the headline of story in guardian and link to it. the two bbc journalists, it should be noted were the two journalists who broke that story. the guardian had done article about the affair. it does not make the bbc look good. from tweeting this story about one of the bbc's more shameful periods that they would probably rather we all forgot about, you declare her a brown nosing yes man. its like you went looking for something to throw at her but couldnt find anything so just made something up to fit this one tweet if you squinted would look like it says what you claimed.
looking at peoples past is useful, but not so useful if you cant find any of the dirt you wanted i guess. you didnt even look too deep, or you would have seen a shit ton of tweets about the tavistock GIDS court case and the appeal that followed. evidence of what she had declared an interest in her reddit request for information.
i guess you couldnt find anything transphobic or anything to throw shade with so you just misrepresented the first tweet you found that could possibly be given a negative spin. then added some the standard arse insinuating the bbc is just a government mouthpiece.
aside from being baseless arse, this attempt at discrediting the journalist even if true would not have made the claims that open this thread any less bullshit. it would not have given any kind of validity to that bullshit. it does not address anything that was in the original reddit post and at no point have you either. there was nothing in that post to justify the unthinking self righteous fury its provoked so you've had to look elsewhere to defend a meritless overreaction. 'poisoning the well' is exactly what you've attempted to do, but you've made up the poison yourself. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:07, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
I checked to see if there was any clear transphobia and couldn't find any at a glance, it was my opinion that someone who works for the BBC is in a position to have a biased perspective for the BBC, so it did not surprise me to see them posting about how "awesome and good their journalists are", but that doesn't seem like an error on my part. You generally don't listen to people trying to sell themselves to you and defer to outside opinions because other people tend to have a more honest opinion that is unclouded by self-preferential biases. I didn't even read the original reddit post and I have made no claims to, I haven't referenced the original post either. I have no clue who you are attacking, all I did was point out that the original poster you were angry at was not incorrect at a certain point in time that she only bothered to check with /r/detrans. Given timestamps of events, it was a simple fact she only posted in detrans. BumblingBuffoon (talk) 04:21, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

On Monday, my 5G reception improves![edit]

Me and my family are getting the COVID-19 booster shots. At least it will reduce my odds of getting COVID and getting a depopulation drug and mark of the beast and better 5G reception. --Resident Evil 7 (talk) 18:16, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Got the booster last week. Took me about five days to completely overcome the secondary effects - but I guess that means I has a strong immune response. My wife, on the other arm, had the flu and Covid booster on the same day and had no reaction at all.
Anyway, my Covid protection status is now: natural infection followed by two widely spaced AZ and then a Moderna booster three months later. Still wearing a mask though.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 20:55, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Hey, good for you and your family! I got the booster as well; for me, the side effects were somewhat more intense than the previous two doses, but they cleared up rather quickly (Not that I really give a shit about side effects lmao, I'd rather have an annoying immunogenic response than COVID-19). Have fun with the 5G upgrade...--April Chat? 03:45, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
"but I guess that means I has a strong immune response" Vaccines work by priming the adaptive immune system to immediately eliminate pathogens if they are encountered in the future. This process takes several days from the administration of a vaccine, and does not produce overt symptoms. Any short-term side effects are specifically not the vaccine doing its job, and all such side effects without exception are things that a vaccine shouldn't be doing. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 12:55, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
To clarify, my understanding is that the initial vaccine side effects (called reactogenicityWikipedia) is often immune system related. However, as per this Wapo article, the initial response (whether dramatic or nothing) doesn't really have anything to do with the eventual immunity (called the adaptive response), at least according to current information, and as the BoN describes.
I likewise have also gotten a booster and flu shot, with no side effects. However, due to the global chip shortage, I unfortunately got the Boss MT-2 "Metal Zone" guitar pedal chip instead of a 5G chip upgrade. So now, instead of being able to connect to the Internet to download porn and fake news at high rates of speed, I am limited to attracting amateur guitarists who endlessly attempt bad noodlings of Sweet Child of Mine. The horror... PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 15:17, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
I hope the 5G boost improves the internet on my phone. --Resident Evil 7 (talk) 18:03, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Calling all Biomedical Science nerds[edit]

Okay, if a trans person is undergoing hormone therapy but has cancer at the same time, could hormones accelerate the rate of cancer growth? I first heard something like that off an episode of Grey's Anatomy in which a trans women who had cancer but was taking hormones. The plastic surgeon tells the trans woman's cancer was growing at an accelerated rate. Is that possible (no I am not doing hormone therapy, just a curiosity). --Resident Evil 7 (talk) 02:48, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Several human hormones are known to be carcinogenic (Appeal to nature#Carcinogens), but it's rather unlikely that there's evidence that there's a known hormone-cancer-trans connection simply because of low numbers for doing an analysis. That said, it's plausible that an MD might advise against hormone treatment during cancer therapy out of an abundance of caution. Bongolian (talk) 07:39, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Some things can also mask the development of cancers, at least if not reported. As an example, I take finasteride to keep my hair from falling out, and it's sometimes used off-label for MTF transitioning; among other things it alters PSA levels, which isn't a big deal as long as you tell your doctor you're taking it. If you do they can recalibrate the test so it's just as effective, but if not it can prevent early detection of certain kinds of prostate cancer. Given that the doctor overseeing hormone therapy might not be the one who prescribed finasteride (for hair loss in men or hirsutism in women you'd usually get it from your GP or a dermatologist, for BPH you'd get it from a urologist), if the patient doesn't report it that could be a significant risk. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:35, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
I asked because trans people who take hormones they order from the internet due to stigma (Can't blame them), there is a chance that the place you get hormones from might not have full medical information. Something like getting over the counter hormones without medical supervision due to stigma is an issue in the trans community. As long as stigma continues and repressive laws remain in place, there is a bigger chance of someone transitioning without any proper medical supervision. --Resident Evil 7 (talk) 23:08, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
presumably, if you are taking a medication that has not been prescribed, chances are the effects your meds are having on body wont be adequately monitored. regular check ups will spot problems before they become serious. without checkups, you often wont know your meds are causing problems until those problems have progressed enough to where the negative effects on your health are noticable and actually making you seriously ill.
as an example, i take meds for hiv. i was told they were having a negative effect on my liver. spotted from regular check ups something that i could in no way 'feel' was happening and by the time my liver would be damaged enough for me to feel it was damaged, it would be seriously, irreversibly damaged.
and thats issues that may arise when you are certain you are getting the meds that paid for, at the strength and quality you paid for.
its not so much stigma thats the issue here, but the hoops you might be required to jump through before you are prescribed hormone therapy, requiring time lived as desired gender, various psyche reports from varying professionals, difficulty accessing relevant professionals for any part of the process, cost and availability of what can be offered, reluctance of your dr to prescribe things they have little training in or experience, etc. as with all things healthcare, the harder it is access the care you require, the more likely you will end up going through less regulated riskier routes to required care. transgender hormone therapy has more hurdles than most to access from fewer providers offering it, thus more people compelled to take risks.
and of course if you've been refused the treatment for sound medical reasons, it would be unwise to pursue such treatment from alternative avenues. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:20, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
I do feel sympathy for those who are refused hormone therapy for non-medical reasons i.e. bigotry. It causes trans people to take high risks with transition. I suspect that many cases are simply human rights violations. --Resident Evil 7 (talk) 18:12, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

According to the NCI which is a government institute and (probably) credible in this field, estrogen is a known carcinogen and they advise talking to your doctor. But having said that, clearly the risks of cancer do not outweigh the benefits of hormone therapies, as these connections would've been known for many years and simplifying this; your doctors and medical experts would have banned or lobbied for the banning of hormone therapies because of a bad cost-benefit analysis against them. They didn't, so you can assume that the health experts have done their job. That's the easy answer anyway, and it's good 'nuff. BumblingBuffoon (talk) 04:13, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

If this coupon was real, all trans people would be happy.
Perfect for any trans person

--Resident Evil 7 (talk) 18:09, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Spiritual bigotry, spiritual whiteness...[edit]

I've been mulling over the bigotry of cultic spiritual groups and gurus. RationalWiki focuses a lot on plain old racism, which is often straightforwardly bigotry connected to physical appearance. But there's other, maybe older and more basic, forms of bigotry, springing straight from the tribalistic mentality that so easily forms in groups. When the intangible, invisible nature of one type of person is better because the authority says so... Of course, antisemitism is a prominent example of the combination of both worlds, "spiritual racism" and physical racism.

I wrote a little about "organic portals", aka "the other spiritual race", before; this conspirituality modernization of an old idea connected to some Christian thought can be found here and there where modern us vs. them attitudes thrive. Sometimes, there's speculation about genes and spiritual nature. Which types of genes go along with the best and brightest souls? And there's New Age ideas of invisible extra strands of DNA which give some people better natures, but which e.g. evil vaccines can destroy. It is also recognized in the alt-right "NPC meme".

Of course, here at RationalWiki we can be more equal; we are all damned, after all. None of us are spiritually white. Unless some or another of us has that terrible, burning bright light to us which belongs to the evil side, which happens to be the wrong light, hiding a hidden darkness.

Some further systematization of spiritual bigotries could be interesting on RW. I think it deserves a more organized coverage just as much as plain old physical racism does. I mean beyond the obvious already-there stuff connected mostly to Christianity. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 19:42, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Go ahead and make some articles (as long as they are part of the RW mission, have proper sources and no plagiarism). --Resident Evil 7 (talk) 19:59, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
What does "spiritual" even mean?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 20:46, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Just something mental and/or emotional, but rebranded in order to be given more respect than either because "religion is always good".-Ryan1257 (talk) 21:33, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
On articles, I've been lacking a clear sense of a starting point for expanding or adding something on this. I think "organic portals" is too specific, while most of my thinking is too broad and sweeping; I lack a mid-sized area to zoom in on. On "spiritual", I basically meant religious and #2 here, i.e. also the same thing outside a recognized religion.
Earlier, I wrote a little article on "conspirituality". This is related, I also have in mind a seeming recent growth in spiritual bigotry along with polarization of attitudes and a culture war. The thoughts also go to "spiritual evolution" and "spiritual warfare", since this stuff is tied to non-material differences in how "evolved"/at which "level" people are at, and also the great battle between good and evil, as viewed by each little bigoted spiritual group (and divisive views in large religions as well, it's the same story, especially in past ages). Fittingly, "bigotry" mentions that a bigot used to mean a religious hypocrite. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 22:14, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
It seems to me that "Spirituality" is really a code word-for smuggling spirits, gods, magic or new-age woo into conversations. It's just some hyper-generalized feel-nice non-word.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:43, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Yes. Unexpressed bigotry is not well described as "spiritual." Baptists hate Mormons, Michiganders hated Ohio State football fans, and there ain't nothin' you can do about it.UncleKrampus (talk) 18:41, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Eh? I suppose I may have failed to get across a clear point, otherwise I don't understand the objection, if it is an objection to a point I made rather than just musing about the word "spiritual". I used two words together to describe something a bit more general than religious bigotry connected to a specific religion, and yet, more specific than bigotry between groups in general. Why try to describe things in such a way? Because I think woo-woo bigotry (if you want to call it that instead, and I basically mean bigotry tied to an inflamed woo-woo imagination and beliefs) is on the rise, in significant part as a mass cultural export from the US.

Maybe what I should really focus on is a link between conspirituality and bigotry. And, well, that's really an exploration of how conspiracism is tied to bigotry, and spirituality is tied to bigotry, and how spirituality is like gasoline and conspiracism is like fire when they mix, or something like that. The resulting heat being tribalism, cultural rifts, and a war-like mentality. Well, that's my sloppy intuition about it. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 20:51, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Reverse logic[edit]

Is there a proper name for 'if the politicians/pundits/others deny something (that they have done, government and other policy etc) three (or several) times it is probably true' and reactions thereto. Thus, for example - 'the government has said there will be no further lockdowns so often it is best to start preparing for it.' (The 'write three letters' joke is probably connected to the concept.) Anna Livia (talk) 12:44, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

This isn't a formal fallacy or a general rule (as it is certainly not always the case) so there isn't a term for this in the world of logic at least. Though yeah, it is pretty often true, especially when denying something likely or difficult or controversial. ShabiDOO 12:55, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Somewhat reminiscent of when a football manager (US soccer) is publicly given "the full support of the management team". Before being sacked the next day obviously.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 13:11, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
It's called "the reverse ferret" Cardinal Chang (talk) 15:23, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Cardinal ShabiDOO 16:02, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Welcome Cardinal Chang (talk) 16:21, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Taken to the extreme, it's the big lie. Bongolian (talk) 21:28, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
isnt reverse ferret just a uturn and such like? i read whats being suggested by anna as something else - the stronger the denial or assertion by the government then the opposite is likely true. 'doth protest too much' sort of thing. isnt that just run of the mill cynicism, with varying degrees of validity depending on the situation? AMassiveGay (talk) 22:11, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Boris saying there will be no lockdowns, there will be no increase in social precautions. Next day, reverse ferret, there are lockdowns, masks and covid passports. He even uses the phrase himself https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-56054637 It does seem to have expanded beyond the original wind up of a Sun editor, but nowt new there with regards to Private Eye and it's many wind upsCardinal Chang (talk) 22:22, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Boris was a newspaper journalist, so of course. Collins' example:"...his newspaper’s job was to provoke public figures...( i.e.) “stick a ferret down their trousers”.When...public opinion...turned against The Sun, he would announce a change with the shout “reverse ferret!”. UncleKrampus (talk) 23:08, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Everybody is familiar with the practice (and [1] is related) but there does not seem to be an obvious name. Anna Livia (talk) 10:34, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Protesting too much. (talk) 22:19, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

People are generally optimistic, but the problem is they can also be unrealistic. The line between optimism and narcissism can seem quite thin, and from what I can tell the easiest way to people's hearts is to bullshit them with how awesome you are. BumblingBuffoon (talk) 04:24, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Pointless poll about South American dictators[edit]

I'm not surprised that Pinochet is winning by a landslide (even down here he would probably win), but people voting for him are misguided. He was a terrible dictator, indeed, being responsible for over 2000 deaths during 19 years of terror. Meanwhile, the Dirty WarWikipedia in Argentina resulted in 9k to 30k deaths in only seven years! I know, we cannot judge dictatorships by the death toll alone (I don't think Mao was as bad as Hitler and Stalin, even though he killed more than any of them), but the Argentina of Videla and Galtieri stands as one of the worst regimes in the history of Latin America along the ones in Cuba, Guatemala and Haiti. IMO maybe you guys should reconsider your votes. GeeJayK (talk) 17:37, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

ranking dictators or the atrocities their regimes are responsible for is a pretty dumb and worthless endeavour imho. it tells us nothing of value adding nothing to our understanding that might prevent such things occurring. its of little comfort to anyone tortured and murdered by one regime that another is somehow worse according to some random poll. by what metric makes one group of murdering cunts better or worse than another? their politics? their dashing uniforms? ignorance of the other contenders?
at some point whatever metric you use, however they are ranked, however well they did in a poll, better or worse is redundant when they are all a bunch of murdering cunts. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:30, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
You could always use "effect on their countries." By that metric for instance Mao was worse then Stalin because the former left China in a state of chaos which it took a good deal of work to recover from while Stalin left the Soviets a (horrifically repressive) superpower. Hitler was also worse than both in this regard because he led his country to a lopsided, devastating defeat in war which shattered its unity.-Flandres (talk) 19:45, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
where does leave the ones that managed to get the trains to run on time? or pinochet's supposed economic miracle, for example? AMassiveGay (talk) 19:51, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
As for your first question...that's pretty obvious given that I just said "rank them by effectiveness." As for the second one, I don't have enough background knowlege to really judge personally.-Flandres (talk) 19:59, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Pinochet was a bit more complicated than just running the trains. Allende's last major act was to collectivize the farmland, which should terrify absolutely anyone who's ever opened a 20th century history book. Allende was also moving towards dictatorship as well, making journalists disappear and bullying opponents out of office. Sure, it's always a question of "what if", but had Allende remained in power, Chile would likely have turned into Venezuela. Pinochet happened to skip the slow move towards dictatorship and committed mass murders, and simply made potential opponents go away. The whole "rape with animals" thing crossed some sort of line; while the "raped by dogs" thing only comes from a single dubious account, there are numerous accounts of other forms of rape and having spiders and rats shoved into uncomfortable places, so there is no universe where Pinochet's regime can be called "good". But let's not pretend Chile would've been fine without the CIA getting involved, and in the end, he did allow Chile to transition back into a functioning Democracy. I'd rate him as one of those "least disgusting turd in the porta-potty of dictators". CorruptUser 20:13, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm going to guess that Pinochet is winning this poll namely by "name recognition"... for some reason my impression is that Pinochet is more known in the US political scene. (Perhaps because Pinochet's embrace of Chicago school economics won support and swoons from certain political pundits like William F. Buckley, who were all too happy to demonstrate what his vision of "conservative" "freedom" is like I guess :p ). Some right-wing Latin American dictatorial atrocities I think are far worse (for instance the Guatemalan Civil WarWikipedia) but are difficult to pinpoint on one single person, so maybe Pinochet's longevity is an additional factor.
If we're going to go with "overall effect on countries", however, I'd like to nominate the United States government itself, due to the sheer amount of generally brutal right-wing Latin American dictators, fascist regimes, and coups they supported in the last century. (Not that the left-wing dictators were a better lot by any means, many were equally as shitty. But America was fucking up regime change long before Iraq and Afghanistan, as a sobering look at all the despots the US supported in Latin America proves...) PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 20:51, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
It was all of NATO and the Warsaw Pact. The regimes propped up by NATO were generally better, but when it's your son that gets shot in the head you aren't going to care if this happened to "only" 25,000 or 50,000 others. CorruptUser 20:58, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
I like how you have said in other threads that the USA is basically the beating heart of NATO, so those smug-yet-weak Europeans should shut up because they survive only with the security of our bloated military...but then give them equal agency when it's time to admit responsibility for supporting tyrannical madmen across the planet.-Flandres (talk) 21:45, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
It's varied throughout time. Prior to 1992, all NATO countries except Luxembourg were funding it at 2+%, Britain and France were still very much important members. Both countries were also desperately trying to hold onto their empires and puppet states for decades before eventually giving up. Since the end of the Cold War, however, the US has shifted from merely being the largest player in NATO to the dominant force. The Shah was predominantly the fault of the British with the US giving some support, France was involved in Indochina before the US had to stick its dick in it, both were playing games with the Suez against the wishes/knowledge of the US, etc.CorruptUser 23:07, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Big tornado outbreak[edit]

See article and we also have a 15% risk area which is kinda a lot. Andrew5 (talk) 19:54, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Update - Over 70 reported dead in outbreak, mainly believed to have been when a catastrophic tornado hit Mayfield, KY. Andrew5 (talk) 17:03, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
This is terrible...may everyone who perished rest in peace.--April Chat? 17:30, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
If there ever was a good argument for mandatory residential storm shelters, here's one.--April Chat? 17:33, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Also, why the FUCK were 110 people in a candle factory during a TORNADO OUTBREAK!??!--April Chat? 17:36, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
I believe it was because they were forced to still be working. After this, they need to improve working codes to allow them to evacuate. The Amazon warehouse in the Illinois killing two wasn't even the first time it happened. Two died on November 2, 2018 in a similar tornado (rated EF1) in Baltimore. Andrew5 (talk) 17:43, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
My Great Grandmother was friends with some of the girls that worked in the Triangle Shirt factory. This whole idea of being forced to work when they should be evacuating? Ugh, those workers need to unionize ASAP. CorruptUser 17:57, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
I can't believe how normalized people are to an economic system that values surplus value above all else. Every damn factory should be unionized.--April Chat? 22:45, 11 December 2021 (UTC)


Surplus value is the entire point of work. Even if we go by Marx's time-value of labor, if I spend 1000 hours working at a job, if I only get services/goods in return that I could've done myself in 900 hours I've wasted my time. The problem is when either the value isn't measured properly or the costs are not represented in the prices (externalities and so forth). CorruptUser 00:02, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Stanislav's post on the line was near a window. That's how he knew it had been three days since he'd entered the factory. He'd watched the sun set twice, and now the light was beginning to fade again.

Yesterday he'd considered jumping out the window, but he knew it was too high. Now he would've jumped anyway if he could muster the strength to smash the glass, but he couldn't. All he had the strength to do was repeat the same robotic motion of feeding bullets into ammunition clips. It took all his concentration to stay conscious and continue to work. The exhaustion, the hunger, and worst of all the thirst were eating away at his mind and body, but resting would only bring death quicker. Poor Boris found that out the hard way. He'd fallen asleep at his post for a few minutes when one of the guards spotted him. He didnt even shake Boris awake before shooting him through the temple and storming off. That was yesterday morning. Boris's corpse still lay on the floor next to Stanislav, slowly putrefying, a reminder of the consequences for slothfulness.

With the little sanity Stanislav retained, he still wondered why this was happening. The day it began had been no different from any other. After 14 hours of exhausting work he'd seen one of the guards answer a phone. He hadn't heard any of the conversation, but the guard appeared frightened. No announcement was ever made, but when time came for the shift to end the whistle to dismiss them hadn't sounded. They continued to work, and the guards continued to watch them. It was two hours before someone got up to ask when the shift would end. A guard killed her for leaving her post, and made it clear anyone who stopped working could expect the same. Stanislav had accepted then he was never going to see his son again. He was going to die in this cramped, noisy building in the next few days. Either he would fall asleep and be disposed of like Boris, or his thirst would get the better of him and his organs would shut down. Some primal instinct told him that moment was not long off now. He only wished someone would tell him why this happened. All he wanted now was a reason.

He would not get one. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄Ask about our holiday specials! 18:35, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Duce, I think you're in the wrong section. Andrew5 (talk) 19:38, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
I was responding to people suffering in factories with a quote from the New Order. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄Ask about our holiday specials! 20:06, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Rest in peace to anyone who died in the tornado outbreak. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 21:16, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
"If there ever was a good argument for mandatory residential storm shelters, here's one" A shelter capable of withstanding a direct hit from a tornado is not a trivial thing. Virtually nothing meant to be an occupied space is built to that standard, what with windows and ventilation being popular features among occupants, and the required structure being far more expensive than normal construction for an event that the vast majority of structures will never encounter. Leaving aside who is supposed to pay for a miniature bunker (yes, an actual bunker) in every home, such a mandate would effectively outlaw mobile homes, since tornado shelters need to be anchored to or embedded within the ground. Not all bad things in the world can be eliminated, and not all risks should be addressed with hasty government mandates. Current first-world building codes already provide adequate protection from the sorts of storms that residential structures are likely to encounter.
"why the FUCK were 110 people in a candle factory during a TORNADO OUTBREAK!??!" Because tornado outbreaks happen all the time in the Midwest. States not particularly known for tornados may still have a dozen ot two per year, and they can happen at any time of day or night without much warning. It's not practical for everyone to drop what they're doing (and drive away?) every time a tornado warning is issued for their area (a warning indicates that there is an actual tornado present). Most people in a tornado warning area will never see the tornado, and they're not exactly subtle things. Further, running outside is the opposite of seeking shelter from a tornado. The main hazard is generally blown debris, and nearly any structure is better than none. Factories in particular are typically strong structures with few windows. A large factory will typically have a designated tornado shelter in a relatively small windowless room like a bathroom. If you think that this situation is inappropriate, what is your proposal to replace it?
"I believe it was because they were forced to still be working." "Stanislav's post on the line was near a window." Stanislov and co. are slaves forced to work at gunpoint, with people who refuse or who are no longer physically capable of working summarily executed. The candle factory workers were paid employees who could have left at any time, but who judged the compensation to be worth it. What precisely is your criticism here? 192․168․1․42 (talk) 22:03, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
I wasn’t criticizing anything. I was making a TNO reference. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄Ask about our holiday specials! 01:02, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
It was pretty easy for me to Google the Kentucky Building Code. It was pretty easy for me to find that Section 423 in the code contains storm shelters for certain classifications of buildings (Group E, educational buildings). Apparently this was adapted recently. Given that there's some signs that the traditional "tornado alley" of the US is shifting east, a mandatory storm shelter code requirement perhaps is worthwhile to discuss for other classifications of business (such as their "Group B", business buildings, with certain occupancy levels) in states that may be more impacted by severe storms in the future. The mobile home comparison is not applicable here.
We will have to find further details, but I would think it would be bonkers if work actually continued during a full-on tornado warning if the area the candle factory was in was considered unsafe. However, this doesn't seem to be the case. It's pretty clear that this factory was on a 24/7 shift schedule for the Christmas holidays. And per one report, the workers were indeed in the designated safe area for storms when the tornado hit. It just wasn't enough in this case. So I can't really say anymore here, since you obviously can't armchair quarterback building design and safety codes. It doesn't sound like, at the moment anyway, that there was an issue with the company, although those investigating further (which I'm sure will happen) may or may not find out more. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 02:13, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
That is true. According to Tornado outbreak of December 10–11, 2021Wikipedia, which is being updated frequently, there were 35 confirmed deaths, I believe 11 in this tornado. This is because 11 died in the Bowling Green tornado, 6 died in the Madison County tornado, the Defiance, MO tornado killed one, and the "Tri-State tornado of 2021" killed 5. The Mayfield one is estimated to have killed 70 or more, so I guess the outbreak is estimated to have killed 89? Somehow the Mayfield tornado is currently just an EF3, but it is an EF3+, meaning an upgrade to EF4 or EF5 is totally within the question. The Tornado outbreak of March 3, 2019 § Beauregard–Smiths Station, Alabama/Talbotton, GeorgiaWikipedia tornado actually started out as EF3+ and is currently rated EF4, which itself caused 23 deaths and catastrophic damage in eastern Alabama. Andrew5 (talk) 02:25, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
"I was making a TNO reference." Yes, in response to "people suffering in factories". How is that supposed to be pertinent to this situation?
"The mobile home comparison is not applicable here." AprilIsTrying proposed just above here a mandate of residential storm shelters with the implication that they should be capable of withstanding a direct hit from a tornado. Mobile homes are residences. Such a mandate would in effect be a ban on mobile homes because they don't have sufficient foundations to mount such a shelter.
"since you obviously can't armchair quarterback building design and safety codes." Yes you can. That's generally how current codes came about in the first place. The metaphorical quarterbacks in the field at the time of code-shaping incidents often didn't survive. The situation here is fairly straightforward. A tornado struck a factory, killing some people inside because the building was not capable of withstanding a direct hit from a tornado. Constructing storm shelters capable of withstanding tornados in every place of work is technically possible but extremely expensive. So as a cost-benefit decision, is it a good idea to require such a thing considering other uses to which those resources could be put? Keep in mind that in the US, the long-term average annual fatalities for tornados is similar to the average annual fatalities from lightning strikes (a few dozen in a typical year). Do you think it would be more beneficial to direct a few trillion dollars towards, say, reducing medical errors? 192․168․1․42 (talk) 08:13, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Really, an EF5, like a category 5 hurricane, destroys everything in it's path. We've seen that with the 2013 Moore tornadoWikipedia, 2011 Joplin tornadoWikipedia and 2011 Hackleburg tornadoWikipedia. It's just that they're rare. Only in the Miami metro are they protected from a cat 5. Now, this tornado has a preliminary rating of EF3+. Some tornadoes that start out this way become EF4, and EF4 would justify some of this damage more. Some don't, such as the Winter Storm Uri tornado that killed 3 people. A lot of people thought it might become an EF4, but it wasn't. The winds indicated EF5, but we strictly use damage, not winds. We will see what happens when the ratings come out. ANd tbh, the WIkipedia article is currently a complete mess. But it appears we have 83 confirmed deaths. Andrew5 (talk) 13:23, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
If the House can propose a 770 billion dollar budget on the Pentagon, 2.3 trillion dollars on the war in Afghanistan (before it ended), have a proposed 49.7 billion dollar budget for the Department of Homeland Security, have our country at large spend at least 81 billion on mass incarceration, and have the federal government raise the debt ceiling whenever deemed necessary, we can definitely pay for mandated storm shelters. It's merely a matter of government priorities. Additionally, do you understand that nothing is as simple as "the workers wanted to continue working?" "The candle factory workers were paid employees who could have left at any time, but who judged the compensation to be worth it. What precisely is your criticism here?" When you're on the job, you cannot stop working whenever you please and return home or elsewhere without facing repercussions. You have to keep working till your shift is complete. You can't blame workers for something out of their control! People should not have been working during this patent threat. The Storm Prediction Center clearly showed a high chance of tornadoes in a large portion of the south, which evidently included the factory. Subsequently, a tornado watch was issued for parts of Arkansas, Mississippi, Tennessee, Missouri, Illinois, Kentucky and Indiana. This would have been a good time to send people home. If not feasible, then there should have been better storm shelters. At least in-ground shelters using steel, placed some ways from the factory. To clarify, no, it's not safe to drive during a tornado warning. Debris is extremely dangerous, therefore, an underground, steel storm shelter should have been within a close distance to the factory. If you are about to argue that it'd be utopic to have factories comply with basic meteorology, we literally have technology that can warn you whenever there's a weather warning in your area. These radios sound an alarm whenever there's a severe thunderstorm warning, tornado watch, tornado warning, etc, thus alerting everybody within the vicinity. There are also tornado sirens, which are only meant to alert people outside, but can still indicate that work should cease. In summary, my point was; we already had the capabilities to possibly prevent this from becoming a tragedy, why didn't we utilize them? With regards to mobile homes...yeah, I believe people shouldn't live in such abject and minuscule housing. They should be provided with safer, larger housing, and housing should be reckoned as a human right.--April Chat? 15:41, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Yes, but Kentucky hasn't been hit by tornadoes recently. One reason why the 1998 Kissimmee tornado outbreakWikipedia was so bad was because people in Florida only rarely get tornadoes, so they aren't well built for them. Same for the November 1989 tornado outbreakWikipedia (specifically, the NY torado). Tornadoes are rare here in NY, so schools weren't built for them. Kentucky used to recieve a lot more tornadoes but I guess was spared recently. IIRC the last major tornado to hit was in 2012. Before this. Andrew5 (talk) 19:13, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Are you an architect or otherwise involved in the commercial building industry, BoN? That was more what I was meaning by "we can't armchair quarterback this". It certainly is in my opinion worth discussing costs and benefits of building codes, but I am not in a great technical position to do so, and I suspect that neither are you. Kentucky decided that the expense of adding a dedicated tornado shelter to new school buildings (which one article did estimate added $1 million to the cost) was worth it. We are talking double-digit million dollar facilities, of course, and people put a premium on children's lives in the United States (except for guns :p ). I can see the conversation extending to double-digit to triple-digit million dollar places of business. But I'm not in a great position to say one way or another.
One tidbit that I did find Googling is that the American Society of Civil EngineersWikipedia recently updated their guidelines to include resistance to tornadoes. Apparently tornado resistance really wasn't a consideration prior to this year because tornadoes were considered too rare and too extreme. However, recent research from NIST (National Institute of Standards and TechnologyWikipedia) suggested that some wind hardening was economically viable to prevent building damage from lower wind speeds not in the direct path or a tornado (or in a lower strength tornado), which they claim was 70% of all damage. So the ASCE updated the 2022 building guidelines to reflect this. This isn't the same thing as adding a tornado shelter to every building, which probably would be cost prohibitive. Perhaps some of these wind hardening tactics can be applied to older buildings as well. As ASCE / NIST is in a much better position to advise this sort of thing, I consider this a good answer for "what next". PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 20:32, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── "It's merely a matter of government priorities" Obviously. As I pointed out, a few dozen people in the US die from tornadoes in a typical year. Do you think that a few trillion dollars to construct tornado shelters in every residence is a good investment? Keep in mind that this is not just numbers on paper like the transfer programs that make up the bulk of the US federal budget, it's a major remodel of nearly every residence in the country to accommodate a reinforced concrete or steel bunker. The industrial resources to do this on short notice don't currently exist, and mobilizing the construction industry to provide them would be an effort on the scale of a major war. To save perhaps a few dozen lives per year. More people would likely die in accidents in the shelter construction project than would be saved in that year, though the balance could conceivably turn positive over time. Now, compare this use of resources to a national effort to reduce medical errors, which not only kill more people in a day than tornados do in a decade, but the reduction of which would improve both personal and government budgets.

"When you're on the job, you cannot stop working whenever you please and return home or elsewhere" You literally can.

"without facing repercussions" Well sure. Quitting a job means that you don't get paid any more. But in DuceMoosolini's quote above, the workers were killed if they did anything but keep working. That is not at all the condition of labor relations in the US.

"You can't blame workers for something out of their control!" Has anyone blamed workers for anything in this discussion? What are you talking about here?

"This would have been a good time to send people home" That "Probabilistic Tornado Graphic" covers parts of twelve states, and the tornado watch lasted eight hours. Your proposal is that tens of millions of people should shut society down for the equivalent of a full work day. May I assume you also propose that they be sent home with the full day's pay? Well, with the loss of that day's income, that would be hard for a lot of businesses to afford. With multiple tornado watches per year, this would have the effect of driving many small businesses out of the region and consolidating economic power in the larger corporations that can more easily eat the cost. And this is in service of sending people away from relatively good storm shelters (factories and commercial buildings) to relatively poorer storm shelters (vehicles and private residences). I also assume that you don't propose sending emergency workers, police, and medical personnel home, correct? A tornado watch indicates that there is a possibility of a tornado developing in an area, and not that there is actually a significant threat to life or safety. That's what a tornado warning indicates (the recommended response to which is to shelter in place), and indications are that the factory workers had already gone to the factory's designated storm shelter area when the tornado hit.

"At least in-ground shelters using steel, placed some ways from the factory." Again, this is a cost-benefit issue. Is the expected benefit worth the expected cost? And why put the shelter away from the factory, such that the workers would have to travel outside in severe weather to get there?

"If you are about to argue that it'd be utopic to have factories comply with basic meteorology" To repeat, indications are that the factory had alerted the workers to take shelter in response to a tornado warning, which is the standard practice for such things. The problem was that the shelter was not strong enough to withstand a direct hit from a tornado.

"why didn't we utilize them?" Because not very many people die from tornadoes, so society has not allocated the considerable resources it would take to construct shelters capable of preventing those deaths. The current prevailing practice is to issue warnings so that people can take shelter in places that can protect them from most severe weather they are likely to encounter, but which may not withstand a direct hit from a tornado. It's not feasible to protect everyone from every possible threat, and the resources that can be used for that are finite, so it is important to spend them where they will do the most good. Sure, 80 or so people dying in a tornado outbreak is a tragedy, but that's about how many people die in any given 15 minutes in the US, and keeping the big picture in mind is important for resource allocation policies.

"I believe people shouldn't live in such abject and minuscule housing" It's not just that you belive that people shouldn't, you're proposing a policy that other people shouldn't be allowed to. Meaning that an entry-level home ownership option would be eliminated, restricting people who can't afford more expensive houses to renting, which promotes the consolidation of real estate and housing to corporate landlords and the establishment of a permanent rental class. And FYI, the average mobile home in the US is larger than the average apartment in the US. Or the average regular home in NYC or much of the rest of the world. How did you conclude that mobile homes are "abject and miniscule" per se?

"housing should be reckoned as a human right" A "right" is a normative statement that things ought to be a certain way. There are broadly two kinds of rights: positive and negative. Negative rights specify that others are not allowed to interfere with something, while positive rights specify that a good or service is to be provided. In the US, freedom of speech is a negative right; people are not entitled to the provision of things used for speech, but the government is restricted in its actions pertaining to what people say. Negative rights like this are largely a US thing these days. Positive rights in the US include voting (which requires that someone provide polling locations and conduct elections), trial by jury (which creates an obligation of jury duty), and the right to petition the government for grievances (which requires that there be a mechanism to accept and review such petitions). These rights were decided upon after careful review, and then codified into legal policies that bind conduct in the US. Saying that something should be a right just means that you think it's a good idea, and means very little on its own. Do you have a specific policy proposal of what constitutes housing as a human right, and an analysis of why that would be a good idea? Tangent to economics: private markets are effective at supplying some things and ineffective at others. The traditional role of governments is to provide those things that private markets don't do well, like military defense, law enforcement, and courts. As with private markets, there are things that governments don't do well, notably detailed resource allocation according to individual preferences. And so, for example, private food markets have been much more effective than government efforts, which mostly hang on these days as emergency response measures. Given the current and historic state of privately-purchased vs. government-supplied housing, what leads you to think that housing is a market that is better managed by the government?

"Are you an architect or otherwise involved in the commercial building industry, BoN?" I'm curious of what purpose you imagine a response here would serve. Credentialism has no bearing on whether or not a statement is correct or not, and as a pseudonymous stranger on the Internet, you don't have a good way of checking credentials I may offer. I suppose I'll just comment that my copy of Mechanical and Electrical Equipment for Buildings is on a shelf not ten feet from me as I type this.

"but I am not in a great technical position to do so, and I suspect that neither are you." Leaving aside whether that's accurate or not, this sentiment treats knowledge and policy information as the exclusive purview of the credentialed elites, the dictates of whom the plebs should not question. This is antithetical the the social organization of democracy and the epistemic organization of the Enlightenment, and it relates to problems like the replication crisis and why the financial system wasn't fixed after the 2009 crash. Experts should be able to justify policy proposals to the public if asked to, and this particular case is not very complicated. Both the incidence of tornado deaths and the costs of tornado shelters are rather well known. So the question is, is it worth it?

"worth it" In the last fifty years, 19 people have been killed by tornados at schools in the US. A quick look suggests that this is comparable to the number of students crushed by tipping vending machines. And I was unable to find any announcement of a school in Kentucky actually being built with a tornado shelter. As an increased incentive to avoid new construction, there may not have been any.

"This isn't the same thing as adding a tornado shelter to every building, which probably would be cost prohibitive." Quite, but here we are. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 21:35, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

User: is not an IP, but a real user.
Anyway, tornado deaths are still somewhat common, just not in Western Kentucky. For instance, if we look at 2021's tornado deaths, before this, we see 7 in Alabama, 1 in Mississippi, 3 in North Carolina, 1 in Pennsylvania, 1 in Texas, 1 in Louisiana and 1 in Georgia. That's slightly unreliable, but it somewhat gives a gist - tornadoes are common in the Southeast. They were once more common in these areas but aren't anymore. They shifted southeast. Andrew5 (talk) 22:20, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
As I mentioned, that's comparable to the number of people killed by lightning, which is commonly used as a benchmark for rare or unlikely causes of death. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 22:43, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Deaths really aren't the only thing that matters when it comes to building codes though. Buildings happen to be pretty expensive things, and it's far less expensive to replace a few blown shingles or a fence panel than a house that lost its entire roof. A tough building that can withstand a natural disaster also helps reduce the need for evacuation. Mobile homes in Florida for instance pretty much need to evacuate for any category of storm, even a relatively dinky category 1 will overwhelm some mobile structures. If all homes were made to the flimsy standard of a mobile home, hurricane shelters and evacuation highways would be much more overwhelmed. As it is, storm surge is the major driver of evacuations in Florida. Buildings built under current code, and far aware enough from the coast where storm surge is not a problem, will do just fine under most minor hurricanes and tropical storms... no need to evacuate in many cases. Only the rarer major hurricanes are a concern wind-wise, and that's mainly the intense eyewall winds. (Now, older pre-code buildings, of course, as seen by the damage caused by Hurricane Michael, won't fare so well...)
Argument from authority can indeed be a fallacy. So can argumentum ad populum and argument from ignorance. In the United States, I personally am more on the lookout for the later. Anti-intellectualism in America runs pretty deep these days, as seen with the large swell of bullshit emerging with COVID-19. This isn't a matter of advocating gate-keeping. with COVID much of the studies were published out in the open, which IMHO is the way it should be. But many people fantastically displayed poor skills at interpreting medical research, leading to a wide variety of strange "medical advice" from quackery pushers. And yes, there is no way to check credentials on the Internet, which is why one must be wary of any random Internet comments on technical topics. So if I wanted to satisfy further curiosity on this subject, I'd dive into these new building code advocated by civil engineers and see what they are recommending. Hopefully they aren't gate-keeping that with a prohibitive cost... PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 22:46, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Draft for existing pages?[edit]

I'm currently trying to make the Metric system page a bit less Americentric, and more accurate. How can I save an edited draft of my additions so it can be reviewed by you lot first? KarmaPolice (talk) 21:25, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I would just do it. Any edits that don't need to be there for any reason can be manually undone. Any work is generally a good thing, so you don't have to ask permission. Don't be afraid to just get started if you want to change something. armed_roomba (she/her)What am I doing wrong this time? 20:03, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
We have one or two templates for that. Add {{WiP}} on the top of the page. GeeJayK (talk) 20:24, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, I've re-done quickly the 'What is Imperial?' bit; basically making it more obvious how stupidly confusing it is and pointing out the two 'variants' which aren't even 100% compatable between each other. The only other bit that kinda needs looking at is the 'UK' section. KarmaPolice (talk) 21:25, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Another tornado threat[edit]

The last outbreak may have spawned an EF4 and killed 80+, but a new threat is suggesting a tornado outbreak in Iowa. While not expected to be as significant, we don't know what the tornadoes, or storm at large, could do. People may still die. Andrew5 (talk) 21:44, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

My area's been on a soft tornado/high wind watch since yesterday. We had 98 MPH wind gusts, and trees are knocked over, the power's out in a third of the city, etc. Some of the smaller towns around were hit hard, and apparently nearby Manhattan had a small tornado-like cell hit it. Crazy stuff. Jake Holmesyell at me 15:06, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

just been to drs[edit]

to get my bloods done and get pneumonia vax, got back via a stop at greggs for cake and my tea i mde before i left still warm.

tis a christmas miracle AMassiveGay (talk) 09:00, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

ive gotten vaccinated against everything you can be vaccinated against. i think im probably immortal now AMassiveGay (talk) 09:36, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
and ive got cake. yummers AMassiveGay (talk) 09:36, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Everything is a win really.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:41, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Are you vaxxed against Polio, Smallpox and HIV?
Yes there was an HIV vaccine. It was only 31% effective so it didn't make it out of testing, but theoretically you could still get vaccinated... CorruptUser 16:59, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
And what cake did you get?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:28, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
i got polio vax years ago - thats the one with the sugar cube i seem to remember. go tb vax ages ago, had chicken pox and measles, and there is no small poix in the wild worry about. bit late for a hiv vax but meds make it like its no thing. covid, flu, hepatitis, that one for genital warts - all vaxxed. id have to ask me mother for anything i might have got vaxxed young. i dont ask none of these, i just get txts asking to me come and get em. at no cost. yay nhs AMassiveGay (talk) 17:36, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
as for cakes ive had belgian buns and a couple of caramel filled doughnuts. and still have a flat stomach. truly i am blessed. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:39, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
never had mumps though so maybe my one weakness. stay away from me if your throat is looking a bit puffy, thanks AMassiveGay (talk) 17:42, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
The HPV vaccine keeps getting better. The first one only protected against the 4 most dangerous strains but now it protects against a dozen or so. I did a bit of work on the HPV vaccine article we have, someone else did more, but campaigning against the HPV vaccine was the biggest gift the Reps ever gave the Dems that they then utterly squandered. The Reps literally became the "pro genital wart" party, and the Dems didn't milk it for all it was worth. CorruptUser 17:44, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
From what I remember the HPV drama was more like foreshadowing the current realignment. I remember Rick Perry being all pro-HPV vaccine mandate. Until the fundie vote (along with some libertarian types and "concerned parent" types) spoketh and reacted against it. Democratic ads then portrayed Rick Perry's decision as promoting a "controversial drug for sexually-transmitted diseases" that is only being pushed because Perry was financially motivated by the Merck profits (big pharma oogie boogie!). Thus, naturally Perry backtracked. Politics is sure a big sea of shit, isn't it? PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 19:07, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
\what is the TB test with 'the circle of dots' I had long ago - and what does a positive reaction look like? Anna Livia (talk) 19:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
thats the bcg jab or at least the tester to see if you need the bcg jab. thats the one that leaves a scar on your arm like a little tit. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:30, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

How likely is Russia to invade Ukraine?[edit]

While Russia is capable of launching a full scale invasion of Ukraine, it would piss off most of Europe. I doubt that the US would help Ukraine (probably for the best) as the US is already focused on Taiwan.

If Russia invading Ukraine, the tipping point would be if Ukraine is accepted into NATO. The obvious thing to do is working on a peace agreement to avoid (more) bloodshed. --Resident Evil 7 (talk) 01:27, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Actually it's a tough one. What is not really clear to me is why Russia would want to invade Ukraine. (Which it could do relatively easily in a military sense.)
Crimea was understandable because of the port facilities and sea access. But the rest of he country? I guess (from Putin's point of view) it's nice to be bigger and it it would distract his population from the miserable Covid situation in Russia - but that's hardly a reason to run such a massive risk.
But there again, Putin is pretty hard to predict. I agree with you about NATO though - if it looked like Ukraine was on the point of joining NATO then that would probably trigger the invasion it was intended to prevent.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:32, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Honestly, I think Russia would invade as a means to cover up their situation with COVID. What is a better way to cover up your country coming apart at the seams? Armed invasion to make yourself look powerful. Much like Bulgaria keeping North Macedonia out of the EU as a means to cover up corruption in their government. --Resident Evil 7 (talk) 16:02, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Yes but it might actually shed more light as an invasion of Ukraine will cause negative attention drawn to them. Andrew5 (talk) 17:31, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Russia isn't going to invade. It's not worth the effort for them. Saber rattling is. Proxy bullshit is. Invasion, again, isn't. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:04, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Ideologically, the Kremlin desires to create a greater Russia ("Eurasia") in opposition to trans-Atlanticism (EU and NATO). That's why Russia has particular interest in keeping eastern Slavic speaking areas within its sphere of influence (Belarus, Ukraine). That said, the practicality of invasion is not so good. Russia did much worse than expected when the invaded the Ukraine proper: seizing only the poorer eastern part that is basically a coal economy. Russia also failed to install the puppet government in Kiev as they had intended, instead rallying a very diverse coalition of Ukrainians in opposition (Revolution of DignityWikipedia). Since the first invasion by Russia, Ukraine has substantially increased its military capability. The cost of invasion could again be quite large for Russia, and not sensible strategy, which is not to say it won't happen. The sensible strategy for Putin would be to declare victory and run away. You can read a good analysis of the background in Timothy Snyder's 2019 book The Road to Unfreedom. Bongolian (talk) 18:44, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
It would be a disaster for Putin. Russia is weaker than the old USSR was, and Ukraine is stronger than Afghanistan was, and remember what happened when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄Ask about our holiday specials! 18:58, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Afghanistan was a series of mountains populated by religious nutjobs being financed by half the world. I'm not sure what nutjobs live in Ukraine or who would supply them. CorruptUser 19:24, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Consider that there are four Nato members on the Western sides of Ukraine. If those nations allow the Ukrainian military safe harbor, the conflict might continue indefinitely. Putin would lose through attrition.Ariel31459 (talk) 19:53, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Russia could probably nuke the shit out of Ukraine and do it that way, but that risks like a billion people dying. Andrew5 (talk) 19:59, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

From what I understand, when Russia annexed Crimea, it caused a financial loss so bad that it will not break even till 2023. Then again, if Russia has irredentist plans, I highly doubt that they would care about the loss of life and possibly economic collapse. --Resident Evil 7 (talk) 20:01, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes they would. Putin is aggressive and ideological but he’s not a freaking idiot. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄Ask about our holiday specials! 20:07, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Indeed. As I said before: it's not clear what specific advantage Russia would get from such an invasion - apart from some far-fetched idea of rebuilding the territory of the old Soviet Union. But that would involve invading states which are now clearly in both NATO and the EU such asl Latvia or Estonia; and it would also involve invading states like Turkmenistan or Kazakhstan to the east which would certainly involve pretty big problems too.
So if he can't rebuild the Soviet Union, why take the enormous geopolitical risk of invading Ukraine, it won't go any further. Not seeing it. It looks like all downside for Russia to me.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 21:05, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
@Bob M Like I said, Russia isn't going to invade. There isn't enough to justify the risk, but, again, making a big show of military force so as to generate leverage internationally makes far more sense. Putin can't use the threat of gaining nukes, he already has those. So he's using the threat of an invasion to pressure his rivals into a deal favorable to him. To all, it's a mistake to act like Putin believes in any cause higher than enriching himself and dying of old age in the Kremlin. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:02, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
I very much agree. The advantage may simply be in looking tough rather than in acting tough.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 13:58, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── All the above may be true, but we cannot rule out miscalculations (on either/both sides), random events or the situation getting out of the hands from the principals. NATO/USA reeks of weakness right now, and Putin can taste it. The question is whether he knows how far he can go without causing Euros like Germany, France etc to finally throw themselves into the 'anti-Russian' camp proper. However, dictators are often rather rubbish at reading democracies on this.

Anyway, my personal suspicion is that Putin is planning do rip off the Donbass 'properly' like Sudetenland was back in '38. The mass buildup is to convince Kiev and her friends to accept the formal annexation as a fait accompli and so, not resist. He's doing it during winter so the threat of gas supply cut-offs are more potent. KarmaPolice (talk) 05:51, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Wait, wasn't Sudetenland the one that the Nazis did in 1938? Andrew5 (talk) 14:12, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't really understand this: "The question is whether he knows how far he can go without causing Euros like Germany, France etc to finally throw themselves into the 'anti-Russian' camp proper"

"Russia" or more properly, Putin - is already largely considered to be a dangerous demagogue by the EU in general. I agree that he could use gas supplies as a lever, but I'm still not sure what his invasion of Ukraine would gain him.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:49, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Okay. Europe at the moment is hugely split over 'the Russia issue'. It could be said the UK/Poland are the leaders in the 'hawk' faction, Turkey/Hungary the 'doves'. But the majors – like Germany – are still unsure which method to work. That's the risk. Russia can go far on divide and rule, but too much naked belligerence will force more into the 'hawks' and their stance to harden – including stronger rearming, cutting the gas links etc. It's all about knowing where that line is.
Anyway, there's a lot of similarities between Sudetenland and Donbass. Larger, autocratic states ruled by revanchists using the threat of war with a smaller, democratic state to get them to surrender a large border region using the 'national minority' excuse. And like Sudetenland, the revanchist has quite a bit of form for doing this now (Crimea, Georgia etc).
Let's remember the Donbass is already ruled by Moscow via local proxies. The 'invasion' in this case could be merely Russian troops crossing into the 'disputed zone', rolling up to the Donbass cease-fire line and daring the Ukrainians to fight back. KarmaPolice (talk) 16:45, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Again, there's little to be gained by follow through, and a lot to be gained by posturing. Putin would be more than happy if all or part of Ukraine "just so happened to" align with Russia. Invasions, being nontrivial endeavors, would not make him happy. The real question isn't whether an invasions will occur, but what concessions Putin hopes to gain by this gambit. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:00, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Sure. It's why I'm more worried we'll end up stumbling into the tar-pit through miscalculation/accident than actual design. And while I think Putin dreams of 'flipping' Ukraine back into a pro-Moscow stance, I don't think he really expects it. A Donbass 'bloodless' annexation *might* kick the stuffing out of Kiev's will to continue resisting and instead settle for a level of grudging Finlandization for a quiet life, however... KarmaPolice (talk) 19:38, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Zero chance of invasion. It's all neocon warmongering agitprop. The military industrial complex needs more funding to develop hypersonic missiles. Dutchbag (talk) 02:50, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
This sounds like blanket denialism. Russian forces are amassing there, that's not up for debate. And the "peace-loving Russians" have already made a hypersonic missile, they even bragged about it.–Ryan1257 (talk) 18:49, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I semi-agree. Putin has *form*, to deny the possibility of something merely because 'that can't happen now/here' is wishful thinking which can really bite you on the arse later on. This is part of my worries of miscalculation - we (the West) think 'oh, it's just for domestic consumption', fail to sufficently warn, Putin thinks 'he can get away with it' and next thing we're watching Ukraine being ripped apart and armed intervention becomes vital.

In short; always beware of the Black Swan. KarmaPolice (talk) 07:38, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, apparently Putin was responsible for the lighting at this Billy Joel concert:

LeucippusSalva veritate 00:02, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Putin's demands are in; in short, 'NATO, abandon our "near abroad" forthwith.' As this will involve throwing the Baltics into the fire the answer will surely be 'go to hell'.
KarmaPolice (talk) 07:22, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Came up with a YouTube video idea[edit]

A highly contagious viral infection that turns people from one biological sex to the other. I call it Gender Reassignment: An EAS Scenario! I still have to work out details but I think it will be interesting. --Resident Evil 7 (talk) 16:19, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Which is actually the plot of The Virus,a multi-crossover Anime fanfiction written back in 2000 by Christopher Jones. Admittedly, there people turned from one sex to the other, and then back, and then back again, and then-- look, basically the human race becomes genderfluid in a very literal sense. Its' core precepts are from the somewhat classic Ranma 1/2. You can find relevant information at this page. Kencolt (talk) 16:51, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Pretty sure this idea has been done in lots of porn before. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 16:52, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
The Virus isn't porn. Just clearing that up. Kencolt (talk) 18:28, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
@Kencolt I honestly never heard of it before. As for my story, the virus is a biological weapon developed by anarchists to throw society into pure chaos. People end up dying from the intense pain of transition and or the psychological damage. --Resident Evil 7 (talk) 17:10, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Gotcha, so it is more of a David Cronenburg-esque take on the concept then? MirrorIrorriM (talk) 17:50, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Never heard of David Cronenburg either. --Resident Evil 7 (talk) 20:26, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

never heard of davod cronenberg? enjoyAMassiveGay (talk) 21:12, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
No I have not. --Resident Evil 7 (talk) 16:48, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Then check out his early masterpieces, Rabid and Shiver. And maybe Brood. As well as Videodrome. Cardinal Chang (talk) 16:56, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
i was watching scanners just the other day AMassiveGay (talk) 09:12, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
his recent stuff like eastern promises and a history of violence are legitimately quality flicks AMassiveGay (talk) 09:14, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Eastern Promises and History of Violence are definitely high quality movie making and story telling. Cardinal Chang (talk) 17:49, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm Non-Binary And I Don't Know How To Tell My Parents[edit]

Hi, I know I haven't been active but I am non-binary and use She/They pronouns. I'm a biological male, and being cis was a cage. I felt trapped in the need to be masculine. I don't feel that anymore and it's great, but I have no idea how to tell my parents. I am a teenager. I tried to come out to my Mom back in June but she refused to use my pronouns at the time (They/Them) because she "didn't wanna call me an 'it.'" Since then, I've been trapped in this prison, trying to convince myself that I'm not trans, that I'm cis. But I'm not, and I don't know how to tell my parents. I don't know how they'll react, especially if they learn through other means. I'm sorry if I'm bothering you, but if there's anyone who's more familiar with this type of thing, then please help me out here. I've been much happier since I came out to my friends because I can explain my feminine behaviour now. Thanks for reading this, if you did. ICan'tThinkOfAUsername (talk) 16:40, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

That is kind of a difficult one. All I can suggest is this: try to ask your parents about their views on LGBT+ people. That is a start. If they are cool with LGBT+ people, then it is safe to come out of the closet. If they are bigots, then it is a no go. --Resident Evil 7 (talk) 16:47, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Wait, I thought Trans and NB are two different things. Did the definitions change on us? CorruptUser 17:36, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Trans just means that you aren't cis (you're gender isn't the same as your biological sex). All non-binary people are trans, but not all trans people are non-binary. And my parents are supportive of LGBT people in general, but my Mom isn't supportive of non-binary people and I don't know about my Dad. ICan'tThinkOfAUsername (talk) 17:58, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
People who say this kind of thing may be quite estranged from their own families, and that is lamentable. However, you should give your parents the benefit of the doubt that they are not complete blockheads and don't understand a lot about you, even facts that you are unaware of yourself. Be truthful, and let them know as much as they can handle. They may surprise you. Good luck! Ariel31459 (talk) 18:09, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
As someone else said, get their feelings on what they think of gay marriage and the like. If they aren't supportive of it, I'd wait till you're out of the house to reveal it. If they're supportive of gay marriage, while that may not extend to trans rights, it's at least an opening. If you want to open them up to the idea, try to avoid things like trans in sports or wider issues involving national politics, they may not be "prepared" for such things and it could easily turn them off. Instead, introduce your new identity in areas that are more relatable and personal since that's where their empathy lies. Unfortunately, everyone's situation is different where some have more accepting families and others have more violent, explosive families. Both will influence someone's advice. Don't let people on the internet tell you how you should feel and what you can and can't do, you're the expert on this and I believe whatever the outcome, you will do right.-Ryan1257 (talk) 18:38, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Ok, I don't think that definition is correct either. Genderfluid people are definitely NB, but I'm sure they are not Trans. Wikipedia seems to believe that no, neither NB nor Trans are subcategories of the other. I always thought Trans was where you started male and became female (or reverse), whereas NB was where you were never completely male or female to begin with. I'm not quite sure what the difference between "very effeminate male" and NB actually is, but, eh, whatever. I wonder if my out-of-date thinking helps... would you be ok explaining to your parents that you are an extremely effeminate male? CorruptUser 18:42, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Categories can be confusing. It is not helpful to confuse other people when you want to enlighten them. The truth is, we don't understand the abstract distinctions as well as some might claim. Talk about what you want out of life, not what some expert says is your category.Ariel31459 (talk) 18:58, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Yeah that's part of what I was getting at. Your parents aren't likely to understand what "Non-Binary" or "Demigender" is, and that alone is going to scare them, even if they'd be ok with "Effeminate male" because they know what that means. CorruptUser 19:02, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
"I've been trapped in this prison" A la The Matrix, there is no prison, only your perception that there is one. Gender identity is not a particularly useful concept. Gender is fine as a descriptor, but basing your identity on membership in demographic groups often leads to touble. There are statistical trends in physical and psychological traits that differentiate what is typical for men vs. women, which has led to gendered associations and social expectations (and consequences for not meeting them), but "feminine behavior" doesn't mean much as a strictly-defined category unless you mean sex-differentiated behaviors like ovulation, menstruation, or giving birth. Most people don't perfectly meet the social expectations of their demographic memberships, and while this can lead to stress in interactions as you weigh the consequences of violating expecations or your own preferences, you don't have to let it trouble your notion of who you are. You are a person, and that's far more important than any other demographic membeships you may have. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 19:23, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
I posted this in an earlier Saloon: "You may find these useful: LGBT National Hotline 888-843-4564 (https://www.glbthotline.org/national-hotline.html), and The Trevor Project, which has phone/texting/chat support (https://www.thetrevorproject.org/). You can also find a list of support services here: https://lgbtqia.ucdavis.edu/support/hotlines." Bongolian (talk) 21:54, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
@ICan'tThinkOfAUsername there is also the LGBTribe- https://support.therapytribe.com/lgbt-support-group/ --Resident Evil 7 (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Painful learning experience has taught me that 'coolness' with gay marriage or even trans rights does not mean they'll be fine with non-binary. Or even understand it. Firstly, the first one is sexual, not gender (and so different) and secondly, MtF/FtM trans people still conform to the traditional layout - they merely wish to 'switch sides'. NB argues the choice doesn't *have* to be a binary one.
ICant had the classic fallacy; 'I'm not comfortable with male, so I must be female' – this one got me for a long time too. And while ICant's definition of trans is correct (dictionary term, at least as far as I can tell), it's not one quite a lot of trans people / their allies appear to accept (see first line).
However, onto practicalities. I am going to ask whether it is *necessary* for you to announce to your parents (or anyone else, for that matter) your inner feelings on this. NB an umbrella term, more a 'neither of the above' box than anything else. It frankly all depends where you are and where you end up, really. Taking a look at say the NB subreddit shows this. It's possible that they might not even notice unless you actively pointed it out...
There's no preset mould for you to go into. It's confusing, liberating and scary in equal measure. KarmaPolice (talk) 07:33, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm noticing a lot of responses here, so I'm gonna address as much as I can. First of all, I'm sorry if I offended anyone with my use of the word "trans," I identify as trans and NB at the same time but I didn't know that non-binary/trans people don't accept that definition, and I'm sorry. Second, I think it's clear that not a lot of people actually read my post, and even if they did I should've elaborated more. KarmaPolice said that I had the fallacy of "I'm not comfortable with male, so I must be female," when in reality I do identify as non-binary with She/They pronouns because I have both boy and girl traits, but I have much more girl traits than guy traits. And I do agree that there's a possibility that I won't have to tell them. I've come out to all my friends, and they've been extremely supportive, but I know that it's not absolutely necessary. I still wanna tell them someday because I want to be able to freely express myself both in their presence and outside of it, but I don't have to if I don't want to, and I know that everyone's different.
Moving on, 192․168․1․42 made a lot of points, most of which I wholeheartedly disagree with. I'm not saying that they are wrong, I'm just saying that I don't necessarily agree with their points. I don't identify with any specific category, and I do think that gender identity is important. This study shows that gender identity is part of psychology, so I think that it is important to not only look at people on an individual level, but to be able to put them into a category that they feel comfortable with, no matter how broad that category is. And if I do decide to come out, I'm asking for advice on how to do that.
Obviously this discussion is important, so I just want to chip in. and give you guys my point of view. Thanks to everyone who commented on this, I'm glad that we can have this discussion. This is extremely important, so thank you. ICan'tThinkOfAUsername (talk) 17:45, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
There are two main possibilities: if you don't know a person well, then delicate discussions can be impossible; if you don't understand a subject well, then explaining it is out of the question. I would go with the first choice: get to know your parents better than you ostensibly have done. You cannot truly understand a person without affording them an understanding of yourself. Take responsibility, because only you can improve your own situation. UncleKrampus (talk) 19:01, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
"I do think that gender identity is important." What, then, is its utility?
"This study shows that gender identity is part of psychology" So is identification with political parties or sports teams. The formation of an identity is important to humans, and lots of concepts can be used as part of that process. That doesn't make basing one's identity on gender useful. That link's main focus is on the trouble that comes when someone's gender identity doesn't match social expectations or what they feel is appropriate, which aligns with your comments above. Treating gender as an identity vs a description is a cultural practice that varies in time and place, and like other cultural practices, some produce better results than others. My point is that your anxiety here stems largely from formulating your identity in a way that you don't have to.
"to put them into a category that they feel comfortable with, no matter how broad that category is." There is no limit to the number of categories by which you can conceptualize things (mathematically), so the question becomes, "What sort of categories are useful, and how should they be used?" You can certainly categorize people by gender identity and all sorts of intersectional demographic memberships (see the increase in length of the acronym that used to be LGB), but does that actually help things? Does that advance the goals of interested parties, or does it divert attention to identitarian infighting? 192․168․1․42 (talk) 19:27, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

ICan't; when I said 'I'm not comfortable with male, so I must be female' I meant that the question is phrased as though gender is a male/female binary choice, therefore if you're not one, you *must* be the other. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that.

On the 'expressing self' issue, my question was on the simple fact that NB is a large umbrella term, rather 'new' and a lot of folks are so wrapped up in self they wouldn't notice 'subtle' changes unless pointed out. A decent % of NBs go by he/she anyway (some merely as a 'gender of convenience', like I do) so don't even give out that more obvious marker. And I really get the 'desire for a quiet life' thing - esp if you're still trying to work things out, last thing you want to do is have to face constant questions which are insulting/confusing/hostile/creepy etc.

Which you will get. Including from a fair few from our alleged 'community'. I've had a few hurtful things lobbed in my direction, some of which looked rather like TERF'ness in their 'policing of definitions'. We do not fit their nice, clean-lined category boxes. KarmaPolice (talk) 04:46, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

one can do what i do with my parents- dont tell them shit. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:56, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, that does depend on the person's circumstances. I would have had to 'fess up if I'd still been living with relatives. KarmaPolice (talk) 07:25, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

The Real War on Christmas.[edit]

The Gävle Christmas Goat torched again. Heretical Jerboaites deny any involvement. RoundeTheeHorne (talk) 12:34, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

They've just gotta stop putting up at some point. It'll never work, fellas! Jake Holmesyell at me 16:20, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Add that to the hysterical Wikipedia page about it.--April Chat? 04:01, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Why are young voters souring on Joe Biden?[edit]


I have been alerted that someone impersonating me on this site. Where I find contact info so I can deal dis privately? — Unsigned, by: ThereSussyLordAmongUs / talk / contribs

For legal complaints, please contact the RWF. You can find contact details over at RationalWiki:Legal FAQ. -- Techpriest (talk) 13:36, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
I am not making a legal complaint. I just want to make a formal request to recognize that the following user is not me, and that I would like to be renamed to that user. ThereSussyLordAmongUs (talk) 13:44, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Elaborating on the original post, please take the time to contrast my editing habits to that user. — Unsigned, by: ThereSussyLordAmongUs / talk / contribs

Could be Taylor Swift’s biggest fan due to this diff. 2600:387:9:5:0:0:0:99 (talk) 14:22, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
@LeftyGreenMario pinging to see your thoughts. 2600:387:9:5:0:0:0:99 (talk) 14:25, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Account has been renamed. You can try to register with that name now. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 16:05, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! I shall move on with my day. ThereSussyLordAmongUs (talk) 16:37, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Minor notice for the future: user User:Darubrub was renamed to User:Null0001 (and was subsequently blocked for vandalism). User:Darubrub has since registered their account and created a userpage. -- Techpriest (talk) 14:39, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Am I the only one confused by this exchange?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:25, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

No Scream!! (talk) 16:50, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
There was a vandal that registered as "Darubrub". Vandal vandalized and got blocked indefinite. Another user came in, using an account named "Darubrub" in another wiki, and noticed the shared name of them and the blocked vandal. User requested a rename, action was taken. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 21:32, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

USHA pseudo-history, again[edit]

A Denver elementary school is facing backlash for planning a 'Families of Color Playground Night' And only a matter of time before the "UShit promotes Dixiecrat fallacies!!!11!11!1" maniacs realizes they are long overdue for eating their own words. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 23:15, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Yawn. At first it looks like just a school volunteer type group on the web site, ala others that are scheduled such as the "community equity collective" or "family crew morning". Next thing you know, the school's "Bike and Walk to School Day" is outrageous due to fat shaming, and the "Principal Coffee Chat" is an outrage due to the principal pushing "recreational drugs". The real mystery is why Business Insider (who Yahoo reprinted the story from) actually gives a fuck about a story that is only mostly being regurgitated in shit media like Fox News and the Daily Mail. (And National Review, in one of their embarrassing blog-style moments.) Then again, Business Insider isn't the greatest source in the world. The root source of this story is a tweet is Christopher RufoWikipedia, who as the Wiki notes has embraced many a "woe is me, the white oppressed man" bullshit story in pursuit of going in Dumb Activist Mode against the kinda questionable but not that questionable critical race theory. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 23:45, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
It's a real slow news day when this "backlash" amounts to "criticism from Twitter users". --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 00:15, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Yeah. Who cares about twitter anyway? It's not a real place.Ariel31459 (talk) 03:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Hmmhm! My community college had an Islam Day! Wow what government-enforced racial segregation!!!! That anti-vax anti-masker lady "Christina Pushaw" person on Twitter[2] that was cited in that news article UShit failed to vet must be right. 👏👏👏 I'm sorry, UShistoryanalyzer, about criticizing your crappy analyses. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 04:27, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Yahoo is a (generally) crummy source of news. At least, the UK edition is. I've got a relative who keeps on sending me messages about them. Normally, it's a poor exerpt of news which was on a better source one/three days before.
I think this is a minor case of nutpicking at worst, shoddy reporting at best. I've been to volunteer group 'restricted events' before; they might be held on the grounds, but that don't mean it's organised by the school. Hell, the culty church I attended for a bit in the 90s held their services in a Catholic school's hall (rental). And minority groups *do* need a few refuges from the constant pressures of conformity to the majority norm.
However, one thing I don't get; wouldn't a 'Families of Color' include Hispanics too? In that case, if the stats are right, that's about 60% of the schoolkids and thus, they *would* be the majority already... KarmaPolice (talk) 05:16, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Sees title, determines it's from USHA, sees no point in anything other than mockery of a bad faith actor. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:54, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Seriously. If USHA had typed "Demorcats bad" fifty times, it would be more honest and more productive than these garbage attempts at "gotchas". ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:56, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
I love how USHA implied that fucking Denver is left-wing...--April Chat? 22:13, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm confused as hell. Please explain why it's bad for Communities of Color to be together...? It just seems to be a safe space, how is that segregation? The fact that a bevy of white, racist, redneck, chickenshit, motherfuckers are screaming about it on twitter just attests to the importance of safe spaces for People of Color who have to deal with perpetual racism every single day.--April Chat? 22:23, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
"We need to end racism by driving a wedge and promoting safe spaces on the basis of racial identity!111!11!1" Finally the rest of you arrive out of the closet to demonstrate what little self-awareness you all have! My other note to state is that critics of left-wing segregation are not racist white rednecks. Both white nationalists and leftists (of which evidently includes the rest of you) believe in segregation on the basis of racial identity, opposed by all normal decent people. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 22:50, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
You sound like a bitch who'd yell "reverse racism" at marginalized people for being weary around you.--April Chat? 23:05, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
...says the user who makes the implication that segregation can be beneficial for minorities. Remind you of a certain someone? UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 23:20, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
See what I mean about this bullshit being pointless and bad faith? Nothing you say will change USHA's mind. No evidence you provide will be accepted. Literally engaging with him in any way will be turned into a soapbox for spurious attacks and pseudohistory. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:09, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Indeed, GC, it's stubbornness at it's finest.--April Chat? 00:18, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
This is not segregation and equating this with segregation demonstrates cynical, bad faith, and tasteless appropriation of serious historical eras to advance exaggerated talk points of "reverse-racism". --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 01:19, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

The mob doesn't like your topic, USHA. Stop changing the section header back to your original one. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 01:15, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

And this is why I never use the term 'safe space' unless unavoidable. But USHA does need to be answered, if nothing else to stop them running away claiming victory. For very technically, they are correct. But by the same logic, gynaecology clinics, old-people's homes, schools and veteran's associations are also 'segregated' - because they all have admission criteria and thus, is 'discriminatory' against the ones who don't make it.
The reasons this 'Playground Night' is not 'segregation' in the non-pedantic definition of is twofold. #1: It's merely a community get-together, not much different from say, a church BBQ or a sports club dinner - it's my party and I'll invite who I want to and all that. #2: Some whites would have attended; parents of mixed-race kids, adoptive/foster parents, siblings and so on. Thus, it is not segregated. KarmaPolice (talk) 02:38, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
"Bu- bu- but, segregation isn't actually segregation!!11!11!11!" Remind you of someone? What manages to amaze me is the ability of you "Rational"-wikians to stoop below bedrock bottom in your sheer denial of reality. All your vanities and all your foolishness will not age well! UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 17:25, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
I know you are somewhat intelligent, so I will assume you are trolling or, unhappy to say, simply stupid. You appear to be conflating segregation with aggregation. An invitation for POC to aggregate to meet one another would be a segregated event if others were told they were not welcome. That is the hallmark of segregation. You aren't fooling anyone, except that we are not certain as to the question of stupidity.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:45, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
The question is around using a public or taxpayer-funded institution for a group that believes in racial separatism. This question is not unlike a public school that leases out its facilities for Sunday morning church services, which is common in America. Now, if the school itself organized the event, that becomes a different question or matter. Dutchbag (talk) 17:55, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
That's an interesting question, but what does it have to do with the case in Denver, which was basically a get-together for POC? "Separatism" is a policy and we are discussing a mere temporary format. Do you find this idea difficult?Ariel31459 (talk) 18:09, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
You're really overthinking this, Dutchbag. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 20:16, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
@KarmaPolice Give up. There's no way in hell USHA is going to own up to the fact that specialized spaces are not, in fact, the same as Jim Crow. He's determined to make this false equivalence, and by god he'll do it, reality be damned. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:37, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, the "we need to respond or else they'll declare victory" isn't going to work. When you're engaging in bad faith argumentation with them, you're playing their game with their rules, a game you'll never win. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 20:39, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
The courts will decide if the lawsuit has merit, so I suggest everyone just take a deep breath. Dutchbag (talk) 23:05, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
I was more talking to the room than USHA. Every online conversation will have many lurkers, and I desired to at least show *them* the counter-argument. A bit like a politician's debate on TV - or do you expect the one candidate to persuade the other that their opinion on X is correct?
In which case, USHA has declined to answer my point. I'll spell it out; what is the difference between the 'segregation' of the 'Playground Night' or say, a meeting at the VFW, a church pot-luck or a dinner at the Elks Lodge? KarmaPolice (talk) 23:20, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────The courts will decide what lawsuit now? I read the article and there is only "backlash." That's dipshits on twitter. There are no grounds for a lawsuit because the school has stipulated all school events are open to everyone.Ariel31459 (talk) 23:26, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Oh sorry. the complaint was filed with U.S. Dept. of Education. It's not in federal court yet, depending on how the Dept. of Education acts.
If for example a group like the Nation of IslamWikipedia wanted to lease space from a public institution to host a 'Families of Color Playground Night', and offered remuneration for the cost of security, maintenance, clean-up, and emergency medical services, they probably could not be denied. If on the other hand the school itself staged such an event, and even did not deny admission to parents of mixed-race children, the courts may take a different view. The school itself here may even be staging a test case for the courts. Dutchbag (talk) 23:38, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
I don't know much of American law, but the fact the Nation of Islam is a known organisation of 'seperatist' bent (and also easy to discover via Google etc) I think would go against the school. The Nights were merely a little volunteer thing. I don't think there's a leg to stand on here. KarmaPolice (talk) 23:47, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
In your opinion, would it be legal to have 'People of Color Prom Night' and 'White's Only Prom Night"? or 'People of Color Homecoming Queen' and 'White Homecoming Queen'? Dutchbag (talk) 23:51, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
It's just a small community get-together, a small diversity imperative. This "test case for courts", again, is overthinking this. You're still overthinking, Dutchbag. That hypothetical is absurd, you know that. Wow, look how awful this segregationalist bipoc connection event is. Or this supper discriminatory BIPOC LGBTQ+ Affinity Gathering. How anti-white this "diversity day" is, why the focus on bipoc and why leave out white people. Countering this shit's tiring. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 23:52, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
The ball is in the Department of Education's court now. Let's hope they handle it right. Dutchbag (talk) 00:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Yeah. A bunch of trolls this "Parents Defending Education" organization is. Reading their about page is nausea-inducing. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 00:07, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
It's a Koch paid for political grift. The case will meet the circular file, no doubt.Ariel31459 (talk) 00:08, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
LGM, Fortunately, the links you supplied are very good - those are outside groups and not a public institution staging an event in violation of federal law. Dutchbag (talk) 00:10, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
This piece agreeing with me I mean this piece debunks the "grassroots" claims being made it seems. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 00:11, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
If the Dept. of Educ. were to uphold Centennial Elementary's misuse of federal funds, could an elementary school elsewhere in the country stage a 'Gun-Toting Redneck's Playground Night'? Dutchbag (talk) 00:14, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
You guys sound like Andy Schlafly. He doesn't think much of the Koch Brothers, either. Dutchbag (talk) 00:25, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm tired of your comparisons. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 01:37, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Gee, I wonder why I assumed Dutchbag was USHA's sock... A real mystery that... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:49, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Yeah. The only person agreeing with USHA and making inane comparisons? Though not as aggressive. Might be a lackey. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 02:04, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────A similar comparison was made by a professor at the University of Denver (toward the bottom), but he also noted that a lawsuit would need to demonstrate tangible injury to have a chance of success, which seems doubtful to me, at least. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 talk 02:07, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

It all depends how the U.S. Dept. of Educ. handles the complaint. They can't just ignore it. They will have to repond in writing somewhere. Dutchbag (talk) 02:12, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
The professor, I think, is more interested in a claim based on the Colorado state constitution, which would be a separate issue; I'm not sure whether the standards are the same for the lawsuit actually filed. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 talk 02:16, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
It is not a lawsuit. It is an administrative complaint. And yes, it can be ignored. I imagine it will be ignored. If the school adds "all are welcome," to the postings, then there will be no argument that could stand up, even in Federal court. Ariel31459 (talk) 02:33, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Ah, my mistake. I agree, then, that it will most likely be ignored. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 talk 02:37, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Ignoring it would invite a lawsuit.
The OCR complaint states this after citing Brown v. Board:
in 2015, following “the police actions involving African American victims in Ferguson and New York and subsequent events,” Oak Park & River Forest High School District 200 – also in Illinois – held a “Black Lives Matter” assembly during Black History Month. The assembly was convened “for African American students only” because the district wanted “to provide a comfortable forum for black students to express their frustrations.” Certain students “who self-identified as white were directed by District officials not to participate in the event as this assembly was designed for students who self-identify as black.” In the letter sent on September 29, 2015 (OCR Docket #05-15-1180), OCR found that the district violated the Equal Protection Clause and Title VI because the district’s actions could not withstand strict scrutiny. Specifically, the district failed to “assess fully whether there were workable race-neutral alternatives” and “did not conduct a flexible and individualized review of potential participants.” In a Resolution Agreement with OCR, the district agreed that its programs and activities would be “open to all students . . . regardless of their race” and to adopt policies and training to ensure the district’s compliance. OCR imposed these requirements even though the district had promised “not to hold such events in the future.” Dutchbag (talk) 02:41, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm missing something. Centennial publicly stated that anybody can attend the event, whereas Oak Park apparently directed white students not to attend their assembly. That seems a significant difference, no? 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 talk 02:49, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
This is silly the precedent in the quote is inapplicable because nobody has been told not to attend the events: "Certain students “who self-identified as white were directed by District officials not to participate in the event as this assembly was designed for students who self-identify as black." What about "all are welcome" do you not understand? Also, who has standing to file a lawsuit? Nobody can show harm, the argument is fatuous.Ariel31459 (talk) 02:52, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Look at Exhibits A & B in the complaint; I don't see 'open to everyone' anywhewre. Maybe that's all they have to do is say 'Families of Color Playground Night Open to Everyone', if that makes sense or achieves the purpose of the school activity. Who knows? Dutchbag (talk) 03:01, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

However, there is a point there, unwelcome that it is - why is it acceptable to promote a 'People of Colour Evening' but not a 'White Evening'? Answer; because the USA is a society in which the overwhelming culture and norms is shaped by whiteness - 'white culture' is in fact simply called 'American culture'. So, in answer to when will there be 'White Homecoming Queens' - when 'American culture' has become a wider synthesis of all cultures and the country is no longer controlled by and run for the benefit of the dominant group.

Yet this is an image which shows why Marxists take issue with 'identitarism'. Every 'exclusive' event pushes up the separatism metre by 0.0001%. The more a group feels less connected to others and more to each other is one which will be less likely to be integrated in other ways. Less intergration means less familiarity. And to paraphrase (I think) Dr King, lack of familiarity breeds fear, which can turn to hate. After all, the more you promote 'Us-ness', makes it easier for others to peddle 'Them-ness'.

It's a circle which needs to be squared somehow, for said 'exclusive' events do also have benefits. If nothing else, allows minorities places to relax socially, away from the stresses of mainstream conformity (I'm not calling it a safe space, that's different). Because it is stressful. To 'not be too black' at work, 'not too gay' at a social event, or 'not too Muslim' when out in the wider community.

On the issue itself, I don't think the school has a case to answer, here. The BLM example was a case of a) clear 'school activity' and b) some justification for racial discrimination. And reading that exerpt makes it kinda obvious the 'crime' was that it was done in a rather ham-fisted manner, not that BLM was covered in principle. The 'Playground Night' was not officially a school activity (so failing a) and apparently got axed before an event could take place (so making b 'not definitely provable'). But again, I know very little of American law. KarmaPolice (talk) 07:45, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Did I tell you that over 375 people died in a typhoon in the Philippines[edit]

Well, if I didn't, it's right here. Pretty tragic. December was honestly very scary in terms of weather, as we recently had a tornado outbreak kill 88 people (+4 non-tornadic), and another derecho that killed 5. Andrew5 (talk) 15:39, 20 December 2021 (UTC)