RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive415

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 12 June 2022. 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>, <402>, <403>, <404>, <405>, <406>, <407>, <408>, <409>, <410>, <411>, <412>, <413>, <414>, <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>
, (new)(back)

japan to dump fukushima wastewater into the ocean[edit]

so i follow the weather channel on instagram. i'm stuck at home all day today because i'm sick (still awaiting results of a covid test, but that's besides the point), so i'm scrolling through ig posts, and i find an entry from the weather channel announcing that japan will release fukushima wastewater into the ocean. naturally, the comments section is flooded with people (mostly hippies) who never took and passed passed high school physics fearmongering about the end of the world. i ended up replying to some of the comments, but i think i lost a few brain cells arguing with some of those idiots. so my question for you all is: do you agree with japan's decision to release fukushima 1 wastewater into the pacific? is it really that serious, or is it yet another overblown manufactroversy? G Man (talk) 21:27, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

People should fearmonger about leaded water, something that even developed countries have trouble dealing with, not slightly irradiated water. LongStylus (talk) 22:07, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
I remember looking this up when it first came up. Mostly the worries were about the tritium content, which is high, but Europe dumps far more tritium each year. As far as I could tell, so do China and Korea, which are practically next door. Not sure on Japan, though. The water has been sitting around a good while so probably has around 700Bq/L of tritium in it. The WHO itself puts a limit of 10kBq/L of tritium on drinkable water, which is something like a million times the usual concentration in the sea. It might have a local effect, but it was at the time to be dumped over a period of 30 years, so it's going to have plenty of time to dissipate, and in terms of gross quantity in the world's water, the amount of tritium being dumped is practically homeopathic. The only real trouble with the discharge of this water is whether or not you trust TEP's claim that they have removed the other nuclear trash. Namako (talk) 22:50, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
i'm more inclined to trust tep over the hippies who couldn't pass a high school chemistry or physics test. i mean, a japanese mpWikipedia drank the water ten and a half years ago, and he's still serving in the national diet (parliament) today in good health, afaik. maybe i'm missing some key information, or perhaps i'm taking something out of context; nevertheless, i'm still more inclined to believe the power company (tepco) over the fearmongering and lies of the pseudo-environmentalist anti-nuclear movement... and this coming from some tree-hugger who believes the world's top polluting companies should be sued out of existence. G Man (talk) 23:52, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
In 'borderline' cases like this, I normally ask 'what are the alternatives?'. A very quick look at tritium tells me that it's got a half-life of 12.3y which means if stored it should reach the WHO potable limit around the 2090s. I suspect the storage costs alone make this impractical a solution for such a low risk. Unless there's a means of 'filtering it out' or something, into the ocean it goes (though not all at once).
However, a quick search tells me tritium is vital for nuclear fusion. Is this one of those things where our grandkids curse us for ditching something really valuable literally into the sea? KarmaPolice (talk) 06:05, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
you know, you make some excellent points. what are the alternatives to dumping nuclear wastewater to the ocean? is that the ideal solution, or are there better alternatives? why can't we just extract the tritium and use it for fusion reactors, especially now as scientists are trying to develop fusion power? is it economically feasible; do the benefits outweigh the costs? see, these are the types of intellectually honest discussions we should be having. unfortunately, all this senseless fearmongering keeps getting in the way. G Man (talk) 16:24, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Because rhetoric and logic are two completely different things. And arguing with rhetoric is easier than logic, because the latter becomes a 'boring', 'longwinded' discussion which many in the Big Public are almost encouraged to switch off from. Plus, in many things like this that such people are - to paraphrase Stanley Baldwin - intellectual harlots. That they have 'power' (to sway the Big Public) but they have zero 'responsibility' (to actually come up with viable solutions, to answer for failures etc).
And the obvious issue that many scientific/tech/academic experts suck at rhetoric and at times, simple nonexpert intelligible communication on their subject. KarmaPolice (talk) 21:25, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
i have nothing to say about the pros and cons of this business nor on the safety of it all, but i just want to say in response to the above claim of a japanese MP drank some of the water to 'prove' it was safe.
this proves nothing of the sort, it was a publicity stunt and nothing else. it only shows than one glass of water, contaminated or otherwise, would not be immediately harmful and tells us nothing of the effects from a long term of drinking from a potentially contaminated water source, nor the effect on marine life, short term or long term, of the effects dumping this potentially contaminated water into the ocean, nor the effects of eating marine life fished from the areas of ocean it was dumped and the corresponding effects on economies dependant on fishing.
if someone is convinced of the safety of this action wishes to convince a suspicious public of that safety, then one glass is hardly much of a endorsement either. if they were happy to drink only bottles of this water indefinitely over an extended period of time however, that might convince many that they are genuine in this belief, but just a glass for sake of the cameras? genuine belief or not, its merely a political stunt.
i wonder how anyone taking such stunts as evidence of anything at all would view feeding a hamburger to their own daughter at the height of the BSE crisis? doubting the scientific credibility of hippies is one thing, not doubting absolutely anything a Politician tells us is something else entirely and so much dumber by a factor of 10. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Did we ever get proof that the burger-eater was actually Gummer's daughter and not a false actor of some form? And that the burger consumed was in fact made from UK beef? KarmaPolice (talk) 18:57, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
it was provided by the reptilians and was in fact people meat - the best kind of meat. yummers AMassiveGay (talk) 19:01, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Is there a way we can trick Priti Patel into endorsing this as 'an idea' to not only alleviate the collapsing SoL for us proles but do 'deal' with immigrants? KarmaPolice (talk) 04:46, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
dont think for a second that it didnt come up in the brainstorming session that produced 'send to africa', along side other good options to deter immigration like 'use as slave labour', 'crucifiction', 'line the cliffs of dover with their heads on spikes'. this was a woman who had to be taken to court to make her stop the push back the boats policy. AMassiveGay (talk) 06:47, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
honestly, for one the fucknuts responsible for 'britannia unchained' who view the british worker as the laziest in the world, you'd think she'd welcome immigrants for their go getter attitude and wish to send the unemployed to africa in their stead. AMassiveGay (talk) 07:13, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
One thing at a time, matey. We need to disenfranchise the idle dole-scroungers first! KarmaPolice (talk) 08:34, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
the drinking water incident is sufficient evidence for those who demand that one drink a glass of the water to "prove" that it is safe. i have yet to encounter someone demanding one drink the water over a period of time to prove its safety. if they do, then it's yet another case of moving the goalposts, especially if they said to drink only a single glass the first time.
now i have heard people say "build a reactor on your back yard," but that's another story. however, it's still worth noting that the fukushima 1 meltdown is still ridiculously overblown. the real mistake was the government botching the evacuations. G Man (talk) 20:28, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
i think you have very much missed the point AMassiveGay (talk) 21:03, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
ok, i see what you mean. besides being a stunt, technically it's anecdotal evidence at best. still, there are nuanced criticisms to dumping radioactive wastewater into the ocean, but nothing to the sort of "it's the end of the world" or anything. the ocean is perfectly capable of diluting the radiation, but that doesn't necessarily mean out of sight, out of mind. a quick search reveals that the effects have yet to be seen (as of 2011), which would potentially put it on par with microplastics. still, it's not nearly as harmful as some might think it is, so i stand by my position that the incessant fearmongering stands in the way of honest discourse. G Man (talk) 02:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

It's begun (RvW)[edit]

Oklahoma passes bill banning abortion after fertilization. This isn't just in violation of Roe (which isn't repealed... yet), but of Griswold v CT; how would anyone know if the egg's been fertilized without seriously invasive procedures? It also demonstrates a severe lack of understanding of female anatomy; pregnancy begins at implantation, which is a few days after fertilization. You can't abort a non-pregnancy. Arguably this law means Plan B which prevents pregnancy would be illegal. CorruptUser 19:48, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, thats exactly what they want. Some want PREVENTIVE CONTRACEPTION banned too. I'm sure if they could get away with it, they'd have any woman that can't pump out 5 little glorious soldiers, shot. Revolverman (talk) 20:54, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
It isn't like there is a need to shore up the population. It's literally just adding kindling onto the metaphorical fire of resource overconsumption. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 21:31, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
This is where I think the anti-abortion crowd has lost the rank and file. They used such apocalyptic language for years, now these state legislatures are just taking this to the next logical conclusion. Once they define punishments, and try to enforce laws across state lines, this thing is going to explode.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 22:08, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
This is a war against women, a war against Trans men, a war against Third Gender people, and a war against Non-Binary people. It is repugnant. I reckon this will advance to anti-contraception, anti-emergency contraception, and more prudish ideologies in the near future. The anti-abortionists increasingly reveal their true intentions.-April Chat? 22:22, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Overpopulation, increased rates of homelessness, disease outbreaks becoming worse, increased strain on public services, increased pollution and probably increased violence. Just call them pro-birth, pro-overpopulation, pro-disease, pro-pollution, pro-violence and pro-homelessness. We need better access to condoms, birth control, better gun control, modern infrastructure and better education systems. --Let me go crazy on you! (talk) 01:31, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Overpopulation is not a problem and abortions rights do not lower fertility rate. GeeJayK (talk) 01:36, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Yes, "overpopulation" is an ecofascist theory.-April Chat? 01:48, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Yes and no. Overpopulation is used as an excuse to justify bigotry. "Oh, I'm not just a racist xenophobe, it's just that allowing more people in would harm the environment", etc etc. But that doesn't mean that overpopulation isn't an issue. More people means that technology improves faster, yes, but until then, the tech is what it is and you only have so much farmland, so much water, etc. CorruptUser 18:29, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
From my layperson's POV, one of the targets here appears to be trying to re-classify the morning-after pill as 'abortion' - and I agree with Liberal's assessment. I'll add another; that the pro-pregnancy crowd they might have created their own nemisis; that openly moving against all 'abortion' and then start glaring at contraception / sex ed they've a) shown their true colours (causing opposition to properly come out and kick back) and b) making it much harder/uncomfortable for the fence-sitting RINO (who is vital for GOP election victories). I always thought RvW overturning was somewhat pointless anyway; that it was rather easy to create a de facto ban via the backdoor method of obstructive stipulations (like clinics needing full hospital-level kit etc) making it almost impossible to operate, 'counselling' mandates / 'crisis centres' for the obvious desire to 'run down the clock' for women needing an abortion and so on.
However, the fundie pro-bumpers and fascists meet on the Venn here; the former wanting huge families as 'servants of God' a la Quiverfull while the latter desire similar to fight 'the Great Replacement'. They're bit of odd bedfellows - when Rapture politics meets Social Darwinism over a table strewn with Hobbesian tracts, peak oil graphs and global warming predictions - but there's quite a lot they can agree on as long as they don't pick *too* hard under the surface of the other.
Anyway, on the 'overpopulation' point, no it isn't an ecofascist theory *by itself*. See RW article on the subject, it's quite good. Much of it centres around the old Cornucopian - Malthusian debate, which has been and shall always continue to be argued. KarmaPolice (talk) 15:59, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, overpopulation isn't actually a thing. What is a problem is economic infrastructure to provide the necessary resources to people, and it becomes a fascist talking point because the fascists by nature don't want to share their resources. The idea has a basis in reality, in that the Earth has a limit in it's total carrying capacity. That limit depends on a number of factors and some have argued it could be as low as only a few billion if you assume upper-middle class American style resource consumption. But in terms of food production, it appears that limit is somewhere in the neighbourhood of 20-30 billion if you are very efficient and effective in your distribution.
I don't believe the low estimates based on other resource consumption besides food, because agriculture is already the largest user of land. Other resource consumption needs are much more compact and don't necessarily depend on any natural limits of Earth, so long as we can actually stop burning fossil fuels for energy. General analysis of trends, meanwhile, show that population will level out at around 10-12 billion, so not very different on the whole from what we've got to deal with now.
So do everyone around you a favour, and point out overpopulation concerns for the fascist talking point that it has become. Fortunately their bigotry always comes out on this topic, since it's always some other whose population must be reduced. (talk) 04:58, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
There is the issue that farming still requires resources we mine, e.g., potassium, phosphorous, etc, and those are finite. In theory we could extract that from ocean-water where it ends up anyway, but not by simply boiling the water; the uranium content of ocean-water is about 2-3 micrograms per litre, which comes out to 2-3 grams of uranium per kiloton of ocean water. To boil that would be 540,000,000,000 calories, whereas even if you converted all the uranium to energy through a breeder reactor, you get about 45,000,000,000 calories, or only 1/10th of the energy needed to do so. We would need some way of filtering out the minerals instead, which we don't have at the moment. So, mining it is. CorruptUser 17:52, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Can't we just water the crops so that they absorb the minerals? LongStylus (talk) 18:45, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm not stopping discussion of this topic simply on the basis 'it's become a fascist talking-point'. I watched a decade-plus of reasonable folks refusing to talk about immigration for the very same reason and guess what, *the fascists won the argument* because they got the field to themselves. Nor am I going to deny stuff simply because 'it might be helpful to fascists'. Doing that actually makes the fascists *stronger* because they then get into 'extremist has a point' territory which gives them an open door to a decent % of the population.
Though I don't use 'overpopulation' as a word in general terms; I call it 'overconsumption'. And what's the solution? You clearly cannot have 10-12 billion people all enjoying 'upper-middle class American style resource consumption' unless a) technology has gone to the point we've basically got free energy etc and/or b) we've found 'colony worlds' to steal resources off to prop up Earth's SoL (and dump the millions of tons of trash generated from it). In a more immediate future, the planet cannot take *current* levels of consumption - and you've got perhaps 60% of our species with very reasonable demands to have a better SoL. What's the plan - to tell them, that 'for the good of the planet' they've got to remain poor while we can remain rich?
Also, you're talking BS about other resource consumption having no limits. They do - the resources to expoit them are finite (though not fixed). Societies have to divvy up their 'productive capacity' for competing demands; more food equals more farms, which means more fertiliser, energy, tools etc needed. These don't come out of thin air; either for that 'year' investments in other areas (science, industry etc) shall need to be cut back and/or private consumption shall need to be curtailed to compensate. It's this 'Malthusian catastrophe' which led to nations like China going hard into 'family planning'; they saw the very real risk that if the population increase wasn't blunted and fast, most, if not all of their 'productive capacity' would be devoted to simply averting imminent disaster, and therefore never being able to escape the poverty trap.
KarmaPolice (talk) 04:41, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
it would though be best to cease discussion about overpopulation or overconsumption when the discussion is or was concerned with initially with abortion rights. suggestions of a mathusian catastrophe will result from prohibitions on abortion, or any other kind of national emergency is not only ridiculous in the extreme but distract from the very real effects on the rights of women generally and the effects on the health and wellbeing of the individual women whose options are reduced to maternity inspite of all circumstances.
the rights of women in the west are as good as they are (relatively) in no small part because effective birth control freed women from the financial dependence on a husband that pregnancy used to entail and risked everytime they had sex. there are a good many of the pro choice who are the same fucknuts who complain about their insurance premiums going to the funding of sluts consider anything more than abstinence only sex ed is child abuse.
introducing overpopulation to mix as 'pro' for abortion will have anti abortion laughing as we give them the opportunity to frame the pro choice side as more concerned with genetics and population control than with concern for the rights of women. lets not do that. we should keep the discussions over abortion focused on abortion and separate from unrelated tangents. abortion really is not a factor in overpopulation and is such a tangent AMassiveGay (talk) 08:08, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
I'd never use 'overpopulation' as an argument for retention of abortion rights. Not only is it one of the most expensive forms of family planning on offer, but in the advanced world our native population growth is near nil or minus. My point was admittedly a bit of an irate reply to a 'talking about this topic (or worse, admitting any downsides at all) *might* help the fascists, so let's pretend it doesn't exist!' mentality which frankly, pisses me right off.
As for discussing abortion per se, what is there to say, really? Apart from discussing how successful the lunatic faction of the pro-bump groups shall be in morphing their crusade into other targets (such as sex ed, contraception etc) *and* managing to keep the 'moderate' ones on-board? KarmaPolice (talk) 08:56, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
From an American perspective I've honestly never heard "population" in any sense used much as a serious argument in abortion, you hear this occasionally from racists but you don't take racists seriously of course. Eugenics is occasionally waved around, but never (from what I have heard) as a serious argument with sober holistic consideration, more as an emotional anti-abortion plea. Certainly problems of this sort are an actual legitimate downside to abortion (see the sex-selective abortion issue in many Asian countries) but as long as the primary thrust of the anti-abortion argument in America is yelling by religious conviction, this type of stuff is window dressing. There's past problems associated with criminalizing abortion too -- shotgun marriages / orphanages, increased health issues for women (including deaths of women who can't get a life-saving abortion for a medical condition), and what not -- and none of these are really being addressed by the anti-abortion crowd either. Emotional sloganeering on any issue, however morally complex, seems to be the "American way" of late (heck even the pro-choice crowd is guilty of that) and I haven't seen much evidence that the anti-abortion activist crowd as a whole has moved too much beyond "dead baby me mad" 100% emotion based thoughts, thoughts usually pushed from some groups of people yelling about the issue at their fundie church. It will take consequences ala the Savita Halappanavar death in Ireland to sober this crowd up, which is guaranteed to happen in some states the way things are going. So it goes. Meh (talk) 13:54, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
I've seen vague flirting by some right-wingers with the 'ghost of Galton'; that poor people shouldn't have kids they can't afford to support etc. However, on the other side I've seen pro-disability groups citing the spectre of 'ableness-selective' abortions, which can become a *very* emotive subject - I recall the hate Peter Singer gets over this (which I am not sure is completely warranted, as I've read his Practical Ethics and as far as I remember, he never advocated anything near a generic 'kill the disabled' line he's supposed to be touting).
The American situation is more complex. I forsee within five years of RvW repeal a new case coming up in front of the Court - could be a myriad of topics, though shall invariably be something stupid/evil - like some State which won't even allow action to save the mother's life. What happens after that... who knows. I also predict an upswing of hypocrisy; where they get 'all abortacide banned' in their locality... then a couple of years later, send their teenage daughter for a 'weekend vacation' / 'daytrip' to conveniently, a State where it's still legal (which makes any ban classist; the wealthier folks shall simply circumvent the bans if/when they 'need' to). Think they'll get pissy about the much higher costs than anything else.
However, we need to remember that 'more baby orphanages' is not a 'problem' in the USA, but a *business opportunity* (esp if white babies), as well a manner which the pro-bump crowd can really get off on, because adoption is *always* great and perfect and never fails (Read CP's adoption page and then hurl in a bucket). KarmaPolice (talk) 03:27, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Gale aka Andrew[edit]

How was he not banned at this point the amount of times he’s been involved in some pretty negative stuff here is surprising to say the least like how is he not been i’m not saying he should be banned but at the same time i’m not saying he shouldn’t and the guy has a history of being well rude person as seen on uncylopedia Vortex (talk) 03:07, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

don't you use punctuation in your writing? that sentence was too long for me to read. G Man (talk) 04:10, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Andrew5 has been forthright in his admission of being banned from both Wikipedia and Uncyclopedia. We generally do not judge people by their behavior outside of RationalWiki. Andrew5 has been disciplined for abusing Sysop privileges (RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation/Archive38#Per the CS etc etc etc).[1] It generally takes a community vote to ban someone. Bongolian (talk) 04:13, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Hello unknown brand new user who has apparently created an account just to ask why some other used hasn't been banned for, well, "something vague". It doesn't actually work like that.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 07:14, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Looks like a personal feud. Maybe you can address this issue in the resolve dispute equivalent of RW. Herr Doktor Enter into the rabbit hole 07:22, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Ban everyone I don't like reeeeeeeee MirrorIrorriM (talk) 12:37, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
@MirrorIrorriM, please avoid gratuitous use of 'reeeeeeeee' (Alt-right glossary#Autistic screeching). Thank you. Bongolian (talk) 18:14, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
I got blocked for that once (Nov 29 entry, I wish the temperatures were like 11/29 (high of 42, low ~30, certainly better then the 86 degree heat I'm in right now)). Andrew5 (talk) 18:28, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Also whose impersonating me? It's getting annoying. Andrew5 (talk) 18:28, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

@Bongolian wait really? I'm sorry for doing it then; I honestly didn't know. I see it used on gaming forums and twitch chat n'stuff but I wasn't aware of its origins. Thanks for letting me know. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 18:44, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
No problem. It did seem out of character for you. Bongolian (talk) 19:28, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
True, Andrew's too cowardly and spineless to do something like that. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:56, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
it’s not because I don’t like him it’s because he’s a dick Vortex (talk) 01:45, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
You should really take your personal vendettas somewhere else.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 13:01, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
it's not cus of that it's cus he never learns Vortex (talk) 14:10, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Vortex, what is your Uncyclopedia account? Andrew5 (talk) 20:41, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia Drama Moment .-. StingraeyAngy 21:51, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

i just read it Vortex (talk) 16:16, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Spud is delighted to announce he's leaving the employ of his horrible boss[edit]

Thursday 16 June 2022 will be my last teaching day at the private language school where I haven't been happy for a very long time. I will be leaving the employ of my horrible boss. The one who told me I'd go to hell for not believing in her Chinese folk gods. The one who reacted to news of my sister's death by saying to me, "That's probably because she ate badly like you." The one who has constantly lied to me and tried to gaslight me. The one who has berated, belittled and humiliated me in front of my students numerous times.

I am staying in Taiwan and going to Chang Gung UniversityWikipedia. I'm going to be a research assistant to an old Taiwanese friend of mine who's now a professor there. Spud (talk) 12:17, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

That sounds like a really fantastic change. Great news! Well done! and I hope you enjoy your new post!Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 13:13, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Congrats man! Glad you're getting out from under her thumb. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:50, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
congratulations!! best wishes to you!! G Man (talk) 20:42, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
That's great! Best wishes on your new job. Bongolian (talk) 00:03, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
I wish you the best of luck in your next chapter of your life.Andrew5 (talk) 01:20, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

American war criminal suggests Ukraine give up land to Russian war criminal[edit]

Dr. Death himself rolled his bloating carcass to Davos to declare that Ukraine should be willing to cede territory to end the war, and that humiliating Russia would be destabilizing to Europe.[2] There was a time when Kissinger actually did seem to understand global diplomacy,(in fact his book Diplomacy (book)Wikipedia was required reading in my college days) but it is clear that time has passed. Kissinger is among those that subscribe to this 'sphere of influence' model. He also seems unaware that appeasement has been a failure to deescalate an aggressor since WWII.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 16:42, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

The only way I could see Ukraine giving Russia land is through a 1-1 land swap. Even then, that is very unlikely. The way I see it the only way this war is ending is through bloodshed. It is not a pretty thought but the current situation is confirming that bloodshed is the only option. --YouTube Demi-Queen (talk) 21:15, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Belgorod Oblast was swapped for Crimea in the 1957 exchange - you'd think that the RF would be willing to give it back as part of rescinding that exchange... seems only fair...... and now back to reality.... some Russian nationalists are arguing that the RF should give up the fiction of denazification and threat from NATO and just acknowledge the war is a simple old fashioned nationalist land grab. Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 23:56, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Just swapping land of equivalent sizes is not going to work. Crimea is very strategic for both Ukraine and Russia, particularly because of the access that it gives to Black Sea natural gas reserves. Russia will not honor any agreements as long as it remains a mafia state. Bongolian (talk) 00:08, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Sounds like the ghost of John McCain talking. Dutchbag (talk) 00:19, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
In warfare, it is easier to defend than to attack. Getting back Crimea and other land that the Russians now control is going to be hard. It's going to be a artillery warfare slugfest that could easily drag on for years. Kibble (talk) 02:02, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
The bigger problem is that generally speaking, the forces are fairly evenly matched. Neither have enough forces to be able to achieve anything more than very local, fleeting superiority in numbers (3:1 is citied for offensive operations). Many of the advantages Ukraine has/is enjoying shall flip towards the Russians when they perform counter-offensives.
The biggest problem is Putin. The only way he'll let go of this is if he's in a box. I fully believe him capable of (and half suspect will) commit a level of destavation and genocide in the occupied East simply out of pure spite. I put nothing past him now - he's failing, he's ailing and he's surely becoming more aware of this by the day. This is the most dangerous of times.
When you actually read the article, 'the carcass' isn't completely full of it. But he does have three main problems;
1. While he rightly cautions to not seek Russian humiliation, he doesn't address the simple fact Russia placed herself in the position she's humilating herself by Putin proving himself to be the biggest 'Sawdust Caesar' (Sawdust Czar?) since Saddam Hussein.
2. He doesn't make it clear the difference between 'stopping fighting' and 'peace' (qv, 'frozen conflict'). From the gist it seems like Carcass is saying 'don't immediately try to get back Crimea/Donbass', which is in fact something Zelensky doesn't disagree with (his red-line is basically, the lines as of 1st Feb). He doesn't explicitly say Ukraine should sign those things away as a starting point of a peace treaty with Russia.
3. He doesn't answer how his 'realpolitik' deals with a major player who is a chronic cheat. 'Europe' in this case cannot go back to the status quo (even if she wanted to, or thought it was pragmatically a good idea) because there's zero trust (I'm reminded of the quip by Churchill that he'd happily trade bits of the Empire for peace, but only a lasting one, which was not on offer from the Axis). Even more importantly, there's no power which could function as a mediator because Putin will not listen to anyone. KarmaPolice (talk) 04:20, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Library of Ruina Discussion[edit]

So Techpreist mentioned that I should start a thread about this game. I enjoyed Library of ruina and it's world building and I was wondering if any of you wanted to share your thoughts on the game and/or discuss the tones, philosophies and/or settings of the story. — Unsigned, by: Tr3ll15 / talk / contribsTH (talk) 13:38, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

@Tr3ll15 I hate to see this completely ignored, so I will just say I am a fan of the series but don't want to know spoilers. I am still working through Lobotomy Corp, and I've heard Library of Ruina is big spoilers for the end of Lobotomy Corps. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 19:24, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
hey thanks @MirrorIrorriM How far are you may I ask? I have some tips to supress anormalities if you want help.TH (talk) 13:47, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
I got to the part where you get a second mini base at the end of a big bridge. I didn't realize that when you lose you can replay the game and keep some EGOs, so I was trying to do everything first run. I haven't had time to play games for a few months though, because I'm developing my own and it is hard work. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 11:01, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Nice dude kudos to you don't worry bout it i honestly never finished the first game but I am Obsessed with LoR so I am exited if/when you get into it I'm honestly a fan of the world building and the characters.TH (talk) 11:52, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Celebrating 15 Years of Rationalism[edit]

I'd say 15 years of rationality would be more accurate. Rationalism alone is pretty irrational, actually. GeeJayK (talk) 22:18, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

oh shit, tomorrow is the anniversary already! i didn't realize that. pretty cool. G Man (talk) 23:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Me neither. I was not here to witness its wee days, but I am certain it grew immensely.-April Chat? 00:27, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

@GeeJayK I've changed it. Spud (talk)

<raises glass> A testimony to stupidity. In 15 years, nobody has learned a goddamn thing. Drink up. Dutchbag (talk) 06:43, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
true Vortex (talk) 14:43, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Indeed, there are still pseudo-scientific weirdos who lurk on the wiki and do nothing but randomly shitpost about how much they don't like the userbase. Indeed, people have learned nothing. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:47, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
nah everyone sucks Vortex (talk) 14:50, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Find a different site then. Either convince people to change, earn their respect and get them to change, or fuck off. Whichever you choose, don't whine about it like a dumbass brat. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Oh, and indent your fucking posts. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

tf was i banned for[edit]

all i did was say no is that so bad Vortex (talk) 15:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Just format your goddamn posts. It's not hard. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:00, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
tf u mean by that Vortex (talk) 16:17, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Troll. Indent when replying, if you don't next time you'll be blocked for a lot longer. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:50, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Blocked. Not banned. If this person had been banned they would be unable to comment, namely because their account would be unable to post. This is a trivial distinction. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Jean Chrétien[edit]

So about a month ago, I spoke with a woman from Canada who told me about someone by the name of Jean Chrétien. She told me her father cried when he was elected a president (no tears from joy, I might add) and said that he was even worser than Harper. Not being from Canada and not knowing alot from Canadian politicians, I thought he was a Conservative, because Quebec & after seeing his face where she said that he always talks like that and I said that he looked like a mobster. Until I was looking something up from CA and ended on this page.

TL;DR, who is this guy besides being a member of the LPC and former president? Couldn't find a page on him here so I guess he's not that bad, then? Also wikipedia is scared of calling the kettle black (hence why they don't call a single party from the european ID faction Far-Right, but "Right-Wing To Far-Right" for some weird reason, even though most of them have been identified as Far-Right by the media, like the PVV from Geert Wilders, for example), in case someone wonders why I'm not looking it up on wp. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 18:55, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Jean Chrétien was a Prime Minister via the Liberal party (For ten years and leader of opposition prior to that). He was quite progressive on many issues and helped some causes including that of lgbtq+ rights, AIDS treatment and antistigma, indiginous rights (to mixed results), foreign aid in developing countries and labour/evironmental protections. His impact is mixed. Hard to imagine why his election would be seen as horrific. He didn't really do much that was radical but infact enacted policies that were mostly popular. ShabiDOO 19:29, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps her father was a CPC voter? Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 22:59, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Or a French-Canadian not a fan of his staunch pro-Federal stance? It appears he also pissed off Alberta in the 80s over oil revenues. Most importantly, Chrétien appears to have been 'Canadian Third Way' and as thus, the complaint of 'being worse than Harper' (a Conservative) might be the anguish of a left-winger who suspects that under the Liberal facade Jean shall simply preside over the continuation of neoliberal policies (or at least, not rocking the current boat). So somewhat similar to the left-wing dislike/suspicion shown to say, Blair and Clinton at the time. KarmaPolice (talk) 04:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
I want to pipe in as a Canadian. I'm young enough that I never voted in an election while Chrétien was PM, but old enough that I grew up when he was in charge. Chrétien became Prime Minister shortly after Brian Mulroney (a Progressive Conservative), who was PM for just under nine years, and immediately following Kim Campbell (another PC). There was a general perception that Campbell was left holding the bag for Mulroney in the fallout of scandals. Ultimately, Chrétien did something similar to his successor, Paul Martin - he resigned as PM and Martin essentially took over amidst another big mess. Of course, Martin was succeeded by Stephen Harper, a Conservative (note the absence of the word "Progressive" in there), who in turn held the office for a long time.
There's a general perception amongst a lot of people I know that Prime Ministers have a shelf life that is often much shorter than their actual time in office. For a lot of PMs (certainly for Mulroney, Chrétien and Harper), there is a perception that these leaders get worse over time (e.g., they get obsessed with building a legacy and make questionable decisions as a result). It's like that saying about the hero living long enough to become the villain, in a way. I wonder if your friend's father may have felt differently about Chrétien in, say, 1997 than 2022.AcidTrial (talk) 14:41, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
She told me he cried after he was elected in 1993. So in that same year. Her father died a few years ago, so I wouldn't know what her dad would've thought about him in 2022. KarmaPolice could be right, since we were joking about Quebecian Nationalists and the Trucker Movement before she mentioned him. And yes, PC and Reform merged to become the CPC in 2003 before the elections. I knew about that. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 18:19, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Bulgaria's childish attitude towards North Macedonia[edit]


Bulgaria is so hypocritical in terms of blocking North Macedonia's ascension to the European Union. They complain about no constitutional protections against Bulgarians in North Macedonia yet Bulgaria refuses to recognize the Macedonian ethnicity in their country. Bulgaria also claims that North Macedonia refuses to accept their Bulgarian heritage yet Bulgarians claim to be Thracians. With Bulgaria, it is the pot calling the kettle black. --YouTube Demi-Queen (talk) 16:14, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Balkans gonna Balkan. Plus ça change... and all over some of the crappiest pockets of land anyone could be unfortunate enough to inhabit. I met some Bulgarians from Plovdiv, where they found the lush landscape of... Scotland... beautiful beyond imagination; I mean, Scotland is nice and all, but not exactly mind-blowing. Problem isn't ignorance of their history, but rather that there's too much history per square mile there. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:36, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
thats the shittiest hot take i have heard in sometime. well done. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:46, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Glad I could be of service, even if my tongue wasn't entirely centered in my mouth. Still don't expect the powder keg that started WWI and the ethnic cleansing of the 90s to become a paragon of stability anytime soon. Then again, being an American assaulted with Newsmax and Fox all the time makes it plenty easy to find worse. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:58, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
I wouldn't hold WWI starting too much against our Balkan friends. Most countries in Europe were itching to death-war each other at that point, and Princip just gave them the excuse. It could just have easily started over Alsace, Morocco, or some other dumb crap. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 17:05, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Side note: this was quite the headline at the time. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:13, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

To the last point on my previous thread[edit]

Warning icon orange.svg Warning: Solipsism conversation ahead may rot your brain!

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

I'll think I'll just leave this here[edit]

I was walking around a local book store recently and came across a copy of an old pulp magazine called "Magazine of Horror" and to my surprise this cheap paperback had some vintage material from Robert E. Howard in it. An archive search shows that several issues of this pulp magazine are on the internet archive, and I came across this gem from REH, which I'll just drop here. This is called "A Song For Men Who Laugh":

Satan is my brother, Satan is my son,

Satan was my guiding star before my life begun.

I follow all his highroads, the gaudy roads that shine —

Satan is my brother, and I have drunk his wine.

Down the hill together, reeling, roaring drunk.

We have staggered when the moon was a Chinese junk

On a starry ocean, spreading yellow sails,

Seven thousand little demons, rowing with their tails.

Out of the brothels we have come careening.

On each side a flaming wench, on our shoulders leaning.

Leave the pious righteousness to the priests and churls!

Satan is my brother, and I have kissed his girls.

Satan gives me promises —bitter is his mead! —

He will give me my reward for each flaming deed.

Satan has a place for me, weaving to his spell —

I will find a burning berth in his bitter Hell.

Satan gives me word of this, o’er the tavern table,

I will curry flaming steeds in the Devil’s stable.

Out across the brothel sounds his brooding yell:

All my life will win for me is a berth in Hell.

But I’d rather bide there, mocked by Demons Seven

Than to live with prudes and priests in a sexless heaven!

High roads and by roads, and all the world is dim!

Satan is my brother, and I will follow him.

cosmikdebris talk stalk 04:54, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Might be a useful video to refer when TERF’s and conservatives ask this troll question.[edit]

https://youtu.be/i6m3CzzYSOs the video is called What is a woman? By Lily Alexendre. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 02:29, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Here's how I answer it:
  • "The gender identity for socially feminine traits" (rarely)
  • "You tell me"
  • "Google is your friend"
  • "They're definitely not a loaded question that you just asked"
  • "What's a man?"
  • "I can tell you that they aren't just baby-makers, you fucking misogynist"
PoorlyDrawnRockford.jpeg Rockford the Roe boop my snootpraise Oscar Wilde 16:45, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Those are all quality responses ngl - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 22:27, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
My response is very simple. I politely ask them to define women in such a way as to exclude all trans women, include all cis women, and that I can use practically in a social setting without committing a sex crime. To date the opposition has had no success. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:31, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
'Why is this important, again?' Because when it comes down to it, they've got barely any actual evidence for their fears (like bathrooms etc).
If I desire to troll them, I'll point out my blockhead of a Prime Minister (Johnson)'s latest intervention which means any pervy guy can apparently gain access to women's public bathrooms by saying they're transmen. KarmaPolice (talk) 08:52, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
I believe that Lily Alexandre completely dodges the question. She/he/they basically starts by talking a whole lot about the origin of the patriarchy and how womanhood is basically an old colonial concept from ancient farming societies in Europe. She/he/they then complains about how much this hurts women for centuries. However when Lily finally gets around to actually answering the question, She/he/they said "Women like being called women and it is harmful when you don't call them that!". Like, what, the concept of womenhood is incredibly harmful yet women today completely embrace the concept of the "woman"? What? Is all women just simply self-hating masochist then? Then Lily goes on and on about how the "women" as a social concept is made up and is drilled to every second infant at birth. Yet transwomen "womanness" is innate and has nothing to do with conditioning. So being a women is both a social concept and not a social concept at the same time which makes no sense whatsoever. Also woman is too vague to be defined yet transwomen are definitely women and you shouldn't question it at all.
Lily Alexandre logic is faulty because he/she/they misses the whole point of the women: Sex and Sex-determination. A women and girl is a female member of homo sapiens. Like all mammals and most (if not all) multicell organisms, human beings have 2 sexes male and female. A person who is below the age of majority and is part of the female sex is a girl. A person who is above the age of majority and is part of the female sex is a woman. What the age of majority is (let the age of majority be 18 or some other number is not really that important for this argument). I laugh when Lily said that the word "adult" and "human" where too vague to have a clear definition. Is there now humans now identifying as a chimp or something or clearly adult people now identifying as kids?
What I don't get is why we have decided that only women wear makeup and dresses. Why do you need to identify as a woman to enjoy those things? If Lily enjoys to dress and do womanly things all day, then by all means do that. But why call yourself a woman? I mean, according to your definition Lily, woman is too vague to be defined and woman and man is made up anyway. So getting upset that your being "misgendered" shouldn't matter then!
Let me break it down with you even further. Let say they were to twin boys who at the moment at birth became the stereotypical girlish people imaginable. One was called Albert and the other Bruce. Yet when both boys reached adulthood, Albert declared himself a woman, while Bruce remain a man. Albert then spent tens of thousands of dollars to get neo-genitals of the opposite sex and grew breasts and such while Bruce remained as a very effeminate man. What I want to ask, if both boys are completely have done the same actions since their birth (makeup, long hair etc) then what makes Albert a woman and Bruce a man? Could (talk) 10:03, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Youtube videos usually make for awful discussion, so I won't comment on whatever Lily Alexandre said. Just two comments. A) Transvestism (dressing up in opposite sex clothing) is not necessarily the same as gender dysphoria. And B) There is a little bit of "fuzziness" in gender biology even beyond dysphoria, as intersex people demonstrate. (Though a vast majority will end up close to the two biological sexes, of course.)
We're at the stage, of course, where we are well beyond the "there are only two genders!" phase of discourse, and back to the /s "good old days" (hah!) where teh gay are being accused of being pedo "groomers" by conservatives. (Never mind that, historically, the most "pedo-friendly" open platforms on the Internet have typically been right-wing "free speech" shitholes like 4Chan and 8chan. Good luck, Elon Musk, with your probable desire to turn Twitter into the same!) My assumption is people JAQing off on "what is women" are mostly completely insincere. They are doing so simply because homophobia is no longer kosher in much of polite society, but transphobia is perfectly acceptable in some circles, so certain politicians and "Youtube shitposting" types can use it to rile up the 'rubes. Generally you don't feed trolls and typically you should ignore JAQing off like this. For those actually wondering, there's plenty of scientific resources on the Internet that are probably better than a Youtube video for this sort of question. (talk) 13:39, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
@Could Have you considered getting tested for SPD? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:25, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
“Could” coming here not even bothering learning someone’s pronouns with their page long strawman fallacy and 3rd grade biology lesson. Providing another unsatisfying answer to the question that has just been argued can’t be satisfyingly answered.- Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 20:38, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
I can't speak for other nation's TERFs, but the British ones appear (to me at least) to be mainly motivated by misandry. Their disdain for men is so wide, their sense of 'gender injustice' so hard-wired and they simply can't get their minds away from the dogma that 'all men are rapists'. This, along with the almost mythical belief regarding 'womanhood' all becomes a heady brew in which the concept that a man would *choose* for 'non-exploitative' reason(s) to become a woman simply 'does not compute'.
Anyway, I *do* see worth in answering trolls/sealions - to help you formulate précis for later use. That while your current 'opponent' might be disingenuous, chances are you'll encounter later on folks who are genuinely confused or a blank slate. If you've got a decent potted answer ready it can be instantly wheeled out against the BS-peddlers pushing their 'feels' and non-thinking, 'easy' answers. KarmaPolice (talk) 14:55, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
@KarmaPolice I mean, they did ignore my challenge and just vomit up transphobic garbage so... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:52, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
My best answer to the question is to remove myself from the argument with the understanding "a word means what the user thinks it means, until they change their mind." It always takes a moments reflection to decide whether I have a chance to change someone's mind. Planting a seed of doubt concerning the certainty of another is usually the best one can hope to accomplish.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:12, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie I have already answered your question: A woman is a person of the female sex who is above the age of majority. Read my response above. And no I am not a transphobe. I might disagree with them but I'm dont hate them.Could (talk) 21:43, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
That exact answer is addressed in the video and Lily’s other content. Anyone with a passing familiarity on the topic knows there are many different ways you can classify sex, and what constitutes “female” isn’t universally designated since different contexts and different sciences use different criteria. It also doesn’t capture the distinction between sex and gender. “Age of Majority” is also legally defined and varies from region to region. Are you saying that a 18 year old is a woman in some states but not others who place the age of majority at 21? So one’s status as a woman is determined by location? Also it’s not up to you to determine if your transphobic or not. -Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 22:00, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
@Could Yeah, you didn't answer the question/challenge. Unless you're saying that I should demand to see the genitals of everyone I meet? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:07, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
@OnlySortaDumb No, they're vomiting up talking points because A) they can't think for themselves, and B) that's all they have. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:08, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie Ewww... Don't be a perv. You could lose your job if you do that. Could (talk) 23:29, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
@Could what is the correct way according to you to verify someones gender? You know besides the obvious of just asking someone and taking their word for it, aka the correct way. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 00:05, 27 April 2022 (UTC).
People speak truthfully. They can lie and say that they are female or admit that they are a transwoman. Either way being honest is always the best. Could (talk) 00:40, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
@Could That doesn't actually answer the question. Also stating that a transwoman is lying by stating herself as female is textbook transphobia. "female" as a term is not unique to denoting a person's sex, but can be used to denote their gender identity. Also sex for humans can be broken down to about five categories chromosomal sex, genital sex, gonadal sex, hormonal sex, secondary sex characteristics, and gamete sex. It is totally possible for someone to be "biological male" in one dimension but not others. Take for example folks who had the SRY gene on the Y chromosome translocated onto a X chromosome from their inseminating parent. These individuals may have XX chromosomes and be classified as having a "female" chromosomal sex, and yet they may still have "male" gonads, genitals, and secondary sex characteristics. Some of these characteristics can be altered, some cant. Some folks arguably don't even have just one chromosomal sex. Some folks are genetic chimeras whose have a mix of cells with different genetic make ups. There is a case for example of woman who had cells with XX sex chromosomes and cells that had XY due to having absorbed her male twin in utero. Is she female or male chromosomally speaking? Well she is a bit of both, but her primary sex and gender identity is still female. The truth is neither sex nor gender is a strict binary, and even if you can't alter your chromosomal sex you can still alter other aspects of your biological sex. This is all to say that transwomen are not strictly speaking "biologically male" nor are transmen strictly "biologically female" and they are not lying when they insist upon the gender identity that most closely matches their sense of self. Transphobia is not just simply the hatred or discrimination against transgender people, but also actions that serve invalidate and delegitimize their identities. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 00:58, 27 April 2022 (UTC).
"female" as a term is not unique to denoting a person's sex, but can be used to denote their gender identity — when did that happen? I thought the terminological divisions had been settled; surely melding them back together achieves nothing but reintroducing confusion? 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 talk 01:38, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
@Serene if I were to take a guess sometime longer before you were born. The term "gender" itself wasn't even used until the mid 20th century, and it's not a cultural abnormality that people use "male/man" and "female/womwn" interchangeably, and have been doing so for centuries. Exclaiming "when did this happen?" is the sort of thing that may warrant the response "please go outside more". It's the sort of cultural gaslighting that makes people comfortable referring to transwomen as "biological males". We don't even bat an eye when someone refers to a character as a "female AI" despite having no discernable biological characteristics. and why would we? There is nothing particular atypical about such use. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 02:12, 27 April 2022 (UTC).
@OnlySortaDumb but there's also the practical social aspect, which in my view is the most important. If I walk into a room full of people, I have to make a semi-educated guess about them based on their external appearances. I do not demand to see their genitals or chromosomes. Gender is not only a series of social categories, it is defined by the social aspect when it comes to practice. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:46, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @GC There's some contingency in the social aspect, at least as far as immediate judgements. An inaccurate initial judgement can be overridden by subsequent (verbal) correction, and the correction should be durable in stable social groups. The relevant distinction is, I think, between being a woman and being feminine (or feminine-presenting), and between being a man and being masculine (or masculine-presenting). Immediate judgements will be primarily sensitive to the latter, which are merely correlated with the former. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 talk 02:11, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

@Serene While true, I would classify all of those as social aspects, just of varying sorts. But again, we make reference to the Self and the appearance, not to genitals and chromosomes when we practice and observe gender. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:15, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
@OnlySortaDumb Evidently, my question was unclear. I am, of course, aware that in informal contexts, the terms are used interchangeably. If I had realized you were referring to such broad contexts, I wouldn't have asked the question; there would have been no need. But in my experience, the terms are used more specifically in more careful contexts, and I have encountered both (i) TERFs (self-described gender critical feminists) complaining that 'woman' has been misappropriated so as no longer to be synonymous with 'female', and (ii) counterpoints that the division is appropriate, because the social construct 'woman' is divisible from the biological concept 'female'. Recently, there's also been fairly prominent criticism of several conservative politicians offering the definition "adult human female" for 'woman'. In short, based on my own experiences, it is typically those who insist that to be a woman is just to be a female who are engaged in a form of gaslighting. Based on your reply, I guess I've missed something, and I'll gladly admit that I could have misinterpreted any part of this, but I ask that you at least extend the charity of presuming good faith; it was meant as question, not an exclamation, certainly not as gaslighting, and if my experiences are not representative, or my understanding inaccurate or incomplete, I do want to know. (It might also be worth updating, e.g., our gender article.)
@GC I don't think I have any disputes with what you've said. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 talk 04:07, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
I sense that Platonism is doing its work to confuse the issues at hand. "Gender" has a history as a word, but the word doesn't mean more than we understand it to mean as it is used in any context. By that I mean, we will use it in conversation and gradually understand what one another mean by it.This is nominalism. "Gender" is a kind of word that can be described as primitive. That is to say, we cannot really define it with the vocabulary associated with the concept of gender. We must assume that we already know what the word means. Since gender is primitive our understanding of it can be different for each of us. Problems of understanding can arise when an idea which is contingent upon emotions, drives and desires is conflated with a formal, structured concept. The latter is unlikely to completely determine the former.05:31, 27 April 2022 (UTC)Ariel31459 (talk)
@OnlySortofDumb Its like asking someone if they are married or not. People will tell the truth and some people will lie. That's all there do it. And if you lie about your biological sex you can get into LOADS of trouble. If we decide that sex doesn't matter than we get to situations like Lia Thomas a biological male who is completely destroyed women's sport for his/her/they/xer/per benefit. Could (talk) 06:54, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Except it’s not the same. Marriage is entirely a legal category that can unambiguously be legally declared on the basis of it’s acknowledgement by the church and state. Your biological sex does have some physical reality to it and is not simply determined by the sanctity of the state (nor should we desire such), though the classification between male/female is a bit arbitrary and not at all unambiguous. You are not actually reflecting our current understanding of biological sex within science, but instead insisting upon a gross ideological essentialism. I mean you refer to one sex as being “opposite” to another which albeit is normal parlance still speaks to a cultural bias. What would it even mean to lie about one’s sex if one doesn’t even have a certain grasp to what ones sex even is? It’s not as if trans women claim no difference from themselves to cis women — they don’t claim to be cis. Also fuck off with the cherry picked sports shit there isn’t any evidence that trans women have a systematic advantage over cis women in competitive sports. Trans women do in fact lose to cis women in sports, it’s just this gross assumption that people assigned male at birth are just inherently stronger and better at sports then people assigned female and that’s just sexist stereotyping. Also can’t you have the common decency to learn and use peoples pronouns instead of mockingly going through an entire list. It just makes you look dumb like you can’t even figure out the basics of how to refer to someone. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 08:46, 27 April 2022 (UTC).
Uhhh... the biological nature of sex has been known for hundreds of years. I mean all species of mammals and birds are sexually dysmorphic. If you disagree with this concept then you literally deny reality itself. Also, if you don't know what sex you are then you have to be insane. "It’s not as if trans women claim no difference from themselves to cis women — they don’t claim to be cis." Wow your very close to what I am saying! Just instead of calling them "cis-woman" say "female sex" and you understand it. Also, Christ, don't get so upset over pronouns. They literally just three letter words and have only became offensive in the last decade ago. I wish for the times when no one gave a shit about the "wrong" pronoun. Could (talk) 09:04, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Sex chromosomes weren’t discovered until 1905, that’s only 117 years not “hundreds”. We didn’t even know what genes were for most of the 19th century. I didn’t deny sexual dysmorphism. You may want to seriously consider having your reading comprehension tested by a neuropsychologist if that is seriously what you understood me as saying. Here is some reading material to help you out: https://www.nature.com/articles/518288a. It didn’t become “offensive” to misgender people in the last decade I am sure if you kept referring to a grown man as “mam” or referred to him as “her” in the 19th century you would piss them off. Again the conflation of cis women with “female sex” may not entirely be what you are referring to. Cis women may be assigned female at birth but it is still totally possible for some components of their sex to be “biologically male” and it’s totally possible for trans women to have dimensions of their sex be “biologically female”. This would be obvious if you paid any attention to what I said, but I have a feeling you are more so motivated by transphobia then any interest about the facts regarding sex and gender. -Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 10:32, 27 April 2022 (UTC).
@OnlySortaDumb Yeah I know of the existence of intersex people. But that doesn't mean the male sex and female sex don't exist. After all biological males become "transmen" and biological females become "transwomen" all the time. Also if you call a grown man a "woman" then its obvious that its wrong as its clear that they are biological male. However if you call a transman a "woman" then it just make sense.
Also about the "transphobia" accusation. You do know that you can disagree with people without hating or fearing them right? I like vanilla ice cream. My brother doesn't like vanilla ice cream. However, I don't have to call my brother a "vanilla ice-creamphobe". I would like to address your point about but also actions that serve invalidate and delegitimize their identities is an example of so-called "transphobia". "Gender Identity" doesn't exist. People don't "feel male" or "feel female" no more than a person of Chinese descent "feels Asian" or a redhead "feels like red haired person". Your genitals and breasts don't define your identity. Its only describe your body. This "If I don't have a penis my world will come crashing down!" is silly. Its why transgender people are mentally ill. The only people in the world who get depressed to the point of harm about their normal and natural bodies are the transgenders and other dysmorphic people.
Let me ask you something: Why are transgender people so insistent about forcing other people to see them as the "correct" "gender" like the "correct" pronoun or the "correct" gender be placed on their driver's license? Why don't these people focus their minds on something more productive of their time? Go play video games or touch grass or something. Focusing on being the "correct gender" is just unhealthy. Could (talk) 12:23, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
@Could Are you a man or a woman? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 12:41, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie I am a man, if you wanna know. Could (talk) 13:03, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
@Could So, do you think, as a woman, it might be a bit destructive to your mental health if people kept referring to you as a man? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:38, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
@Could It’s not just a matter of acknowledging intersex people exist, it’s the degree to which biological sex is actually a continuum and that biologically male and female are not in fact mutually exclusive discrete categories. On the basis of that it makes no sense to simply assume everyone is either only male or only female whether they are trans or cis. So the entire insistence that trans men are female and transwomen are male at the exclusion of their biology in anyway conforming to the sex they desire is simply baseless. Especially when things like hormonal sex, genitallia, gonadal sex, and secondary sex characteristics are all medically alterable. Also “fear or hatred” is pretty much implied when you give zero shits about how you may be harming a marginalized demographic and insist on denying the legitimacy of their existence. Like you would be homophobic if you insisted that people must be attracted to people of a different gender/sex than themselves and that their same-sex sexuality is a choice or lifestyle that they can just “get over”. What would it mean to “disagree” with the identities of jewish people, gay people, or roma people?It would mean you’re a bigot. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 17:17, 27 April 2022 (UTC).
Side note, "phobia", or so I've recently heard, does not purely refer to "fear or hatred" but more "extreme and irrational aversion". Food for thought. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:25, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
The phosolipids in your cell membranes have what are described as hydrophilic heads and hydrophobic tails. Fun thing to point out to bigots that the part of the molecule doesn’t fear or hate water. -Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 21:42, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
So when did belief became an idenity? Should we ban all political discussion because people who identify as a conservative or identify as a liberal will call you "politicalphobic" because you invalidate and delegitimize their identities? Trans people believe that there is such thing as a male and female gender idenity. They are free to believe that, however people also have the right to disagree with you on that. I believe that we shouldn't try and place identities around body parts. Also I understand that not all people fall into "male sex" and "female sex" after all, its just one spectrum of all sorts of variabilities within humans. If we are all the same, what would be the point? However this doesn't deny the fact that 99% of human beings fall into a clearly demarked "male sex" and "female sex".
Also “fear or hatred” is pretty much implied when you give zero shits about how you may be harming a marginalized demographic and insist on denying the legitimacy of their existence. Are trans people a marginalized demographic? From what I see from the media and many corporations as well as universities they tend to be celebrated for their beliefs. I cannot see how trans people are marginalized.
Like you would be homophobic if you insisted that people must be attracted to people of a different gender/sex than themselves I don't give a shit about other people sex lives. Do whatever you want. I mean I wouldn't want to have sex with another man, but don't call me a homophobe for it.
“disagree” with the identities of jewish people, gay people, or roma people? What does it mean to "disagree" with the identities of jewish, gay or roma people? I don't get it at all. I said I don't believe that you should place identities around body parts. Its silly and just make people unhappy. Could (talk) 01:23, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
This is a truly dumb response as it misunderstand like so much social phenomena it's honestly pretty impressive, that and you argued yourself into absurdity.
For one, concerns about bigotry and hate speech are so due to their tendency to lead to harm and discrimination against people with immutable characteristics. Things they cannot control like their sexuality, race, and yes arguably their status as a transgender person. Being a police officer, or a liberal, or a punk rocker are NOT immutable characteristics of one's identity.
You also greatly undermine yourself if you truly believe that people shouldn't identify on the basis of "body parts" something that isn't even essential to being trans. Why even support the idea of people identifying as a particular gender on the basis of their sex at all? Like if you believe yourself to be a man because of the anatomy you were born with then you are de facto forming an identity on the basis of body parts. That's what you are doing, not trans people, if anything they are the people pushing that people don't be classified into political identities on the basis of their body parts. If you truly support this idea then you should absolutely support transgender people and the individual right to self-identify one's gender. if you don't support that at all then you are contradicting yourself. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 02:10, 28 April 2022 (UTC).
Of course trans people are marginalized! Look at any of the stats on sexual assault, employment discrimination, housing discrimination, medical discrimination, victimization by hate crime rates, suicidality rates, poverty rates, and representation as sex workers and all these things are significantly higher for trans people then at they are for the general population. This what motivates legal protections and the like, such as bill C16 in Canada. How can you possible say a demographic being more likely to be discriminated against, raped, or experience homelessness is not marginalized? Their presence in media as of recent doesn't represent the average experience of transgender people living in the world today. It's like looking to Elon Musk for the experience of working class white guys because he is a white guy. The average working class trans people is not being celebrated in media. Being transgender isn't a "belief", that goes in straight denial of all the relevant scientific literature on the subject, no different then suggesting being gay is a lifestyle that is a product of their beliefs. Something bigoted fundies do in fact say about gay people. Attacking trans people today is just recycling the old tropes used to attack gay people before them. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 02:22, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
@OnlySortaDumb Ad Hoc reasoning is a hell of a drug. That's how. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:26, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
@Could Hey, transphobe lady. Do you think gay people should have rights and protections? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:27, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Definition of female from Wikipedia
A distinguishing characteristic of the class Mammalia is the presence of mammary glands. Mammary glands are modified sweat glands that produce milk, which is used to feed the young for some time after birth. Only mammals produce milk. Mammary glands are obvious in humans, because the female human body stores large amounts of fatty tissue near the nipples, resulting in prominent breasts. Mammary glands are present in all mammals, although they are normally redundant in males of the species.
Most mammalian females have two copies of the X chromosome, while males have only one X and one smaller Y chromosome; some mammals, such as the platypus, have different combinations. One of the female's X chromosomes is randomly inactivated in each cell of placental mammals while the paternally derived X is inactivated in marsupials. In birds and some reptiles, by contrast, it is the female which is heterozygous and carries a Z and a W chromosome while the male carries two Z chromosomes. In mammals, females can have XXX or X.
Mammalian females bear live young, with the exception of monotreme females, which lay eggs. Some non-mammalian species, such as guppies, have analogous reproductive structures; and some other non-mammals, such as some sharks, also bear live young.
In sex determination for mammals, female is the default sex, while in the poplar genus Populus the default is male.

Definition of woman from Wikipedia
Womanhood is the period in a human female's life after she has passed through childhood, puberty, and adolescence. Different countries have different laws, but age 18 is frequently considered the age of majority (the age at which a person is legally considered an adult). The word woman can be used generally, to mean any female human, or specifically, to mean an adult female human as contrasted with girl. The word girl originally meant "young person of either sex" in English; it was only around the beginning of the 16th century that it came to mean specifically a female child. The term girl is sometimes used colloquially to refer to a young or unmarried woman; however, during the early 1970s, feminists challenged such use because the use of the word to refer to a fully grown woman may cause offence. In particular, previously common terms such as office girl are no longer widely used. Conversely, in certain cultures which link family honor with female virginity, the word girl (or its equivalent in other languages) is still used to refer to a never-married woman; in this sense it is used in a fashion roughly analogous to the more-or-less obsolete English maid or maiden. There are various words used to refer to the quality of being a woman. The term "womanhood" merely means the state of being a woman, having passed the menarche; "femininity" is used to refer to a set of typical female qualities associated with a certain attitude to gender roles; "womanliness" is like "femininity", but is usually associated with a different view of gender roles. "Distaff" is an archaic adjective derived from women's conventional role as a spinner, now used only as a deliberate archaism. Menarche, the onset of menstruation, occurs on average at age 12–13. Many cultures have rites of passage to symbolize a girl's coming of age, such as confirmation in some branches of Christianity, bat mitzvah in Judaism, or a custom of a special celebration for a certain birthday (generally between 12 and 21), like the quinceañera of Latin America. Trans women have a male sex assignment at birth that does not align with their gender identity, while intersex women may have sex characteristics that do not fit typical notions of female biology.

Basically female is the term used in biological context and woman is used in socio-cultural context. That's why referring to trans woman as woman is not a violation of the biological sciences.HighboiWhen the king and the pawn are in the same box 03:53, 28 April 2022 (UTC) 22 (UTC)

@OnlySortaDumbFor one concerns about bigotry and hate speech are so due to their tendency to harm and discrimination against people with immutable characteristics. Things they cannot control like their sexuality, race, and yes arguably their status as a transgender person.
This proposition has a flaw as it excludes religious discrimination like islamophobia. If one goes by this definition one could justify the imprisonment of communists during the red scare.HighboiWhen the king and the pawn are in the same box 05:39, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
You need to sign the end of your edits as it's not at all obvious who is talking. Arguably those forms of discrimination and persecution become problematic on the basis of their violation of universal human rights i.e religious freedom, freedom of speech, etc. Also in the case of islamophobia its not uncommon to suggest that Muslims from Muslim majority countries have been racialized, and THAT the hatred against them has less to do with their actual religious beliefs but more so the presumptions about their cultural background and beliefs on the basis of where they come from -- which reduces back to immutable characteristics. Arguably similar to the reason why "being jewish" gets lumped as a immutable characteristic despite Judaism primarily being a religion. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 05:19, 28 April 2022 (UTC).
@OnlySortaDumb No, I don't "identify" as a man, my body is male. There is no such thing as a "gender identity". Its completly made up. You cannot "feel like your a man" or "feel like your a woman". That's complete and utter nonsense. I do believe that people should not be discriminated against. People who discrimination against transgender people are misguided and stupid. Wear whatever you want, put on makeup, wear a wig, shave, cut your dick off, do whatever you want. But I am not going to be forced to say that transwomen are women. I'm not going to deny literal biology and reality just because your soul is female.
About your comment about hate crimes aganist trans people, transgender people recieve less hate than many other group. Attacks against race make 61% of hate crimes! Look here from the FBI! Gender identity make up only 1.7% of hate crimes. You are FAR FAR more likely to be attacked due to race and religion than for being transgender. That being said, hate crimes against anybody is despicable and I wish for a world where there is no hate crimes. Your claim suicidality rates, poverty rates, and representation as sex workers is suspect for two reasons: Transgender people tend to have far less money because they spend tons of money on pointless surgeries that do nothing to improve quality of life (its like buying new clothes at H&M. At first you are excited and wear it everywhere, then you get bored and throw it in the trash). Second reason is probably because trans people tend to be more depressed. This may be due to the fact that switching "gender" does nothing to improve your quality of life. Your genitals do not improve your quality of life. I have never seen how having a vagina or a penis is suppose to change anything. Does money suddenly fall from the sky and I suddenly have 3000 new friends? Could (talk) 06:47, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
Cloud, you should try not to confuse the percentage of overal hate crimes directed to each community with the percentage of people within a community that suffers hate crimes. The trans community is much smaller than say the African American community. So while more African Americans over all may suffer hate crimes, that doesn't mean a larger proportion of the trans community doesn't suffer hate crimes. Try to put a little more thought into things before you form your arguments. It is really easy to punch holes into a lot of what you say. Are you arguing just to keep hold of your position and replying however necessary to defend your argument or are you capable of conceding some points and rethinking things? I am not sure you are capable of this yet and it is a good skill to develop if you actually want to gain knowledge instead of forming opinions and sticking with them.
Things as an adult in a Western country that I have control over: My religion (or lack of religion), my occupation, my political ideology
Things I do not have control over: my sexuality, my race, my gender
Is being criticised for being gay the same as having your political ideology (for example your views on taxation) criticised? ShabiDOO 09:55, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
@Could On gender affirming stuff...
“more than 25 years of scholarship on transgender mental health and found a strong consensus that undergoing gender transition can improve the well-being of transgender people. The year-long review screened more than 4,000 studies and identified 56 that assessed whether gender transition improves the mental well-being of transgender individuals. The analysis concluded that 93 percent of the studies found positive effects from gender transition, indicating “a robust international consensus in the peer-reviewed literature that gender transition, including medical treatments such as hormone therapy and surgeries, improves the overall well-being of transgender individuals.”
Source: https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2018/04/analysis-finds-strong-consensus-effectiveness-gender-transition-treatment -Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 11:16, 28 April 2022 (UTC).
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/05/180524112351.htm Transgender brains are more like their desired gender from an early age. They certainly aren't misguided or stupid.HighboiWhen the king and the pawn are in the same box 11:33, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
@OnlySortaDumb Could may say that she's a man, but clearly she is in fact a woman. I for one think we should refer to her as her real sex gender. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 12:14, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Getting back on topic:

If you look the word "woman" up in a dead-tree-printed English dictionary, you'll probably find something functionally equivalent to "an adult female human". Those are biological terms. What do those terms mean? An "adult" is an organism that has attained sufficient maturity that it could or would normally be capable of reproduction. A "female" is an organism that has produced or would normally produce ova. For context, these two terms are applicable to most multicellular life (and all that reproduce sexually). You can check whether, say, a corn plant is an adult or a female via observation. A "human" is a member of the genus Homo, as defined by various anatomical traits. So there were "women" among Neanderthals, and their membership in that category is something that can be identified from fossils.

So why would we have a word for that? Because until quite recently, new humans only came about from the input of both an adult female human and an adult male human, and that's still how the vast majority of new humans come about. So those categories are rather important.

With that in mind, I have another question with a straightforward answer, but which also runs into certain ideological stumbling blocks that are popular today. Where do babies come from? Explain as you would a child. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 13:13, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Not too long ago a citizen was defined as a white male of voting age with x and y prerequisites. Today it is quite different. Those arguing against changing the definition to include women and non-white people called such ideas "ideological stumbling blocks". Would you agree those were ideological stumbling blocks? Or was it sensible to change the definition to allow what western constitutions apparantly say they want with things such as equality and the subtext being: giving a minimal shit about those who aren't lucky to be in the prestige group? A romantic relationship until all those pesky ideological stumbling blocks came along, was one between a man and a woman. Now it basically includes two or more consenting agents. Until recently, those resisting such change called it all ideological stumbling blocks. Thanks to those stumbling blocks, I can now walk down the street holding my boyfriends hand with minimal chance of being spat on, verbally abused, beaten or arrested. I would call enjoying this scenario rather than living in a loveless sham-marriage where I resented my family and took out my emotional bitterness out on them as a remarkable improvement. To follow the "what is a woman" stumbling block to its final end, I would say making the, what is a rather effortless requirement on our part to mentally amend the definition of what a woman is to include, for example, people born with x and x body parts but for whatever sincere and practiced reason identify as a woman and have them enjoy less pointless misery in life, beurocratic stumbling blocks and useful legal rights...is a useful trade-off. The only stumbling block I see here is someone resisting making a very minor mental amendment of the definition of something in their mind and a fairly tiny cultural/social adjustment so that a LOT of people can be less miserable and enjoy that so called equality most of our constitutions pretend to protect. ShabiDOO 15:02, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
If you don't think it's a stumbling block, answer the question. Where do babies come from? 192․168․1․42 (talk) 18:49, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Wombs. Are we really reducing women down to the ability to give birth? Seems a bit sexist if you ask me... But hey, I expect definitions that don't dehumanize people. And that I can use outside of niche contexts. Literally no one has actually defined women according to my, honestly reasonable, parameters. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:59, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Maybe you can explain what you were referencing thing with ideological stumbling blocks. I'm sincerely confused. ShabiDOO 22:45, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
"I'm sincerely confused" Then actually answer the question. It wasn't rhetorical. It was formulated specifically to address the issue at hand from another direction. You know the answer to that question, and so does GrammarCommie. But does your ideology permit you to explicitly answer it? That's the sort of stumbling block I was referring to. It's why Ketanji Jackson refused to define the word "woman" when asked despite a lengthy legal career in a country with different laws for men and women.
And so let's examine GrammarCommie's response. "Wombs" is, of course, correct, in a sense that doesn't answer the idiomatic question that the hypothetical child is asking. It's like replying "grocery bags" in response to "Where does food come from?" But wombs. Apparently wombs just spontaneously generate human babies. Any wombs, like the ones mice have, or even that of a baby currently in a womb herself. Actually explaining the conditions under which certain specific wombs can produce human babies would require grappling with concepts relating to adult female humans and adult male humans, and the utility of the words used for those categories. And it seems that GrammerCommie regards the recognition that humans have sexual attributes relevant to human reproduction as sexist and dehumanizing, which really raises the question of what in the world he could possibly mean by that. Or that something experienced by literally every single human that has ever existed is a "niche context".
"Literally no one has actually defined women according to my, honestly reasonable, parameters." "An adult female human" does that. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 13:22, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
@192․168․1․42 How to I verify whether they're female? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:34, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
I see that is really interesting how you are complaining about avoiding answering a question while you are doing the same. What exactly do you mean by stumbling block? ShabiDOO 13:43, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── In response to the BoN I think restricting oneself to the "English dictionary" sort of tells on oneself given that the dictionary isn't itself necessarily prescriptive and isn't technically the authority on the meaning of words in language. This is why in philosophy giving the dictionary definition of a term isn't exactly considered proper conceptual analysis. It should be said the cultural concept that there are more than just men and women, or even that one can be a little bit of both, or change from being a man to a woman or vice versa is something as a tendency exists cross-culturally and cross-history. Usually in the social sciences when you find something that persists cross culturally and cross history you take that as evidence to the phenomena having somewhat of a biological basis (at least this is what evolutionary psychologists argue). You can look at our article on non-binary gender for examples. So this isn't in actuality a recent phenomena, not in the slightest. Also to treat "adult human female" as like solely uncontroversial natural kinds that are clearly delineated shows a massive amount of ignorance to ontology, and the philosophy of science -- especially the philosophy of biology. "species" for example is not a concept that has a clear essential categorization that biologists uncontroversially all agree upon, and if we can't even agree what species are how can we agree what counts as part of the human species? Historically the categorization has been hugely contentious.

in response to your question as well, it's fairly easy to describe to a child where babies come from using the vocabulary of gender-inclusive biology. You just have to refer the reproductive anatomy by technical name. It's not hard to say folks with penises, or folks with ovaries. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 03:16, 5 May 2022 (UTC).

@192․168․1․42 Here's a language guide if ya need it. https://www.genderinclusivebiology.com/bettersciencelanguage - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 03:47, 5 May 2022 (UTC).
"How to I verify whether they're female?" Humans are sexually dimorphic, and like most other sexually dimorphic species, humans have various sexually-divergent traits that serve to identify their sex to other humans. See here for a brief overview. Human males and females tend to have different sizes, proportions, postures and gaits, facial structures, hair patterns, vocal resonances, and smells. By a combination of these factors, most neurotypical humans past a few years of age can quickly and accurately identify the sex of most post-pubescent humans they encounter. For consideration, how are people supposed to make use of alternate definitions of "woman" if one is even articulated to the point of coherency?
"What exactly do you mean by stumbling block?" A stumbling block is an obstacle of the sort that interferes with an endeavor but which can generally be dealt with such that it does not represent an insurmountable problem. In the context of this discussion, as I mentioned above, I am referring to stumbling blocks based on certain popular ideologies which are preventing people from saying things which they know, such as a judge refusing to say what the definition of "woman" is after having a lengthy career in a legal system where that matters, or of GrammarCommie's response to the question which you have refused to answer. These are all straightforward things which everyone involved knows the answers to, and yet getting a straightforward answer is like pulling teeth. Why? Now, where do babies come from?
As an aside, most of what you mentioned in your response on the 3rd is tangential at best, but I can go through it if you want.
"restricting oneself to the "English dictionary"" You seem to be misunderstanding the course of this issue. Until recently, "woman" has generally meant something along the lines of "an adult female human". Recently, there have been movements to redefine it on more subjective lines keeping with notions of identification-as-self-concept and the conception of related issues as matters of personal choice rather than objective fact. Which means that it has become difficult to clearly define what "woman" means in certain modern contexts, and that it has become politically fraught. So when Camp A camp asks Camp B to define "woman", the issue is not the absence of any articulatable definition of "woman" (there obviously is, in the dictionary), it's that that definition is not acceptable to Camp B, and there hasn't been a clear replacement offered. So when Camp B in turn asks Camp A to define "woman" as a retort, and Camp A points to a dictionary, the point is not that everyone is bound by Linguistic Law to use the dictionary definition, it's that there is already a definition of "woman" in existence which people have been using for a long time, and which is structured such that it's possible to check whether a given person is a woman or not. Which is a bar that alternatives so far fail to meet. A definition is that which makes a thing definite - clearly described with a distinct bound so as to distinguish it from other things, so that matters, and it inhibits discussion of what "women" are and are not if "an adult female human" is verboten.
"it's fairly easy to describe to a child where babies come from using the vocabulary of gender-inclusive biology." And yet you haven't done that. Curious, don't you think? Care to try again?
"Here's a language guide" Those terms are not just longer, most are not synonymous. Testosterone is not the only androgen, for example, and estrogens are not the only hormones that female humans have more of. And it denies the existence of statistical norms as a justification for eliminating the words describing them. As you implied above, English is not a prescriptive language with a central authority. If words and phrases have utility, people adopt them. That guide is attempting to impose linguistic standards that offer less utility than the status quo, and to enforce that via moralism. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 10:04, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
@192․168․1․42 So you're saying I should commit sexual assault. Gotcha. Seriously though, maybe you should actually read the criteria I laid out. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:19, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
GC, I think your criteria is a bit, well, I don't think the definition actually matters whether it's polite or not, you make an assumption that the person is telling the truth. If someone says they are having a stomach-ache, do you first require a bit of exploratory surgery to prove that they do in fact have a stomach? By the trans-exclusive definition of a woman, when someone says they are a woman they are saying they were born with the lady-bits. By the trans-inclusive definition of a woman, when someone says they are a woman they are saying their gender identity is overwhelmingly female regardless of which bits they have.
My own stance on the matter is that the same tech we use to create lattice-grown beef will be used for organs, and if we can do that, there's no reason we can't give people real genitals. At that point, when you have people running around with actual uteruses and testicles and getting actual for-real preggers, yup, that's clearly a woman whether she was born female or not. Are transwomen real women? They will be, very very soon. CorruptUser 04:34, 11 May 2022 (UTC).
@192․168․1․42 all of that criticism is based on a strawman representation of the guide, none of those propositions are logically implied or stated with the guide I provided. I didn't think I had explain what sex organs are, or how they functioned to what I presume is a grown adult. I assume that you are intelligent enough and charitable enough that if you are approaching this subject in good faith you would fill in the blanks yourself, but clearly I was mistaken on that.
btw with your whole spiel about the definition of "woman", you'd have to notice that the use of terms like "most" , "tend" etc. is doing ALOT of heavy lifting there. Which is exactly the point people are people are making, these are NOT essentialist mutually discrete categories with necessary and sufficient conditions that can apply to every example of a person we call "female". So why treat them as if they were? - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 05:19, 11 May 2022 (UTC).
@192․168․1․42 I don't see how the trans-inclusive definition of woman is more subjective than the trans-exclusive one. The trans-exclusive one is basically checking for an organ that works a given way between the legs, the trans-inclusive one is basically checking for an organ that works a given way inside the skull. Sure, inside the skull, you cannot directly check with your eyes, but in real life, you don't check with your eyes between the legs either. The reason scientists are moving to a trans-inclusive definition is because it is a more elegant model and the trans-exclusive definition is showing its limitations. If the fact that the assessment is made mainly on asking the person is really a problem for you, what about all the others scientific definitions that also work like that: depression, ptsd, extra/introversion, sexual orientation, ... Are they also, according to you, subjective? Cauch (talk) 09:37, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
"So you're saying I should commit sexual assault." I would be very interested in hearing how you reached that conclusion. Perhaps by relating an actual quote to the legal code of some jurisdiction.
"maybe you should actually read the criteria I laid out."
"exclude all trans women" Bingo.
"include all cis women" Bango.
"that I can use practically in a social setting without committing a sex crime." And check. In case you are unaware, looking at a person is permitted in nearly all social settings, and that is the primary method by which humans identify the sex of other humans. It's pretty accurate too.
"when you have people running around with actual uteruses and testicles" Strictly speaking, it's the ovaries and testicles, but yes.
"all of that criticism is based on a strawman representation of the guide, none of those propositions are logically implied or stated with the guide I provided." Have some direct quotes, then:
"Instead of... Male/female hormones Focus on... testosterone, estrogen, and progesterone"
"Instead of... Normal Natural Typical Focus on... patterns and probability Why? Living things are diverse, with no one “typical” body or behavior."
Did you even read that guide? A strawman entails the misrepresentation of an argument in a way that makes it easier to refute. Have a look through that guide, reread what I wrote, and if you think I misrepresented anything, state clearly and specifically what you think I misrepresented.
"I didn't think I had explain what sex organs are" You didn't. The "explain as you would a child" should have made that clear enough. But in answering a question, you still have to actually answer the question asked. Merely saying that a question would be easy to answer is not itself an answer. For all his flippancy, GrammarCommie is the only one so far to actually answer the question. So again, where do babies come from? This is not a trick question. You know the answer. But can you actually answer, or is something preventing you? That last bit is the focus of this exercise.
"the use of terms like "most" , "tend" etc. is doing ALOT of heavy lifting there" I have not used the words "most" or "tend" in this discussion with reference to the definition of "woman". CTRL+F and have a look. I used them in reference to certain methods of empirical identification of male and female humans. As, for example, most men are taller than most women, but not all men are taller than all women. As a single observed trait, it is not completely predictive of a human's sex (apart from extremely tall men taller than any woman to have ever lived), but it can contribute to the fast and highly accurate predictions that most people make of most people they encounter.
"these are NOT essentialist mutually discrete categories with necessary and sufficient conditions that can apply to every example of a person we call "female"." Among humans, "male" and "female" are perfectly disjoint categories. No human that is known to have ever lived has been capable of producing both eggs and sperm. Sperm production (or its capacity presuming normal development, or that of analogous gametes like pollen) is necessary and sufficient for maleness, while egg production (or its capacity presuming normal development) is necessary and sufficient for femaleness. Such are the biological definitions of those terms. If you have alternate proposed definitions, present them, and we can discuss whether or not to use them, and in what contexts. But note that adding a new definition to a word does not make the old definition disappear, and people can still use it if they want. Hence "woman" has a definition by which some people are women, and others are not, and the distinction is a matter of empirical observation rather than subjective desire or feelings. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 09:46, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
"Sure, inside the skull, you cannot directly check with your eyes" Or by other means, which means it is not subject to empirical inquiry. Hence, the referent for common notions of transwomanhood is the subjective thoughts/feelings of the person in question.
"but in real life, you don't check with your eyes between the legs either." Such a check CAN be performed, though, and such checks are indeed sometimes performed. Meaning that it is a matter subject to empirical investigation independent of what anyone thinks or feels about it. Plus the high reliability of identification by secondary sex traits as mentioned above.
"The reason scientists are moving to a trans-inclusive definition" Which scientists? The sociologists concerned with social behaviors, or the biologists concerned with physical biology?
"because it is a more elegant model" An "elegant" model explains much with minimal propositions. What is the advantage in explanatory power or simplicity here?
"the trans-exclusive definition is showing its limitations" Such as?
"Are they also, according to you, subjective?" All the things you mentioned can be identified without asking someone directly, and indeed, asking directly (e.g. "Are you depressed?") is usually a poor diagnostic methodology. There are actual diagnostic criteria used to determine those and other psychological conditions (e.g. PTSD), and while these may involve questioning the person being diagnosed, the diagnosee is not responsible for making the diagnosis. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 10:08, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
"Or by other means". Is that true? You can measure IRM or stress level when you expose the subject to different environment. But again, things like "extra/introversion" cannot be measured any better, and yet, nobody seems to have a problem as big as for trans-inclusive definitions.
"Such a check CAN be performed, though". And checks on transgender can and have been performed, that's the whole "gender dysphoria" story. "gender dysphoria" is not something that people have just invented one day, it's the result of scientific observations indicating that science is saying that there is such a thing as gender identity.
"Which scientists?" People like Eric Vilain, Milton Diamond, Robert Spitzer (edit: for Spitzer, it's a stretch to say he was for a trans-inclusive definition, but he was opposed to the "between the legs" definition), ... In fact, maybe I'm wrong when I say "all scientists" because maybe I've missed some part of the community, but from what I've seemed, I haven't seen any scientist defending the idea that our current understanding of human gender do not need to accommodate the concept of gender identity. Do you have names of people defending that?
"An "elegant" model explains much with minimal propositions" And a definition of woman based on what they have between the legs does not do that, because you need to add a lot of "fine tuning" to account for intersex, for people who have the organs but have different sexual hormons or sexual DNA, or for explanation where the gender identity makes sense. Careful with "simple explanation": "God created things this way" or "objects follow Newton mechanics" is simple, but are not elegant because as soon as you go further, you need to do a lot of fine-tuning.
"Such as?" cf. before
"There are actual diagnostic criteria used to determine those and other psychological conditions (e.g. PTSD), and while these may involve questioning the person being diagnosed, the diagnosee is not responsible for making the diagnosis." And it is the same with gender identity: study of IRM and stress level can determine if someone is more comfortable in one gender identity than another. And, identically to a lot of my example, in real life, it is self-diagnosed (the very large majority of identification of one's sexual orientation did not require a diagnoser) or initially "guessed" by the diagnosee. Cauch (talk) 11:13, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
On another topic you discuss with others, I would like to point out an element that keep making the discussion difficult: you seem to go back and forth between "between the legs" and "what they look like". You brought a study showing that people can recognize man from woman from neutral environment. I would be interested to see how the score changes when people are dressed with typically male and female markers: for example, a man wearing makeup, long hair and a dress may be more often identified as woman than man despite identified as man when focusing on the face. But also, the score is 96%, which means that there are ~4% when "what they look like" fails. People identifying as transgenders, aka answering a gender that does not correspond to the natural markers, are usually around ~1% of the population. So, asking a person if they identify themselves as man or woman would lead to ~99% cases where the gender you are informed about corresponds correctly to "what is between their legs". I think it's the reason of the "sexual assault" response: if you are saying that the definition is "between the legs", the best methods to correctly identify the gender are, in order of efficiency, 1) sexually assault the person by checking between their legs, 2) asking them which gender they identify with, 3) assess their gender based on what they look like. Cauch (talk) 11:53, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm curious what you all think about this point. TERF (to me) seems like a negative label to shut down any discussion from a cis-woman raising good faith questions about the socio-relationship between cis-women and trans-women. — Unsigned, by: 2601:cc:0:4a20:38a5:29d9:960e:a380 / talk / contribs

But isn't that working both way? "SJW seems like a negative label to shut down any discussion from a person raising good faith concerns about the fair and balanced treatment of trans-women in the discussion"? The subject is tricky, and on my side, I'm often surprised to see how disproportionately emotional some of the raising-good-faith-questions persons are sometimes, and prone to interpret everything to conclude you are attacking them. The other side is also often emotional, but I think it is not fair to pretend it's worse Cauch (talk) 18:32, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
TERF is on its face a straightforward descriptive acronym. Some people are feminists. There is a subset of that group known as "radical feminists" (and many call themselves that) with certain ideological commonalities. There is a subset of radical feminists who exclude transwomen from their ideas of feminism vis a vis "women". With a politically charged topic, associated terms naturally become politically charged themselves, but that's not something inherent to the terms. And most anything can be used combatively with the right target.
SJW is metaphorical hyperbole, and so it's often used in ironic criticism, but there are plenty of examples of serious use as a favorable description. As with other words, they can be used in various ways. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 09:46, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
@192․168․1․42 You claimed the guide conflated androgens with testosterone as if testosterone was the only androgen, the quote you pulled as evidence doesn’t suggest this in the slightest. So yes you did misrepresent the guide, so you did strawman it. Also the statement about no human existing that produced sperm and egg is factually wrong. There have been cases of intersex people developing ovotestes that produced both gametes. It’s incredibly rare but it is still the case. It’s an example of what is called gonadal streaking. It’s not typically unheard of in the animal kingdom either. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 10:51, 11 May 2022 (UTC).
It’s pretty easy to state to a child that roughly half the population is born with a penis and testes, and roughly the other half vulva, a vaginal canal, uterus, and ovaries with some exceptions. I can state a small number of people are born who have a bit of both but often they can not produce children; regardless this has no bearing on their legitimacy as valid humans beings who are simply born differently and are entitled to respect and bodily autonomy just like everyone else.
I can tell a child that testes usually produce sperm, and ovaries ova, and the combination of the two produces a zygote which eventually develops into a child that is held in gestation inside the uterus. I can tell them that the gametes can come to meet as a consequence of copulation that ends in ejaculation.
No where do I actually need to use the terms male and female, which mind you are terms coined and used prior to any scientific understanding of sexual reproduction and were officialized under a context to which anyone who didn’t conform to a strictly heterosexual patriarchal way of being were deem pathological and anomalous — and such a understanding was legitimized through law. Concepts of man and woman are cultural constructs that are not in anyway enshrined in biology, and never have been. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk).
@CorruptUser My point is that for all this talk of what makes a woman a woman, unless the resulting definition can be used practically it's basically just so much naval gazing. Hence my question. Hence the criteria that demands something more than a hyperfixation on genitals, something that can be used in the real world. As a side note, I'd like to once again point out how reducing womanhood down to genitals and childbirth is... "antiquated", to put it politely. But back to the main point. Someone, anyone, give me a definition of "women" that includes all cis women, excludes all trans women, and can be used in a social situation without resulting in a faux pas/sexual assault charges. My criteria here are clear, unladen, and basically get straight to the heart of the matter. Address them, or simply remain silent on that which you are unable to address. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:39, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm still not seeing why the definition of Woman requires it can be used in social settings. I understand that when you are in a social setting, if someone tells you they are a woman you shouldn't need to shove your hand down their pants to verify things, but then, why do you need to verify that they are, in fact, a woman? CorruptUser 23:06, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
@CorruptUser Me specifically? Or are you addressing the room? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:09, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
If you are a social scientist analyzing the role of gender in a particular social setting, you might need to classify people by gender, but of course in contexts where gender is more nuanced than binary, it's dumb to ignore the nuance and hope it goes away. Vomitorium (talk) 00:36, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
(EC) GC, you in particular. I don't think your requirement for the definition of "woman" is a valid requirement. It's a valid requirement for treating someone as a woman; if they look female and say they're female, there's absolutely no reason to insist they are a liar and start ripping off her clothes to prove otherwise. But whether they actually are, eh, it's not an invalid belief that a transwoman is a real woman, but it's also not an invalid belief that a transwoman isn't a real woman. CorruptUser 01:57, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
@Vomitorium Indeed. Sadly there are strange people who insist on doing just that. @CorruptUser And what is "a real woman"? One who exists in reality, as opposed to fantasy? What is the difference between someone who appears to be a woman and someone who is actually a woman? What's the distinction? Further, why dos them possessing female genitals matter? If a man possess those same genitals, is he somehow a woman? If so, by what mechanisms and/or processes does this occur? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:07, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
I'll also, again, point out that the criteria I laid are specifically to address the trans-exclusionary conception of womanhood. I grow weary of repeating myself in this regard. Only one of these definitions can be true. Either trans women are women, or they are not, there is no middle ground where two mutually exclusive positions are accommodated, not without engaging in delusion at least. Therefore, if you hold that trans women are not in fact women, as 192 does, address the criteria. Do not dance around the issue like some cowardly toddler. If you do indeed hold that trans women are, in fact, women, as OnlySortaDumb does, then you need not address a question that is not, in fact, aimed at you. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:13, 12 May 2022 (UTC)


But that's not a simple question, it's a philosophical question related to the whole "human experience" thing. What is "consciousness", and is our consciousness itself "human", or something else? If I were to have a brain transplant, and put myself into the body of tiger, am I still really "me"? Am I now a tiger? So in this sense, it's not wrong to say it's possible for a "woman-brain" to be in a Man's body.
From the biological perspective, the male sex produce the sperm, the female sex has the eggs, hermaphrodites both, and neuter neither. At the moment, a fully transitioned transwoman does not produce eggs, her parts are not "real" lady-parts but close approximations in much the same way a really advanced prosthetic leg is not a "real" leg, but what about when they do have real parts? As I mentioned, we will be able to grow organs some day, much sooner than you might think, and there's no reason an ovary can't be made from a transwoman's DNA. The X chromosome is there after all. At that point, all the lady-parts will in fact, be real lady-parts, and there will be no question that the person giving birth is, in fact, a real woman. CorruptUser 05:23, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
I would personally say that technically, it is identically not wrong to say that "woman" are those people who have bits between their legs and a first name starting by the letter A. However, the problem arises when you realize there are people who have bits between their legs and a first name not starting by the letter A: who are they then and what is the reason we decided to not call them woman? This is why I think a trans-inclusive definition of woman is "less wrong" than a trans-exclusive one: a trans-exclusive one seems to arbitrarily exclude some people (and not only transgender) for reason that feel artificial, not useful and complicating things for no real reason. Either because some people have built in their mind a simplistic criteria based on their observation and got convinced this criteria is fundamental (a bit like "dolphins are fish, because the definition of fish is: look like fish and swim in water"), despite not being a good discriminant on biological level (where sterile people exist, where gender identity is a thing), or because they just have a subconscious discomfort of accepting that transgender can be accepted as women (but they have no problem with sterile or intersex people, despite the fact that they are as problematic with their definition). In both case, while you can technically define woman whatever you want, the "between the legs" definition just seems arbitrarily decided. This criteria was considered as not important in the non-trans-gender cases (sterile, intersex, DNA/hormones not aligned with the sexual organs, ...) but suddenly is important in trans-gender cases. Cauch (talk) 08:49, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
@Cauch Exactly. @CorruptUser Why are you resorting to biology to explain a social phenomena? Why do the genitals matter? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 12:31, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Further, and here's a really serious question. What if someone isn't fully transitioned by having bottom surgery? What if, perchance, they feel that they are compelled, against their will, by external actors, to conform not to their own conception of themselves, but to the expectations of others. Or, to put it another way, what if compelling bottom surgery makes their dysphoria worse? Because ultimately, transitioning is a treatment for dysphoria, and as such, should be tailored to the patient, not standardized as if it was the manufacture of an automobile.
So once again, you suck the humanity out of women and reduce them down to sexual objects. How very feminist of you... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 12:38, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
The biological definition of sex is entirely based on sexual reproduction. So I don't know what that complaint is even about. I do think it's weird that we kind of require people to tell you what genitals they have, like, I might be a guy but perhaps I don't think that should be anyone's business if I don't want it to be. While I think NB and pronouns are magnets for nonsense*, gender-neutral or "private" pronouns are actually something very, very important and we needed that discussion loooong before they were LGBT issues.
  • Not saying NB isn't a real thing, but it's pretty obvious that a huge number of celebrities are just jumping on the bandwagon for the attention, or have serious psychological issues that have nothing to do with being trans or whatever. Halsey and Demi Lovato come to mind, as does Lady Gaga. They don't have "Daddy Issues", they have friggen' PTSD from rape, possibly even worse, and likely have PTSD-induced personality disorders. I'm not sure if Gender Dysphoria "counts" or is "natural" if it's the result of PTSD. CorruptUser 18:58, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Got it, you're a bigot who rationalizes his ignorance via reductive models of humans. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:18, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
I've been following along tacitly so wave me off if need be, but what would a non-"reductive" model for humans in relation to sex and gender be? I mean like, we could use a 3rd grade model of body part = sex, and that may be reductive because it doesn't consider the mental factor, but where do we draw that line? I mean at least I think that biology has a huge role to play In how we identify sex and gender, as well as the mental and psychological variables to keep in mind, but I think we also need to include the social effects of sex and gender, and how those relate to our psychological ideas of sex and gender. We can't say that all of our stereotypes, and the way we look at the LGBT community DOESNT affect sex and gender. Either way, if we had a negative look on LGBT people, there is obviously a huge difference between how that community looks and who it's composed of compared to if we had a positive view of people in the LGBT community, or if we held people of the LGBT community higher than those of the "average" sex and gender (not saying any of those situations is what we have now, it varies place to place).
All in all, one thing I think you guys haven't really acknolgedges is that social issues and perspectives might have a effect on sex and gender, whether it is on the psychological level, or perhaps biological. So again, what would a non-"reductive" model of Sex and Gender in reference to Humans look like, because I don't think we've figured that out yet. Stingraey (talk) 20:59, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
@Stingraey A non-reductive model would avoid "woman = vagina/childbirth". Like, I really can't stress how backwards that line of thinking is. Maybe if I pointed out that it was oh... Around 100-200 years ago in terms of social norms and women's rights? Yes, obviously genitals play at least a partial role in our conception of gender categories, but let's be real here, we don't use them to determine man from woman, not in the real world.
Let me put this another way. You go to a social event, and walk into a room full of people. You refer to some using masculine terms, some using feminine terms, and some using neutral terms. You likely do this without even thinking about it. Now, let's actually be scientific here, what are the actual mechanisms behind that? Is it genitals? Chromosomes? Or... is it somewhat arbitrary social cues? Do you see my issue with trans-exclusionary definitions of "man" and "woman" yet? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:15, 12 May 2022 (UTC)


Do you know what a man is? Do you have the answer to the central question of anthropological philosophy? Hamlet tells us what he knows, "What a piece of work is man, How noble in reason, how infinite in faculty, In form and moving how express and admirable, In action how like an Angel, In apprehension how like a god, The beauty of the world, The paragon of animals. And yet to me, what is this quintessence of dust? Man delights not me; no, nor Woman neither; though by your smiling you seem to say so." Ariel31459 (talk) 01:02, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
@Ariel31459 Oh, that's an easy question. A man (Hamlet means human, technically) is merely a corpse that has not yet died. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:27, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

@CorruptUser I think when folks claim that a lot of transphobia and enbyphobia is just recycled homophobia I think claiming that people's gender identity is the result of trauma is pretty spot on for that criticism. People said the exact same shit about gay men back in the 70's in regards to their sexuality. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 03:28, 13 May 2022 (UTC).

@Stingraey I would imagine a multi-dimensional continuum model would probably be the most scientifically accurate and inclusive. Provided it treats psychological identity as primary, various biological traits can be listed and relevant medical concerns acknowledged on various dimensions. Instead of having just one simple binary dimension of male/female, you can list what sex organs are present, the secondary sex characteristics a patient has developed, hormone dominance, the presence of a Y chromosome, the gametes that are being produced, the viability of those gametes, gender identity of the patient, etc. That way we can keep all the necessary details about the concrete biological realities without any of the downsides of alienating of invalidating people on the basis of their gender identity. It also allows for greater cross cultural variability, and would incorporate evidence from across various disciplines both in the natural sciences and the social sciences. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 03:41, 13 May 2022 (UTC).
1) Rape victims might no longer feel comfortable around men, so they look elsewhere. Or, the trauma causes them to be a bit more "experimental", and the result is that a woman discovers that she is attracted to women too. So Rape and abuse absolutely do have a link to homosexuality, at least in women. For men, eh, I've never seen any studies where "homosexual recruitment" is an actual thing. At most, the victim of a sexual assault or other trauma might have more difficulty in maintaining longterm relationships, in which case they might become more promiscuous and, again, find they might have homosexual tendencies, though those desires were always there under the surface.
2) Every disorder in the DSM could describe everyone at some point or other. Do you want to stick it to the man? You must have Oppositional Defiant Disorder! Except no, it's only ODD when your desire to defy authority is so overwhelming that it prevents you from functioning in society. And every psychological disorder in the book gets worse from a traumatic experience; what could've been a manageable portion of someone's personality becomes a personality disorder. But gender dysphoria is no different. There's probably entire swaths of the population that have some latent feeling that they should've been a different sex, but they are stable enough that it never interferes with their ability to function. You traumatize that person, and suddenly they are no longer able to keep everything in check, and now what was once just a tendency becomes an outright disorder. CorruptUser 03:57, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
@CorruptUser Cory. Buddy. I have an important question. Why are you trolling this thread? None of what you've said is real, your genuine thoughts, or anything resembling truth. So I have to ask, why are you trolling this thread? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 04:12, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Oh, and if you respond with anything less than a straightforward and honest answer, I'll delete it. I'll keep doing that until you get the memo. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 04:14, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Well this confirms my suspicions about Cory being a queerphobic bigot. I can't say I am surprised considering the type of shit he pulls out of his ass and states as if it's factual. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 04:50, 13 May 2022 (UTC).
@GrammarCommie I think that the social setting idea you proposed is important in understanding how we look at the gender or sex of someone, but I think right now at least we are looking at this in a more academic context. In a social setting, I might call someone he/him if they have facial hair, clothing, other social or biologically ingrained clues in my head which makes me think "op, thats a guy." If they correct me though because they identify as a woman or (actually are? Again, that's the question) I would of course change the pronouns I refer to them as, but were not looking at that, as interesting as that is. The Question I proposed comes more to what Corrupt kind of touched on, how social settings, phenomena, and the like affect how people view or change their gender/sexuality, are these sexual or gender feeling or however you call them ingrained in a person despite the social settings and experiences they have had (like the extreme stated, rape, but a better example may be like a conservative family where these feelings aren't allowed), or is it something gained and changed through social experiences and their life? Maybe a bit of both is my guess, but I think thats the big question we are kind of asking, and seeing how this can change how we view and support trans men/women/etc.
Also, I'm genuinely sorry, but at least at first glance I don't really see in that statement above what Corrupt said that was transphobic, I may not be seeing something so i'm not saying your lying, but I need some help here with that mental step, because I don't see how he's trolling or what he said was made up. Stingraey (talk) 06:24, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
@Stingraey Ok, let's look at the conversation after you asked me what a non-reductive model of "woman" would be. I responded with an answer which privileges practical application. This is not without reason on my part. Firstly, if a model cannot be applied to the thing it is supposed to explain, then it it is a poor model in my view. Secondly, there are multiple, models which exist almost purely devoid of explanatory power, though their advocates think them to be insightful. I hold that practical application, i.e. being able to explain more banal elements of a phenomena, is more important than any grand narrative.
Next, Ariel made a joke, to which I responded humorously.
After that OnlySortaDumb responded to an earlier post by Cory Wherein heavily implied that celebrities were faking their gender identities for attention as a result "PTSD from rape"
Now, I'm going to stop recounting this chain of events for a moment to point something out. There is a very long history of treating LGBT/Queer people as "mentally ill" and in need of "fixing", purely in response to their Queerness. That's the basis behind conversion therapy, a thoroughly debunked pseudoscientific "treatment" for gay, Bi, and Lesbian people. So when I see someone, in the year 2022, spout the same FUCKING TRASH as was spouted in the 1800s, forgive me for treating them less than seriously.
As a second aside, you may have seen me refer to some people as morons in response to horrendous shit. Perhaps you've also seen me call people trolls when they spout garbage positions. This is me treating these people with extreme charity. Because I'm deliberately assuming that they lack knowledge, or that they are faking a position for shock value. The latter of which skirts dangerously close to what I consider the worst position possible. Dishonesty. A liar ought to be shunned, as you can never know their mind, you can never rely on them, and you can never seriously engage with them. They are, functionally, poison to any serious consideration.
Getting back to the timeline of the discussion, OnlySortaDumb Responded to your question for me, an answer that is at least compatible with my view that practical explanatory models should be privileged (on the grounds I previously stated).
Cory then doubled and tripled down on his previous drivel, which resulted in my and Only's comments, your question of me, and this extremely long breakdown post. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 12:56, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
To add on that, there is a first level, where someone says "transgender don't exist, it's just attention seeking / mental illness / ...". This is obviously transphobic. But there is a second level, where someone says "sure, transgenders exist, but when I meet a transgender person, I often ask myself if this person is a _real_ transgender, or if it's just attention seeking / a weirdo pretending strange stuffs / trying to profit of some advantage (despite the fact that the disadvantages are wayyyyy bigger) / ...". This is ALSO transphobic: it shows that the individual has mainly an inherent distrust of "those people", thinking that some of them are indeed exactly what the level-1 transphobic persons think they all are. The double standard is also very clear once you've noticed it. When someone says they are homosexual, less and less people think "maybe, but are they a _real_ homosexual?", and people who think that are more and more considered, legitimately, as homophobic. Some of the questions in this discussion are just even laughable in other context: "you say you are extrovert, but what is the definition that allow me to verify this without asking you or observing your behavior", "is this person really ambidextrous, or is it because when they were young, being left-handed was frowned upon and they are not really ambidextrous, they are in fact left-handed that have been pushed to be ambidextrous by society", "I saw someone in a wheel chair, and now I'm wondering, are they really handicapped or are they faking it 24/7 for several years just for the attention and the parking spot? I've heard this has occasionally happened, so, wouldn't it be better to ban the handicap parking spot advantage, to stop all those fakers?" Cauch (talk) 14:31, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie Although I recognized your response as jocular, the idea that what it means to be a man is irreducible to simpler terms is actually a serious notion and is I believe, implied by the quote. "How like a God" is man! A simple, irreducible idea, instinctively reproduced in many minds fertile enough to imagine a world governed by mysterious forces as yet to be determined. Reductionism for its own sake, for the sake of justifying or invalidating a point of view is factitious. I don't believe in gods any more than I think words like "homophobia" and "transphobia" explain anything. They are evidence of discord and intolerance.Ariel31459 (talk) 18:30, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
@Ariel31459 They do though. These aren't character attacks, at least not when used properly. They describe particular attitudes towards particular groupings of people, moral judgements not required. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:20, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie So, I think that's where the confusion I'm having is coming from, a few of the tie-ups I'm seeing between what you're saying and what you're implying, and my own subjective perceptions of how conversations normally go, here are kind of what I mean:
  • "heavily implied that celebrities were faking their gender identities for attention as a result 'PTSD from rape'"
From what you quoted corrupt say, I couldn't really pick up on that. He said that "Rape and abuse absolutely do have a link to homosexuality, at least in women." which, while blunt, is kind of blunt like you do as well, so I see no reason to really put an emotional lens on what he said. He said that traumatic experiences may change temporarily or permanently the sexual orientation or gender of a person, and didn't say that it was fake. I may be misinterpreting him though, but I would hope he would tell me and elaborate on what he actually means, not what you think he means and censoring everything he wants to say.
  • "Because I'm deliberately assuming that they lack knowledge"
I mean, like, what? I understand that you have been here longer and you have probably dealt with more BS than any human should have to deal with, but I'm seeing both of you kind of skirt around multiple different topics and not actually engage in one specific one. He is saying (as far as my small naive baby mind allows me to comprehend) that Corrupt is talking about trauma's relation with trans people, and you're calling him a bigot, and I'm not exactly seeing the connection. I think his question is important though, and what I think might be constructive to have us have some ground to actually debate over: Does Trauma have a relation with people changing their sex/gender? StingraeyAngy 20:52, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
"Not saying NB isn't a real thing, but it's pretty obvious that a huge number of celebrities are just jumping on the bandwagon for the attention, or have serious psychological issues that have nothing to do with being trans or whatever. " You don't see how this is just dressed up "transtrender" talking points? Especially given its context as a footnote for " While I think NB and pronouns are magnets for nonsense"? Really? That's not an obvious accusation of fakery? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:13, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
@Stingraey IMHO, what I find debatable is rather why are we coming to the question of trauma. It is not a surprise that people who lived trauma end up questioning their identity more than people who have no incentive to question their path, so if I have to bet, I would say that statistically, one will find a relation. What I find strange is that it can be argued that trauma has also a relation with people finding their faith, with people choosing their career, with people building their social community, but yet, I'm pretty sure people who link gender identity and sex orientation to some extend to trauma will not spontaneously think of doing it for religion, career, personality, social community, ... Some question on the subject can be genuine, but for sure, at least some are some kind of rationalization of a discomfort or dislike with regard to homosexuals / transgenders: "those people feel weird to me. I've heard of this element that will help me convince myself that this weirdness is somehow intrinsic to them. I like this element, it explains my feeling in a way that means it's not my fault. Because I like this element, it is valued more highly in my brain that other elements that are in fact of same value, and I may mention it more often". It does not mean that asking the question is in itself wrong, but it means that some people who ask this question are indeed biased in thinking that homosexual / transgender communities are intrinsically "less normal". And if the question is genuine, come on, we are grown-up, we should know better and avoid phrasing the idea in a way that may sound like a rationalization of a bigoted feeling. Cauch (talk) 22:18, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
@Cauch There is a directionality problem in that certain people are statistically more likely to experience trauma on the basis of their identity. I.e. you are far more likely to experience sexual assault as a woman or a gender minority. As an example by being bisexual I am myself am more likely to be sexually assaulted than other cis men, does that mean that sexual assault will increase my likelihood of identifying as bisexual? Absolutely not. It could be the case that by identifying on the queer spectrum, one puts themselves in a position to be more likely to be a target for violence, not necessarily that being a target of violence will make someone identify on the queer spectrum.
Also please stop calling transgender folks "transgenders" it's grammatically incorrect and makes you look ignorant about the subject. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 05:10, 14 May 2022 (UTC).

"And checks on transgender can and have been performed" Examinations of emotional responses to stimuli, scans of brain structure and activity for things associated with people of the opposite sex, in order to check for the presence of dysphoria or an intersex condition. But that's not what the modern social movement of transgenderism is concerned with. With those empirical criteria, you can check whether those indicators are present or not in a particular person. But how do you think typical trans advocates would respond to someone telling a person that they are not actually trans because they lack such and such measurable characteristics, despite "identitying as" subjectively trans? The comon position I've encountered is that it starts and ends at subjective identification, and that's that. As such, the definition of being trans in common use is different from the one implied by your criteria there, and again we come to a disagreement about which definitions to use.

"In fact, maybe I'm wrong when I say "all scientists"" Statements of the form "All X have attribute Y" should be made with caution unless Y is a defining attribute of X or perfectly correlates due to some other deductively-applicable reason.

"I haven't seen any scientist defending the idea that our current understanding of human gender do not need to accommodate the concept of gender identity." Obviously gender identity (social signals which allow others to tell what gender a person is, generally for the purpose of establishing a baseline of social interaction) is a part of gender (social roles related primarily to sexual maturity and specialization in particular societies). But those definitions too are in flux, and a lot of people don't use ones similar to the ones I gave there.

"Do you have names of people defending that?" The wording used was "scientists are moving to a trans-inclusive definition". Do you think that scientists researching ovarian cancer use a trans-inclusive definition of "woman" when they discuss their work among each other?

"And a definition of woman based on what they have between the legs does not do that" That's because "an adult female human" is a definition of a term, not a model used to explain things. And anyway, the ovaries aren't located between the legs.

"you need to add a lot of "fine tuning" to account for intersex" Genetic and developmental abmormalities may result in organisms meeting neither the definition of female nor the definition of male. Adult human females and adult human males can produce offspring together, and other combinations of humans cannot (without some involved labwork).

"or for explanation where the gender identity makes sense" Which is not with the definitions of terms used to describe the functional aspects of biological reproduction.

"Careful with "simple explanation"" A definition of a term is not an explanation. Explanations make use of defined terms in order to communicate information. You can use a particular definition of "woman" to express certain meanings, and if you change the definition to mean something else, you can express new things, but may not be able to express what the other defniition could. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 10:04, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

jesus fuck, why are you still talking? AMassiveGay (talk) 10:16, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Because if people cannot analyze and communicate ideas, they can't discuss how to identify and fix problems. Do you get the impression that modern society is doing a stellar job of that? 192․168․1․42 (talk) 10:36, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
just a pity this conversation (the third or fourth such conversations in as many months here, covering exactly the same ground, just this one just dragging so looong) hasnt moved forward from pedantry and nitpicking and the humouring of trolls AMassiveGay (talk) 11:06, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

being the smartass that i am, my answer would be, "if you don't already know the answer, then that's your problem and not mine." G Man (talk) 00:19, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

@192․168․1․42 "But that's not what the modern social movement of transgenderism is concerned with." Why would we apply to the transgender concept some restricitons that we don't apply to homosexuality, to intro/extroversion, to mental state in ~90% of the case (are you sure that you can say "if you are not having a boner when seeing this specific actor, you are not gay" or "you are not gay if you don't pass the gay test"?). You are moving the goal post: you were saying that having a definition relying on "something that can only be established by asking what people feel like" is flawed. My answer is that 1) it is incorrect: it can be established by "objective measurement", 2) it is incorrect: in practice, it works like that in a lot of other situations, where people are defined a certain way based only on what the diagnosee says they feel, without any "objective measurement" done by a diagnoser.
"But those definitions too are in flux" And? Scientists have noticed that the trans-exclusive definition is flawed, and they are working on new one (even if I believe that the "in flux" problem is in practice way less problematic that you want to believe). It is not a good element to defend that the trans-exclusive definition is not flawed.
"Do you think that scientists researching ovarian cancer use a trans-inclusive definition of "woman" when they discuss their work among each other?" Yes, I believe these scientists are able to understand context, and a lot of them are agreeing with scientists that bring scientific and rational argument that the trans-exclusive definition is flawed (especially when it looks like there is almost no scientists working on the specific subject of gender that do not agree that we should move away from the trans-exclusive "between the legs" definition. Maybe there are some, but, unlike me, you did not provide any examples). Let also notice that when a scientist meet a person in the street, and that this person is a trans-woman that is passing, this scientist will call this person "madam". If your argument is that some scientist, some time, in some context, do not follow the convention of the definition to the letter, then, it applies to your definition too.
"That's because "an adult female human" is a definition of a term, not a model used to explain things" Then what is your problem with "woman = person who has a female gender identity", because it is also a definition of a term? One of your criticisms is that this definition does, in practice, a bad job. But when we show that your definition does an even worse job because it is in contradiction to how scientists understand how the world works, you are pretending it's not a problem. The advantage of the trans-inclusive definition is that it is a proper definition of a term (unless you pretend that homosexuality, being left-handed, intro/extrovert, ... are also not a proper definition), but this definition is useful because it corresponds to the reality as we understand it (it corresponds to a model that works).
"And anyway, the ovaries aren't located between the legs." Are you seriously thinking it is relevant?
"Genetic and developmental abmormalities may ..." That is not my point. You were saying "An "elegant" model explains much with minimal proposition". My point is that the gender-inclusive definition explains much with less propositions than the gender-exclusive definition. As said before by someone else, in your definition, a lot of the words do the "heavy lifting", and in a lot of case, you need to add a lot of small prints. So, yes, I continue to think that the model from which the trans-inclusive definition is derived is more elegant.
"Which is not with the definitions of terms used to describe the functional aspects of biological reproduction" Yes, so, you confirm that the trans-exclusive definition corresponds to a less elegant model, as it requires not only additional definitions, but even additional explanations (that as far as I know don't even exist), to cover this that it has left out.
"A definition of a term is not an explanation." YOU were the one saying "An "elegant" model explains much with minimal proposition" to pretend that I was wrong when saying "The reason scientists are moving to a trans-inclusive definition is because it is a more elegant model and the trans-exclusive definition is showing its limitations". A definition of a term may not be an explanation, but if you have two definitions and one corresponds to an elegant model and the other one is in contradiction to this model, then scientists will move to the one corresponding to an elegant model. Also, your criticisms of the trans-inclusive definition is also going beyond a "definition of a term". What about "woman = something blue"? It is a definition of a term, but both you and I would agree it's not a good move to adopt it. The reason we do that is because we both believe that the definition should be useful. My point is that the gender-inclusive definition is more useful, because it corresponds to a model that is scientifically more elegant and corresponds better to the reality. More useful because of that, but not only because of that, by the way: this is only for the "scientific aspect". On top of that, the societal implications of those definitions are also very important, and, again, there, the gender-inclusive definition is way better (it corresponds better to the usage, it does not imply socially unacceptable behavior, it does not ostracize some people, it does not fuel hateful prejudices, ...). Cauch (talk) 12:43, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

This topic represents now more than 3/4 of the Salon. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Cauch made a good post tho - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 23:24, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Actually, it's just half. Andrew5 (talk) 00:23, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Qualia? more like Shmallia[edit]

Some people make a big deal about qualia and whether something like an AI or animals have it. Personally I can't bring myself to care about it because I just don't find it convincing to say that it even exists. Like if it isn't falsifiable there isn't a use even talking about it. Still some people make a huge deal about it, using essentially as the metric by which things should or shouldn't have rights. What are people's thoughts about this nebulous philosophical concept? MirrorIrorriM (talk) 19:28, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

The field of neuroscience is still in its infancy. There is more we don't know about the brain than we currently know. Discussing scientific/philosophical things related to the concept of qualia before the science is definitive and falsesifiable isn't necessarily a bad thing as long as it is done intelligently. Intelligently thinking about things and discussing things before we have knowledge is important and often a prerequisite for progress. Einstein said, "Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world." When people brainstorm/discuss things, breakthroughs can happen. Also, talk is cheap. Research, on the other hand, takes grant writing and fundraising. Stafford (talk) 00:34, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
What do you mean by “qualia”? Are you using the term like Dennett, to refer to something like intrinsic, non-physical properties, or just something like phenomenal characteristics, or in some other way? There is no broad consensus on the meaning of the term, and the difference is important. For some definitions, especially those closer to “qualia are features of experience”, that they exist is a pretty weak claim, and “qualia don’t exist” is falsified on having an experience. For versions closer to Dennett’s, the existence claim is much stronger, and much more difficult to justify. Overall, I would say that the nebulousness is largely due to ambiguity of the term, and people’s consequent talking past each other. Those interested in whether AI have phenomenal experience are often interested in how the brain produces such experiences, and why it produces the particular ones it does, and whether it depends on some process which can be emulated by a computer, and how we could tell. I think at least some of those questions are interesting, and I imagine some neuroscientists would agree. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 talk 01:29, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
I have a tendency to go the Wittgensteinian route and argue that private objects (entities that can only be acquainted with by a single individual) can not be a referent in language, so whatever we mean by qualia it has to be something we can all publicly acknowledge. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 00:45, 25 May 2022 (UTC).
Qualia are a dumb concept that are basically "What if a special pleading argument, but for anything". It's an epistimological washing of your hands of the responsibility for genuinely understanding a thing. Certainly I appreciate that there are subjective phenomena we don't comprehensively understand through methodological naturalism yet, but to take that and declare them special categories of knowledge that are immune to naturalism is nutso. It's intellectual laziness more than a useful philosophical framing. Fight me, 90% of all PhD philosophers who think it's a good idea. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:17, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
@Only Sort of Dumb I think contemporary theories of qualia are engaged with public objects. Redness is a prototypical example of a quale, and people with normal color vision are apparently capable of recognizing red objects and discriminating them from objects of other colors. As I recall, there's also some empirical evidence against things like the inverted spectrum, since different colors exhibit different perceptual sensitivity to changes in tint/shade.
@ikanreed Most contemporary theories about qualia are compatible with claims along the lines of, e.g. "redness is caused by such-and-such process in the brain, and has the particular quality it does for physical reasons x, y, and z". I'm doubtful as to how many philosophers today would deny that there is a physically necessary connection between certain brain states and certain phenomenal experiences. Such a connection has a great deal of explanatory power, justifying the consistency of perceptual experiences over time and the connection between perceptual experience and sensory organs. Presumably, a more complete neuroscience could flesh out the details. Arguably, condemning qualia for incompatibility with naturalism is inaccurate, insofar as qualia are not obviously incompatible with a physicalist account, and such incompatibility is highly contentious. Many of the key objections are to claims along the lines of "redness just is such-and-such neural state/process", on the grounds that while there may be a physically necessary connection, there is no metaphysically necessary connection. How big a problem this is for the naturalist depends on what they're actually committed to. If they're committed to there being no non-physical facts, then they already have bigger problems coming from mathematics. If they're committed to physical objects forming a closed system, then they face no objections here. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 talk 16:11, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
@Serene I just programmed a display to convert a variable that ranges from 0 to 1 into a rotation of a virtual dial's needle on a display. How is that any different than wavelength of light being interpreted as "redness", I wonder?. It's just a transfer function to convert it from one form to another based on inputs. Why do we see color as red/blue/green? Evolution just needed some way to convey information. What happens when the module meant to process a particular transfer function glitches? It is called synesthesia. It is like if instead of my dial display getting inputs to represent engine rpm, instead it got inputs from wheel speed. Same transfer function, different input. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 14:47, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
@MirrorIrorriM Identifying redness with a particular wavelength of light (or range of such wavelengths) would be a bit like identifying the position of the dial with a particular rpm of the engine. Certainly, if the dial is properly set up, there will be a tight correspondence between rpm and dial position, and it will be fair to say that the engine's rpm being such-and-such causes the dial to turn to thus-and-such position. Likewise, in a person with properly functioning color vision, there is a tight correspondence between the impinging of light of certain wavelengths on the eyes and the perception of the color red. But you've already highlighted one of the most straightforward objections to the identification of the perception with the wavelength: they can come apart. It's quite possible to perceive redness without there being any light as stimulus. If I had sufficiently complete neuroscientific knowledge, and sufficiently advanced equipment, I might be able to directly stimulate your brain to produce perceptions of the color red. So to answer your question, there is no notable difference between identifying wavelengths of light with redness and identifying the position of the dial with the rpm of the engine, but both would be strange to do. To say "the position of the dial just is the engine's rpm" doesn't sound right (it's not even coherent); saying "the position of the dial is a reliable indicator of the engine's rpm" sounds better, but the analogous "the perception of redness is a reliable indicator of (the presence of) light with such-and-such wavelength" is uncontroversial. There is also nothing strange about the resemblance between your system's design and the structure of the brain, nor in what you note about the origins of color vision. But that history does not tell us how the structures of the brain produce qualitative perceptions, like color, nor why the particular structures of the brain produce those particular perceptions, and not other, similar (or dissimilar) ones. More transparently philosophically, it does not tell us whether Mary knows what it is like to see the color red just from her complete knowledge of the structure and dynamics of the brain. Nobody is seriously contesting that color vision has substantial instrumental value, nor that perception of color is intimately tied to physical processes involving light, the eyes, the optic nerve, and the visual cortex, nor that these processes have been selected for through a long evolutionary history. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 talk 23:07, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Question: For Indonesian, when do you add "Sebuah" for spelling "an/a" in a sentence[edit]

Trying my hand at learning Indonesian. I find that part a bit confusing. --YouTube Demi-Queen (talk) 23:48, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

It's roughly equivalent to the English language article adjective "a" or "an", but it's used much less often than the English equivalent: generally it's used only for clarification or emphasis. Bongolian (talk) 00:36, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
I am trying to learn Indonesian on Duolingo. Bit of a language geek. --YouTube Demi-Queen (talk) 00:05, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
wait, @Bongolian speaks indonesian? are you indonesian, or do you just happen to know the language? G Man (talk) 03:03, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
I studied the language for two semesters once upon a time. Bongolian (talk) 03:19, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
that's pretty cool! i think polynesian languages are nice. austronesian languages in general are underrated in the west, in my opinion. G Man (talk) 17:59, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

What's wrong with how people deal with ethics, as part of human nature, and possibly a way forwards[edit]

Ethics is both very simple and very complicated. Good ideas that cover most needs often develop easily and early, become spread and well-known, and centuries or millennia later, problems remain – peoples and especially decision-makers in positions of power making use of mixed-up and incoherent stances in practice. The problem of rhetoric vs. actual ideas and thought was well-explored in Ancient Greece, though that theoretical mastery of a very large part of the problem of how things go wrong has yet to ever be translated into solid practice in a lasting way. It remains one of the greatest challenges facing humanity.

There also seems, I am convinced, to be a problem in the basic elements of human thought, in relation to philosophical abstractions. Gaps very easily form between tidy structures of ideas used to describe and argue, on the one hand, and all other thought (which also goes along with all the non-idealistic feeling and activity), on the other hand. The former often arises, is elaborated, and is used while contradicting the latter, such contradictions playing a large part in conflicts in the minds of people, between people, and the societal dysfunctions eventually giving rise to ideological upheavals and sometimes revolutions. This basic defect in human cognition – I think that's the most accurate way of looking at it – goes along with a basic gap in self-insight, the ways in which people end up in illusions when introspecting. It goes along with a terrible fuzziness, and sloppiness, in the translation between areas of thought and focus. As an outstanding flaw in human intelligence, it's one of the ways in which I think humans are only barely qualifying for being described as intelligent life.

Nevertheless, enormous progress has taken place beginning with the philosophy of the Enlightenment. Despite all of its flaws, the human mind can accomplish much when really put to use. That goes both for science and for people working together to create something better for a collective/society. But basic problems remain, those of deceptive rhetoric and its role, and of predictably misleading ways of thought – the increasingly well-studied traps people fall into.

The current larger problems facing humanity, in which important problems such as related to climate change are brushed off too much, the striving towards social justice goes through ebbs and flows and currents and counter-currents and societies simply never really grow up, and in which "mismanagement" and "government incompetence" at best never really goes away and at worst may lead to larger disasters over time – how can they be solved?

I think it would take a new paradigm shift, somewhat like the Enlightenment. But this time, it has to do with recognizing the limits of human thought and using technology to transcend them, much like technology has been used to transcend other limitations in human abilities. The basic humility to recognize the value and need of future AIs developed to spot flaws in reasoning, to debunk and prebunk nonsense, and to help people more systematically explore possibilities in thought – I think it's analogous to the step that was needed to be taken earlier, away from blind belief in cultural and religious traditions. But this time it is a step away from blind self-confidence. Spiritual teachers often teach people the value of humility, and in principle there are many who would be willing to listen to guidance, the historical problem having been that those who question themselves the most have listened to those who question themselves the least, resulting in those who question themselves being screwed over by those who don't. A future Second Enlightenment could embrace the practical use of reason beyond human limitations, through future technology, and so, finally, lead beyond such traps and towards an age in which humility can actually pay off, in which carefulness in thought becomes a fundamental aim at the societal level.

With time, and with an ever-rising educational level as a result of such a new paradigm, more values of society may change, and – though it could take centuries – it doesn't seem unrealistic that it could eventually lead to a fuller democratic socialism of some sort. Though it could also lead elsewhere, depending on which human tendencies win out or prove the most stubborn.

This is rather loose and a bit rambly. Thoughts? --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 16:40, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Techno-futurism is overly utopian. I'd advise instead that we reassess social norms, and reorient communities around central virtues/ideals. A bit Aristotelian sure, but I don't think technology is "the answer". ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:49, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
Also end capitalism. It's past its best by date and whatever benefits it once conferred have since gone bad, as it were. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:51, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
This is a lot to unpack. A few things to think about re: ethics
Try to distinguish the difference between moral thought (the development and analysis of moral ideas/situations) and the application of moral thought (which can be divided into those who consciously try to apply developed moral systems and everything else). Few people are aware of any moral systems beyond a two sentence description (say a vague outline of utilitarian ethics). Amongst those who have actually studied it (let alone worked on formulating/analysing it), even fewer spend much of their lives actively applying the moral system to their daily decisions, (in plain English: sticking to a moral system and basing their decisions on a real time analysis). In other words:
  • Philosophising on ethics is different to applying it to your actions
  • Few have a robust understanding of the systems and even fewer have made it a habit of usually applying a system to their actions
This means the majority of people are not consciously thinking about an ethical system when doing most of what they do. A few more things:
  • Ethics is rarely simple. I am not sure how you got that idea. From both the development of a moral system to its application (for example how to deal with moral problems) it is not particularly easy.
  • Social justice did not develop out of ethics per se (though some moral systems helped shape it to an extent), but was also the result of many ideas of the enlightenment as well as political upheaval and endless activism as well as countless fortuitous moments (development of wealth, good timing, right thinkers leaders at the right time, right leaders at right time) etc.
I am not sure how a paradigm shift would change things regarding ethics. In fact, since Kant ethics hasn't really changed that much (application/analysis has though...for example the shaping of bioethics/IT ethics) and yet we have still come to live (in a small part of the world) in a kinder, fairer, safer and more prosperous society [I cannot overstate how much this kindness, fairness and prosperity is still heavily unevenly applied]). The enlightenment has never ended as far as I am concerned. Though powerful new ideas which shake up the world as much as Locke, Russeau, Marx, Russel, Arendt might emerge and help bring about something unexpected. I don't see why that wouldn't happen. Having said that, people don't seem to realise how incredibly fragile our political/economic/social system is and how easily it could fall apart. Ideas that helped even maintain what we have would be nice enough. ShabiDOO 22:49, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
I want to reply specifically to the idea that humans should try to be ruled by AI, as I missed it last night. This is, to put it very politely, optimistic as all fuck about AI development. AI derive their values from their programmers, frail, mortal, flawed, humans, and this in turn precludes them from being the hyper-rational stereotype we're so used to seeing in fiction. Let's put this into perspective. Let us say that the programmers are deontologists, and that they develop an AI along deontological principles of ethics. This has enormous ramifications for how the AI will behave. Would it lie to save someone's life? Would it not? When, if ever, would it determine whether or not it is acceptable to lie? And this is one matter, not the entirety of possible ethical and moral quandaries that an AI might face, and thus be under the sway of its inherited ethical and moral assumptions. Do you see the problem with this idea yet? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:20, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
It's easy to determine the source where people will derive their morality over the next forty years. Pew Research, a nonpartisan think tank, says: "By 2055 to 2060, just 9% of all babies will be born to religiously unaffiliated women, while more than seven-in-ten will be born to either Muslims (36%) or Christians (35%)."[3] Kibble (talk) 01:38, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Never show me stats without expecting counterpoints to be found in them...
1. Way to go Africa, with your still-hugely high birth rates!
2. For lip-service Christian/Muslims clearly don't exist. I, for example think there's a lot more athiest/agnostic Americans than officially tallied. Plus, who's going to admit to not being a Muslim in nations where that's illegal?
3. 'Unaffiliated' merely means 'not a member of a organised religion'. Agnostics / athiests are only a part of this. In fact, I suspect the majority of this bulk comes from China / Japan.
4. Europe's % of this group shall increase up to 24%, while North America's up to 10%.
Anyway, I think the major problem in the Anglo world is that kids simply are not formally taught ethics at school (partly due to our chronic fear/dislike of the ideas of teachers not teaching anything save 'facts'). This allows 'Christian ethics' to vaguely survive on as an echo, mainly due to lack of competition - but because they've become so vague and fuzzy we find it hard to call out folks who fail to uphold them (qv: CEOs saying they're 'doing the Lord's work' etc). A few try to build up a moral code using the law as a framework but that normally shall fall apart the moment it meets reality (for the law isn't morality).
On the 'fragility' of our world, Shabi I'll point out that those 'views' are normally considered 'opinion' and thus deeply discouraged in education. Here in the UK, for example the vast majority of kids never learn a jot about economics, and I think politics is effectively a banned subject. Couple these holes in knowledge along with the general lack of critical thinking skills and the fact whole swathes of vested interests actively desire to silence the naysayers... well, what do you expect, really? KarmaPolice (talk) 05:22, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I'm trying to move away from the Hollywood-esque idea of some grand AI mind coming along anytime soon, for example as a potential ruler, and think of more practical and (where possible) decentralized things which could, in part, potentially by developed in the coming decades. I think some bad things will almost certainly come along, too. I think there may develop a virtual arms race between automated propaganda and automated countering of disinformation. If it goes far enough, whoever wins it will have a good chance of taking power in at least part of the Western world. Here we don't consider any possible "personality" to AIs, merely task-solving and which side does best at research and development.

There is automatic fact-checking already, but the present state of it is fairly primitive, but maybe (hopefully) research into it will develop much further in coming years and decades. Otherwise, a few decades ahead, those trying to counter disinformation may end up facing a flood of things to tackle too large for any human force to deal with, reason simply being drowned out. I don't think it's hopeless, but I think (in this and other ways) Shabi is right about fragility.

Imagine a future in which every citizen can download a high-powered bullshit detector for free and carry it around in their handheld device of the times. That's part of the good potential I see. Furthermore, AI could analyze the patterns and structure of communication in language and classify and aid people in untangling rhetoric. Imagine all high-profile political debates being subject to that and the data made available. Maybe it's unrealistic to expect such a culture to form anytime soon, but I'd like to see a penalizing of those who (like present-day politicians) detectably conceal, rather than reveal, with their use of language in debates. High-quality automated analysis and statistics on the use of bullshit by prominent public figures in public should be public.

Other than that, I'm honestly very fuzzy, still, on how AI can in practical and possibly near-future ways help people to think better. The basic idea I have is that human "mental muscles" are simply too weak to rely upon alone. Somehow making people more capable at using their minds – and maybe a solution for one specific area after the next develops – can be put to different ends (good and bad), and some bad applications will develop anyway (geared towards furthering inequality of consciousness and things relying upon it). Naive or not, I have the hope that whatever furthers the quality of reasoning of the general public will help in the long term. (I don't have present-day social media in mind as anything useful.) I also think that without tools to aid in the use of mental faculties, human nature is too weak for societies to ever grow up to the point of developing something which isn't a mixed-up mess of justice and injustice, idealism and departures from claimed main values. I think it is by using their minds to somehow develop ways to extend their minds that people can continue to grow past what may otherwise be some painful limit approaching. Success in that may lead to a feedback loop with an unexpected and far-away result.

My hope is, in large part, for academics to come up with good things in the future, rather than the future being too defined by a few large corporations with very narrow views of utility which don't serve people at large. It may or may not happen. (The opposite development could possibly end up very badly, but could also stop at "satisfactory" unimaginative profit-making schemes like those Facebook/Meta still aim for.) Aside from more realistic thoughts, the (terribly, I just include this for fun) unrealistic utopian dream would of course be a world in which researchers not furthering the bottom line of a corporation develop wise and benevolent technological "guiding spirits" which people can listen to in place of religious teachings; maybe some would be more stoic, some more existentialist, etc., and a range of options available.

@Shabidoo, what I wrote was rather compressed and generally sketchy. On ethics being simple and complicated, I had in mind the contrast between clear ideas and ideals that people can have in mind, and what even people who have those do in practice, something in theory much clearer and simpler seeming to translate into something messy and (in relation to the theory) often incoherent. But you may have a much better view of how much people actually know and focus on ethics in general. As in, I probably overestimated the extent to which people in general care at all, and actually have something clearer in mind. I also don't have much of an academic overview, rather the result of mulling over changing personal selections of philosophies over years.

@GrammarCommie, I don't really like capitalism either. Though societies will probably stick with it for a long time. I remember you noting that sometime earlier. I think a long series of cultural changes would have to lead up to it being moved past, unfortunately (compared to something better, which people have a terribly hard time arriving at on any larger scale). --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 12:01, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

AI may develop self-driving cars and trucks. Ethical decisions by humans rely a lot on free-will and good judgment though. If you have an evil person hell-bent on causing trouble like Putin, AI is not going to be of much help. Stafford (talk) 12:20, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
@Kibble That has to be some of the lowest effort trolling I've ever seen in my life. Just because someone is born into a religion does not mean they will rely on divine command theory, a largely discredited ethic which sees almost no use outside of religious fundamentalism. Duh. Obviously. The fact that I even have to address such an error is astounding. @Stafford Self driving vehicles are unlikely to proceed beyond sci-fi, and there's debate on whether they even should. @ApooftGnegiol Due to the increasingly tumultuous events in the US and elsewhere, I've begun shifting away from the stance you mentioned. Capitalism is dying, and, to put it bluntly, we need to begin to look for alternatives sooner rather than later. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 12:30, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
A course syllabus to a Christian ethics course at Gordon Theological Seminary: ET501 Christian Ethics|Summer 2020. Notice the complete absense of divine command theory given in the course syllabus. I hope Grammarcommie isn't asserting that divine command theory is the sum total of all Christian ethics. If he is, he certainly hasn't proven this. — Unsigned, by: Kibble / talk / contribs
@Kibble And yet that's what you implied when you referenced those figures. Perhaps you should have been more specific rather than merely gesturing at religion as if it was some kind of answer by itself. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:45, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Not to mention the fact that you dodged the point entirely, which is that AI inherits its ethics and morals from humans, and is therefore not an adequate answer to human problems. It's like saying we need a child to rule because they are unspoiled by worldly affairs, but then failing to realize that the child must learn things from society, and therefore will inherit elements of that society. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:48, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
the more pressing perils of AI are not its 'superior intelligence' or sense of morality, but reliance on AIs not intelligent enough to run critical systems. turning the heating off in the dead of winter kinda things because the algorithms didnt include human needs over the bottom line when they are programmed or something. thers plenty of stories of nuke early systems seeing missles launched were disaster was only averted because some technician didnt believe what they were seeing. its only a matter of time when an ai controlled car is forced to decide who lives or dies - drive of a bridge and kill its occupants or continue on course and run down the mother and baby suddenly in its way. skynet will kill us all when the systems its runs are too complex for a human to manage and a flock of sterlings look like icbms on its sensors not because its become self aware and is a massive dick. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:34, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
@AMassiveGay I mean that's still kinda my point. Handing everything over to AI is just kicking the can down the road at best, and shadow rule by proxy worst. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:42, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
EC theres probably a whole generation that has never experienced the blue screen of death, growing up never having to deal with technology that was fundamentally a bag of shit, never having internalised the fallibilty of things from turning things off and on again too many times. these days i only turn my lap top off when it does so automatically for updates. a whole generation trusting their smart phones, wont think to question armageddon if thats what the computer is telling them. reliable technology has doomed us all. thanks a lot, nerds. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:54, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Don't blame me, I emphasize the fuck out of how fallible tech is. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:59, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── For the record, the reason I deleted those comments was A), they were bad faith sockpuppets, and B) there is no serious distinction between secular and religious ethics outside of Divine Command Theory. Anyone who thinks otherwise is dumb, since the big three ethical schools of thought are designed in part to overcome this very issue. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:34, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Artsakh: The next portion of my articles on unrecognized/mostly unrecognized secessionist regions[edit]

Draft:Republic of Artsakh

With this gem, it is territory under illegal military occupation by Armenia and not Russia. --YouTube Demi-Queen (talk) 01:27, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

well, armenia is a staunch ally of russia, so no surprise there. on the other hand, armenia is much smaller than russia. even though the irredentist arguments sound eerily similar, you have to remember that armenia is very similar to israel in that it is a nation founded in its modern form by genocide survivors. therefore (and correct me if i'm wrong), i believe armenia occupying artsakh/nagorno-karabakh is more akin to israel occupying palestinian territories. G Man (talk) 02:53, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
It could be compared to the Israeli occupation of the State of Palestine. So far this project has been tedious in every way. --YouTube Demi-Queen (talk) 00:49, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
its a bit of stretch for comparisons to palestine. both azerbaijan and armenia are still both sovereign states, with only this small parcelof land undr contention. both these countries will still exist however this dispute is ultimately decided, with only those living in the disputed area having to deal with the fallout - armenia is still there for armenians that might be displaced, azerbaijan is still there for azerbaijanis displaced. there is no part of palestine that is under sole control of palestinians in its affairs, and when matters are finally settled, it remains to be seen if what is allowed to be a palestine for palestinians will be in anyway a viable state, with those displaced having no where to go but refugee camps for those not wanting to abandon their palestinian identity as citizenship of another state is essentially abandoning any hope of return.
there is much acrimony from the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, and ive no doubt those directly effected find events more than traumatic enough, but palestine is just not an apt comparison. we really should learn to look at specific events and conflict around world as having their own unique character and own place in the world, and to understand things based on and around a specific situation and not just through the lens of some place elses history. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:04, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Different project[edit]

Draft:Somaliland (Region)

The breakaway state that actually had nothing to do with a separate nation's imperialistic ambitions. (Edit:The draft it gone) --YouTube Demi-Queen (talk) 01:18, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Do these things actually work?[edit]

Sciencey people: do the Pest Offense and Riddex Plus things like this one that you plug into the wall and supposedly repels pests by sending signals through the electrical wires (and claims to NOT be an ultrasonic or ultrasound pest repeller) actually work? Is there any science behind it? If not, perhaps this is article or (dis)honorable mention material? 71.208.x.x (talk) 01:55, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

According to the product information, "Proprietary technology creates a force field barrier within the walls by sending electronic pulses through the wiring of your home or business. PEST OFFENSE randomly creates digital sequences to help prevent roaches, mice, rats, and other pests from settling, nesting, feeding, breeding, or laying eggs in the walls of your home." It sounds like a total scam: "force field barrier", "randomly creates digital sequences"? Come on! The best outcome for these things would be doing nothing other than blinkenlights.Wikipedia The worst outcome would be that it fucks up the electric wiring in the building ("It is not recommended to plug into a surge protection device…"). Bongolian (talk) 02:50, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
I figured as much, but I have one of these things that my grandmother bought a long time ago and wondered what the consequences of 86ing it would be. It seems like it does jack crap because I still get American Cockroaches in my house that I end up having to kill, I just don't want an invasion of the damned things if I unplug that silly thing. 71.208.x.x (talk) 02:55, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm a bit surprised that it doesn't work off "quantum blockchain technology". "Digital force field barriers" are so last decade!Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 09:53, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Cockroaches are able to go without food for a long time because they are cold-blooded insects. However, they can only survive for one week without water. Keep your kitchen and bathrooms as dry as a bone. PJU (talk) 03:09, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

The best thing for cockroaches is boric acid, which is sold commercially as Roach Prufe.[4] It's safe to mammals as long as it's not ingested; it's very effective for long-term control of cockroaches. Bongolian (talk) 03:29, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Strong agree, but the correct usage of borax is to leave significant quantities of it on floors and other surfaces, and it is moderately toxic to mammals if it is ingested, causing gastointestinal distress or substanial eye irritation, so you can't really use it if you have pets or children.
The good news? It's other primary use is as a cleaning and disinfecting agent, so you can just mop your floors with it when you're done. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 04:36, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
And the even better news is if you're not a mammal, you can probably use boric acid as dressing for a salad. /s LongStylus (talk) 18:01, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Has anybody over here watched season 4 of Strangers things?[edit]

Any predictions about what is gonna happen next? Herr Doktor Enter into the rabbit hole 18:40, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

The show ends, and you feel utterly dissatisfied. Cardinal Chang (talk) 21:42, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Hop and Murray annoy Joyce by only talking in Russian. Murray teaches Hop karate, and he reaches black-belt level on the plane trip back. Super Saiyan Hop uses his new power to punch out the entire Russian and US military and pick up El.
Eddie bites the head off a Demo-bat and shreds others with his sick licks. Both Johnathan and Steve try to save Nancy with their love, but they can't because they both kinda suck and have no idea what music she likes. The rest of the kids gather a bunch of hair dryers and magnets to try and defeat the evil creatures, but they get cornered by Jason. Just in time, Argyle runs the entire basketball team over because he is really high. (The senior class is now 50% dead) All 15 characters pile into the van, (Joyce complains about a skunk) which goes into the Upside Down through Fred's portal.
Nancy is now Billified by the Mindflayer, and Nancy and Vecna are just too much for El, who starts bleeding from her ears as she tries to stop a bunch of clock-and-spider-based attacks.
Just then, everything stops. Vecna slowly and painfully turns his head to the left, "I..It can't be. You were only a rumor!"
A man slowly comes into focus. "Looks like you little rugrats need some help," smirks Ted, as he rolls up his sleeves, revealing his 000 tattoo.
Vecna is obliterated in an instant. The Mindflayer is purged from Nancy so hard that he is sent to the Downside Up. Ted looks at Dustin. "Do you know how much food costs these days, punk?" he says as he blasts out his dental plate and gives him three sets of collar bones. A post-credit scene opens on a black background as cancer-snow falls. The sound of a VCR being rewound is heard. Out of the darkness, an infested Bob slowly emerges.
Season 5 is mostly about Suzie's Dad's legal battles with CPS. Buck (talk) 06:34, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Nice, sounds exactly like something you can expect from strangers things. Also, who is cps? Herr Doktor Enter into the rabbit hole 07:29, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
I think it's Child Protective Services 2601:249:1681:1290:A9A8:D866:C3:D5A2 (talk) 01:30, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Entries on the RationalWiki:To do list should be sortable by number of votes.[edit]

This discussion was moved to RationalWiki:Technical support.

Andrew5 (talk) 23:34, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Scooby-Doo: Teaching kids skepticism and rationality[edit]

In every episode where the gang investigates supposedly supernatural events only for it to be found out that the cause of the events is some sort of crook capitalizing on local myths and or legends for (often) financial gain. You could say that the original comic strips in the 60's and the first TV show in the 70's were ahead of its time. There are very few shows that teach kids to be skeptical of outlandish claims and critical thinking. --YouTube Demi-Queen (talk) 01:48, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Um... what comic strips? Scooby-Doo, Where Are You! was the first iteration of the series, in 1969 on the CBS network. As far as I can find, and to the best of my recollection (And, being just shy of 65 yeas of age, I was around when it started-- 12 or so), there was no pre-television media of the series, and that includes any previous comics-based incarnations. It was made and forged for TV from the very start. And followed by a basketfull of copycat "Teens and Mascots Solve Mysteries" shows, none of which ever quite matched the original. Kencolt (talk) 04:05, 3 June 2022 (UTC)


admittingly, i find it somewhat hysterical that the same people who questioned the logic of police abolition (via the claim of "it will cause a massive spike in crime") currently attempt to explain why and wherefore the police did nothing in texas to stop a school shooter.-April Chat? 05:49, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

police kill an innocent person
"well, regardless of your feelings, you gotta have police. how to stop crime otherwise?"
police allow a guilty person to commit a violent crime
"well. still gotta have police."-April Chat? 05:56, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
I personally think it's a bit of a status quo bias and decades of political propaganda showing Cop's in television shows "catching the bad guys". Hardly anyone looks at the actual data about the efficacy of the police in response to crime. The one's releasing the numbers suggesting police presence drops rates of violent crime are the police organizations themselves which should be a big bright red flag for conflict of interest. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 06:15, 3 June 2022 (UTC).
There are aspects of Broken Windows policing that have shown efficacy, but it's more along the lines of keeping places cleaned up and keeping the streets properly lit. Just by fixing street lights at some intersections in Baltimore, they managed to reduce crime at those locations by 20%. It's a shame even the sensible aspects of it ended up associated with extreme law-and-order crazies. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:31, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
@The Blade of the Northern Lights Another good set of policies, if I remember correctly, is aggressively combating extreme poverty, and not putting extremely rich and extremely poor neighborhoods next to each other, and trying to keep unemployment low. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:45, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
True, but those operate on a different timeline. For the streets to be safe tonight is a related but distinct challenge, the two certainly aren't incompatible with each other. I support both, and vote accordingly. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:09, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
"aggressively combating extreme poverty"
Well, I mean technically that's what the police force has been doing this whole time... CorruptUser 17:54, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
@OnlySortaDumb Very good point. Copaganda, such as all the material within cop shows, serve an imperative use; that is to suppress dissent against the police, especially by mystifying and belittling police and prison abolition as utopianism. It keeps the political spectrum within the boundaries of the existence of the police, thus any leftist ideas outside of it seem ludicrous. Thus, it is difficult to realize the pragmatism of abolishing the police and prisons and simply dealing with crime via massive social changes and in general with transformative justice. Hell, if one, god forbid, dare mention that not a single human action, nor a crime, occurs without influence by material conditions; that material conditions cause every single crime, every single action...it seems unfathomable. Cop shows, constantly showing scenes of crimes, attacks, and beratement, present crime as if it is a natural tendency, not something shaped by the conditions in which humans live; particularly impoverishment, homelessness, undereducation, unemployment (especially the reserve army of labor), rewards for toxic masculinity, and alt-right material in aggregate, amongst other factors; it hence hinders any radical thinking. Quite scary when one thinks about it for a long time, how easily perfectly reasonable, pragmatic, and realistic solutions to systemic problems become framed as idealistic through incessant pro-cop penetration.-April Chat? 03:41, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
Moreover, as others said, crime lowers with mere minor changes, such as additional street lighting, removal of lead from buildings/banning lead entirely, the establishment of workshops to combat unemployment, etc., etc...yet, even those policies become radical due to the omnipresence of copaganda!-April Chat? 03:47, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
@CorruptUser Cory. Shut the fuck up. If I'm not allowed to cross that line you aren't either. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:50, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
I'll argue your original point is based on an critical flaw in logic, April. It's not a binary choice between 'current police' and 'nothing'. It is a perfectly reasonable position to say a) American policing is utterly unfit for purpose and b) policing (of some form) is still required. I'll be blunt; both sides in this debate have shown classic 'American parochialism' in defining what 'policing' is (hint, many other nations and their police exist). Quite ironically, the folks chanting 'abolish the police' have fallen as hard for the 'Copaganda' regarding the definition of their role/tactics etc the ones peddling the 'Blue Lives Matter' BS.
It's also dodgy to reach an conclusion ('American police are useless') on the evidence base of one event (their non-removal of the Texas shooter). The event in question shows a lot of things, provides examples of bad practice and so on but it does not *prove* anything that generalised. Almost as bad as using 'still need police' ad hominem to wave away any example of poor 'copcraft' - for it denies the ability of said craft to be improved. KarmaPolice (talk) 04:10, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
I happen to be one of the people who defies my demographic, in that I'm of totally Northern European descent, college educated, and live in a majority-minority area. "Toxic masculinity", to the extent that's an issue (no one has ever explained how my existence as a man who's never dated is some sort of problem, my life experience has been rather the opposite), is distinct. The police around me are far from perfect, but the activist groups are worse. They uniformly show up moaning and bitching about affordable housing and cost of living; as a part of my job I've helped former addicts who sort clothing and non-perishable food to prepare for donations, the police sometimes drop in to help out but I've sure never seen any of these activist types around. If you want to do something useful get folding and sorting, it's good for everyone. The one thing the activists have done right is to make bodycams ubiquitous, now if any of them want to ditch their Martha's Vineyard T-Shirts (no, seriously, I have yet to see one of these protests around here where at least one person moaning about being oppressed isn't wearing one) to join in on doing something else I'm waiting; at the street corner where I park for work there's a memorial to someone who was recently shot dead under uncertain circumstances, I would be as happy as the next person to solve that and stop it from happening again. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:47, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
I am going to be blunt Blade in stating I do not think anyone here really cares. You just sort of ousted yourself as politically reactionary with anecdotes and lived experiences that means jack shit in this context. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 11:44, 4 June 2022 (UTC).
Yeah, nothing says reactionary like actively helping to do something helping homeless people get fed and clothed. I guess. Wouldn't want to know what it looks like on the ground, lest that complicate things a bit. My politics don't fit any one label, and they change along with new information; I'm certainly no fan of the Republican type crazies. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:42, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

@KarmaPolice I haven’t seen much in your opposition to police abolition beyond pointing out it’s unpopularity, or being deliberately uncharitable. The grounds for police efficacy and providing safety are already out the door, and I don’t really understand the motivation here besides having police for the sake of having police. Police are fundamentally in conflict with any genuinely leftist aim. Any politically literate socialist understands that police are the arm to which the state suppresses the working class; just look what happened under Thatcher with the use of police against the coal miner’s union, the criminalization of poverty, the mass incarceration of black people in the US, the history of the criminalization of queer people and sex workers. These are not merely “flaws” in the system, they are the product of deliberate political policy and decision making by those in power. These phenomena and events are not a bug in the system, it’s the feature - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 11:57, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Mass Murderers and the Media Outlets That Love Them[edit]

https://youtu.be/ZmOWqBthBvg Still relevant? Herr Doktor Enter into the rabbit hole 11:45, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately. The ending of that video was actually difficult for me to watch. LongStylus (talk) 17:02, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Some of the claims in the video are strange. I thought most mass shooters are not diagnosed with a mental illness or have a criminal record. And dismissing the fact that most mass shooters are male with "sexual dimorphism" seems strange. LongStylus (talk) 18:18, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Forenic psychologist Stephen Ross cites extreme anger and the notion of working for a cause—rather than mental illness—as primary explanations. https://web.archive.org/web/20171003225401/http://wane.com/2015/12/02/inside-the-mind-of-a-mass-murderer/ Yeah, the sexual dimorphism does seem like a red herring.Herr Doktor Enter into the rabbit hole 04:25, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
alternate history hub posted this video the last time there was a school shooting in texas. (there seems to be a pattern here, but i digress.) it's very similar (if slightly less biased) to the video in op's link above. G Man (talk) 19:47, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Without comment on anything else, my (de facto) hometown is literally next to Newtown and I've been to Sandy Hook many times. Even though I've been around the school that the name Sandy Hook invokes to non-natives of the area, for even a casual visitor there's so much more the area has to offer. I don't want Adam fucking Lanza (especially since he had The Big A, as it happens some of the best therapists for it are in this area and I benefited from it) to define the area; Sandy Hook alone has a tributary of the Housatonic River, the remnants of old mills, and (on its border) a huge bald eagle hot spot. Newtown in general has an extremely rich and quite distinctly New England history, don't let one disturbed individual define it. I support the same principle anywhere else, I'm just better equipped for explaining Newtown than anywhere else. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:14, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Crank website.[edit]

Hello everyone, I was wondering if anyone had heard of serendipity.li, it's an atrocious website I found years back, pro putin to the extreme (I've yet to read their article on the russian invasion of Ukraine), all manner of conspiracy theories, 9/11, moon landing hoax, they even called my home country a crypto fascist police state, (I'm Aussie), the author of the website, Peter Meyer has a god complex and ego bigger than 30 Andy schalfys put together so you can imagine what he would be like in person, anyway that's all from me today, regards Bobby2shoes. (God I hope my spelling and grammar are up to scratch) — Unsigned, by: Bobby2shoes / talk / contribs 06:45, 31 May 2022

First time I've heard of it. Looks fairly small-fry though -- only a few thousand hits per month according to SimilarWeb.
(Side note: if you want to sign your post, just stick four tildes ("~~~~") at the end of your post. It'll automatically pop in your username and other signature info for you.) ℕoir LeSable (talk) 07:02, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Mayhaps worth listing on the listing of webshites DietMondrian (talk) 17:47, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
It's worth noting that similarweb inflates unique visitor count by a factor of almost 20x. Maybe it just tracks page hits and has a hard time separating out bots? Still it's numbers are super inflated. That website may get no more than 2k or so visitors a month 2600:8806:0:C2:3C23:B701:D969:AA7E (talk) 15:32, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

RationalWiki Update Project[edit]

So it looks hopeful that we are a go for moving forward with getting the MediaWiki software upgraded. We have several people currently working on the project, and it is hoped that we can pull the trigger next weekend. I am optimistic that the downtime will be minimal on the wiki, and hopeful that the update will improve the wiki experience while addressing some of the technical issues we have been experiencing. I will keep the Wiki updated, and am happy to answer any questions any one might have. This is part of a wider project attempting to "dust the cobwebs" off the site and its administration. We are also working on cleaning up the financials, corporate structures, etc. This project has suffered from more than a bit of "benign neglect" it is my hope that with some well placed bumps we can get everything flowing smoothly again. Thank you everyone for your continued support of this project, it is pretty awesome we are still chugging along! tmtoulouse 06:27, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

That's great to hear, Trent! Thank you for your efforts. Bongolian (talk) 00:23, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
Indeed, thanks Trent! ℕoir LeSable (talk) 05:34, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Domestic Violence and ACT.[edit]

A culturally relevant video from Rebecca Watson.

https://youtube.com/-Jgw-AzvLCw her alternative title being “Feminists were wrong about domestic violence” to which she means second-wave feminism. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 09:40, 3 June 2022 (UTC).

The link is broken Herr Doktor Enter into the rabbit hole 10:54, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
@Highboi This version should work. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:52, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

The problem with scientific celebrities[edit]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-myth-of-stephen-hawking/%3famp=true Herr Doktor Enter into the rabbit hole 16:02, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Please don't use AMP links. See [5]. Folks, use this link instead: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-myth-of-stephen-hawking/ LongStylus (talk) 22:01, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
I get what a lot of that was saying, but I'm not clear on what pain Hawking caused anyone. Getting a little out over your skis doesn't mean you hurt anyone other than maybe yourself. At least this was better from SA than whatever the hell this disaster was. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:09, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

thoughts on the depp v. heard trial and verdict?[edit]

I think that at this point I can say that I hate cars.[edit]

Starting with this video, I went down the rabbit hole, I now believe one of the biggest ways to fight climate change is with infrastructure. I have always been a fan of public transit, but if you watch "NotJustBikes" talk about city planing, in his "Strong Towns" series, you will see as he pulls data to support the fact that US city planning is based around lining the pockets of auto-makers and housing construction companies, at the cost of everyone else. PhoxyDude (talk) 00:49, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

One of the most critical problems with N American cities is the massive swathe of low-density suburbs which ends up ringing them, often having spread like gravy spilt on lino.
What properties are built and how is an issue (McMansions, shoddy tract housing etc) but the truth be told that even if these properties were built well you'd still have the issue the population levels are simply too low to support services in the area. Realistically, in these places there *is* no other option than the private car for it's a complete desert for anything not a private house.
And while there are elements of a suspicious nature for said substandard suburb-deserts being created, I can see some honest ones too. In the latter half of the 20th they *do* appear 'nicer', 'less polluted' and 'less crowded' when compared to the older stock and there was a genuine demand for them by the public. And when both land and fuel are really cheap, why the hell should you bunch up everything all close? KarmaPolice (talk) 15:00, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Let's not forget that rising crime rates in the 60's and 70's forced the middle classes out of the cities. Sadly, NYC is heading down that path again; I feel less and less safe on the subway each time I go. Let's see, first day I get to NYC with girlfriend, we see a woman on the tracks (security saved her). Few weeks later, we go to Brooklynn and get accosted by a crazy dude. We go see a play and a murder happened at the station within one hour of us being there, sure it was a busy station but still. I honestly can understand why Bernie Goetz was so beloved by the average New Yorker at the time in spite of intentionally looking for people to shoot. CorruptUser 15:21, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
A lot of urbanists seem to think everyone wants to live in a tower block in a city center. Some people want houses with gardens, for kids, pets, gardening, etc, and being near the countryside. A lot of people leave cities because of noise, crime, pollution, etc. And again, there's the issue of where the jobs are - if companies are in the suburbs, then people will drive to work and live in car-friendly areas. So it's definitely about a lot more than transport or housing. --Annanoon (talk) 15:27, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
But everything needs to be fairly priced. If those houses with gardens are subsidized in some manner, you have a problem. CorruptUser 15:29, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
I wonder what causes all those problems... Probably just bad people, right? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:02, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
i always thought the problem with american suburbia wasnt that people wanted to live there but that they are designed around and encourage people driving everywhere, while mass transit links are dogshit, and the commute to work means no other option but to take the car. not to mention petrol is/was ridiculously cheap for the longest time in the us. and i think, but not 100%, that traffic laws favour drivers over pedestrians in accidents, placing the onus on pedestrians to be more aware of speeding cars than on drivers to be aware of pedestrians, and there are limits on insurance payouts to pedestrians. link AMassiveGay (talk) 17:16, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
and in some parts in the land of the free, permission is required for pedestrians to cross the road. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:24, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Which is also one of the main issues with UK 'New Towns' like Harlow, Stevenage and (esp) Milton Keynes - general 'walkability' is poor and the density can't support much services (though generally those estates are better-done than the ones which came after them). But in N America, average suburb density is up to 90% lower than the UK...
Though I shall point out you're kinda out of date, Annanoon - mass high-rise home-building is generally very 'High Modernism' and was effectively dead by 1985 (save a few locations, such as crowded major cities where space was at a true premium). Newton's Third Law came into force; all the planners were all over ideas like 'New Urbanism', 'Urban Villages' and 'Missing Middle Housing', partly due to the failures of major high-rise developments to be livable. (Though there's now a reaction to the reaction, and mid-rises are becoming more popular near city/town centres, partly in the hopes a local population increase shall revive dying shopping zones).
But the critical point is this; planners change their minds partly from looking at the failures/successes of the past but also trying to cater to current/future ways of living as well as demographics etc. The classic post-war suburb is built around many assumptions which no longer hold true and thus, don't work that well. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:56, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
@Annanoon I used to think cities are inherently noisy too, but much of the noise in cities is caused by cars NotJustBikes has a few videos on that as well. I'm also not saying that single family homes can no longer exist, it's just suburbs are an unsustainable building practice, the number of people in the suburbs with gardens does not off set the fact that the grand majority of them have to drive to go literally anywhere of value. seriously I recommend witcfhing the Strong Towns series he has talking about the financial and logistical aspects of city planning. I legitimately think i may go to college for Urban Planning because of this, it feels like a tangible way I can try to fix the world. I just can't beleive that just a few years ago I fell for the "everything in the US is too far apart to rely on public transit" mindset, the US (and a few others) just have their whole urban planning centered around the auto-mobile and it's not good for the health or the pocketbook of the people who live here. PhoxyDude (talk) 21:04, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
I think all countries in the world should be more like Spain and build superblocks to prevent the damage caused by excessive automobile use. It can increase life expectancy and improve mental health: [6]. LongStylus (talk) 22:37, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
On the subject of noise pollution in urbanised areas, good planning can diminish a lot of them. Keeping the major arteries away from residential areas, the use of greenery to create noise shields (from individual trees/bushes to 'green walls' in buildings, also good for air pollution and wildlife), the avoidance of creating zones which act as megaphones, the coating of road/pavement surfaces with low-noise variants, local authorities being much tougher with noise abatement notices and so on. On the internal side, one of my major complaints is the general lack of soundproofing in flats - but this can be easily rectified by a) upping the sound regulations and b) actually enforcing them.
The problem with 'superblocks' (and things like UK 'Low Traffic Neighbourhoods') is that it generally speaking removes 'supply' (road space) but does nothing to reduce 'demand' (ie remove cars). This can result in situations where the car-free zones are nicer places for richer folks, while the poor folks shall have to deal with the even heavier traffic going past their homes etc. There's also the issue that more halted traffic can involve more emissions being produced than traffic which is managing to flow. KarmaPolice (talk) 00:49, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
you live in a city you get used to background noise. when ever i visit friends in a small essex village, i have trouble sleeping at night because the silence at nights is deafening. and its so fucking dark nights too and its not exactly a remote and isolated place neither. its funny reading that traffic noise is a problem in cities. i dont hear any traffic noise at nights at home - i dont think you would unless you lived right alongside a particularly busy london thoroughfare. most noise is generally people strolling past my building chatting to each other as they go (its so much worse when you can clearly hear every word spoken of someone elses conversation - you can filter it out easier when its just indistinct noise). in that essex village its so quite you can hear the traffic on the a12. i bet that fucker would have kept people awake before they built all the bypasses and it went straight through all the small towns on its route. AMassiveGay (talk) 01:18, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Just because 'you can get used to it' doesn't mean you *should*. Noise pollution *can* reduce the SoL of folks; for example, go and talk to a shift-worker who does nights. And how many neighbour disputes are about noise? The vast majority of Londoners, for example would like there to be less noise.
As for traffic... well, the main complaints revolve around particular traffic types, not it in general. Emergency sirens, 'screechy' trains, illegally modded cars/mopeds, low-flying planes/helicopters, mass revving/horn use and HGVs are the most common ones (how many folks get woken up by the binmen?).
And this is going to become a more serious issue if modern urban environments are going to become more mixed-use than they are currently. KarmaPolice (talk) 03:09, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
I think a large part of the noise problem will be adressed by the electrification of cars. People often forget that before cars, there was a big horse manure problem in cities... People still need to move around. People need to visit friends, to move houses, to get large groceries, to bring someone to the hospital, or jsut to get somewhere directly and fast. The needs should be met, and I don't think blaming cars as such is the right way to solve the problem (compared to recentralisation of towns and services, teleworking, change in car technology, strong public transit systems...) (talk) 15:20, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Or we could invest in public transit and rethink civic design... Nah, I'm sure kicking the can down the road via comodified solutions will totes work out... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:27, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm not against investing in public transportation, but try getting anything done in my native New England. Setting to one side the FUBAR you run into with all the individual towns running things instead of counties, the conditions are awful for trains. It's hilly, the weather is all over the place, the soil is more rock than dirt which makes it an ungodly nightmare to even put in a foundation (I remember about a whole week of dynamiting just to put in a house in my neighborhood), and it's already been severely disrupted just to put in the interstates. Between that and the monstrous inefficiencies in our government contracting (I hate to admit it, but it's as deep blue here as anywhere else and the problem is worse) such things and you're really up against it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:51, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Electric cars don't solve the problem and although better than ICE cars, they still aren't as "green" as an average diesel bus*. Also, people bring up how heavy the electric cars are, and how that makes them require more energy to move, but often neglected side to this is how increased weight increases damage to roads exponentially. Literally America's crumbling infrastructure will be in even worse disrepair. Also a majority of noise (at above 30 or so miles an hour) made by modern cars is just tire noise, which with a heavier car, is louder. Cars will still exist, it would just be that a majority of people would no longer need them, they have their uses where population density is low enough. Though we should stop building American style suburbs because they're low density can't maintain the finances required to pay for utilities. I live in western NY, bedrock is as shallow as 4 feet here, there are train tracks everywhere already(albeit neglected). They are more expensive to build than highways, and they do cost money to maintain, you will have higher taxes, but your cost of living would go down, the amount of air pollution would drop, the amount of noise pollution will drop, and the amount of people dying in accidents will drop, It's kind of like socialized healthcare, where "oh no it will make taxes go up" is divorced from the fact that you will get tons of benefits, and an overall lower cost of living.PhoxyDude (talk) 01:17, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

My city is riddled with stroads as described by the video. It came up during the auto industry boom, the wrecks mostly happen on the old stroads that don't fit a grid pattern. People will forever be bad at driving cars, but there is no effective public transport, and commerce spaces close to high value living spaces are also disorganized. This reminds me of https://www.insider.com/going-without-water-for-a-week-2018-3

It should be a satirical take, but I know it's not. It's not wrong in the complaint. It's not. But the experience is so impossible to get behind. (talk) 02:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

New Study About the Means of Reducing Violent Crime[edit]

I was listening to the most recent episode for the podcast The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe which talked a recent study taken up to reduce violent crime in Liberia through the use of economic assistance and cognitive behavioural therapy. Feeling somewhat vindicated I thought I should share this here as it provides an example of potential policy that could be adopted to help reduce violent crime in North America; assuming the results are generalizable of course.

The OG Paper: https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/q85ux/

Vox's recent article on the paper: https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/23141405/violence-crime-cbt-therapy-cash-shootings

Anyway food for thought, probably worth looking into for discussing/ critiquing/ speculating about, etc. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 06:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm Not going to say "water is wet" in this case because studies can be incredibly helpful in legitimizing what many people find obvious. This is unsurprising though, because when people convicted of crimes are asked what would have helped them stay out of trouble, their biggest answers are social services, most people don't want to turn to crime, but are forced into situations by external factors such as: Lack of money, lack of social safety nets, living in a food desert, ect. "there ain't no rest for the wicked" as they say. PhoxyDude (talk) 00:41, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
CBT has certainly held up a lot better than many other forms of therapy, if it helps suicidal people (Greg Lukianoff of the recently-renamed FIRE has talked about it) I'd be up for trying it with people inclined for whatever reason to commit violent crimes. Certainly better than the crackpot AA-type meetings people have pushed on addicts. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:06, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Investigating UAPs from a rational perspective[edit]

I know a few people who are convinced they've seen alien spacecraft and a few more who are convinced there are alien overlords living underground. These people use the military's tight-lipped approach to UAPs as extra implicit evidence.

I like this channel, it's always about 'what if' and 'what about' and really 'how?' There is a congressional investigation into UAPs and it's not searching for secret aliens. The thumbnail is super click-baity, but it's a good and informative short conversation with a congressperson who is all about getting this information divested from the military.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1W_Jdf_ATY (talk) 02:08, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I mean the only reason UFOs are a thing is because nations are paranoid about unknown shit in their airspace. And since this shit started around the same time as the beginning of the Cold War so... Yeah, it's almost never going to be aliens. The military is tight lipped because they don't like sharing potentially valuable intel with us civilians. This is the short boring truth of UFOs. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:47, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Let us enter into their universe of discourse. Even it is true, so what? Herr Doktor Enter into the rabbit hole 03:19, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
I have always said, if the Iluuminati are real, bang up great job of never letting a single secret slip or killing an outsider who was spilling the real info. I agree, it wouldn't change life much. It already sucks, magic and aliens are a stupid way to interpret classism. But of course you can't say that. (talk) 03:40, 7 June 2022 (UTC)