Information icon.svg Voting is completed for the RationalWiki 2021 Moderator Election and the results are now posted.
Congratulations to the winners!

RationalWiki:Saloon bar

From RationalWiki
(Redirected from Saloon Bar)
Jump to: navigation, search
Saloon bar
WIGO Bar colour.png

Welcome, BoN
This is a place for general chit-chat about virtually anything that doesn't fit anywhere else.
Icon beer yellow.gif For previous conversations see the automagic barchives.Icon beer yellow.gif

What is going on?

The Bar
(talk) (talk) (talk) (talk) (*cough*) (hic)

Pointless poll

Should Europe unite as the New Roman Empire?

Yes5Vote
No13Vote
I want to do gladiator fights!4Vote
The language better be Greek or Latin5Vote
I will be the Roman Emperor or Empress0Vote
Fuck off RZ943Vote
Make the emperor/empress a goat3Vote
Oh McDonald ate a goat0Vote
I will take a 10 piece chicken nugget meal with large fries and a chocolate shake8Vote

What's the most asinine remark made against water fluoridation?

Water fluoridation is a neurotoxin that shall gruesomely assail your IQ!21Vote
COMMUNISM20Vote
Fluoride is only for toothpaste, not water.3Vote
It doesn't do anything!0Vote
But isn't tooth brushing by itself enough?0Vote
Not everyone wants it, thus a community must vote on whether or not fluoridation is justified.0Vote

Who was the best James Bond?

Sean Connery16Vote
George Lazenby1Vote
Roger Moore2Vote
Timothy Dalton2Vote
Pierce Brosnan5Vote
Mike Myers4Vote
Daniel Craig9Vote

Given the Rittenhouse trial, what change do you think most need to be made with regards to guns and the culture surrounding them?

No major changes needed16Vote
Just ban all guns21Vote
Open carry in a large crowd should be legally considered a form of provocation/intimidation60Vote
The ban on some guns for under 18 should extend to all guns except under strict adult supervision, hunting, etc31Vote
Ban/restrict the use of hollow point bullets1Vote

Which by itself is the worst environmental disaster?

Coal power plants44Vote
Gas powered cars4Vote
Hole in the Ozone0Vote
Meat/Agriculture3Vote
Kessler Syndrome1Vote
Nuclear Power Accidents0Vote
Plastics15Vote
Cryptocurrency3Vote
The fashion industry1Vote
Long distance airplanes0Vote
All of these happen in society so it makes it difficult to determine the worst cause of environmental damage52Vote
The methane from goat farts3Vote

For those watching the Rittenhouse trial, do you think Kyle Rittenhouse should be found guilty of the various murder charges?

Yes, I don't think his actions were in "self defense"48Vote
Yes, bringing a rifle into a protest is itself enough of a provocation that "self defense" wouldn't even apply45Vote
Mixture, the charges are too heavy and don't apply to Rittenhouse, but he should be found guilty of other charges19Vote
Mixture, some but not all shootings were justified13Vote
No, he shouldn't have been there but there's enough reasonable doubt given the circumstances10Vote
No, he acted properly in all instances9Vote

Would you rather fight a chicken every time you got into a car, or an orangutan armed with a sword just once a year?

Chicken33Vote
Sword-wielding Orangutan21Vote
Whichever pisses off PETA more58Vote
To do list


Kyle Rittenhouse is not guilty on all charges

! Monet Ye 07:52, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I understand that there is a chance we're all a little wrong about what he did, and that there was some miscommunication and misrepresentation by media, but I will stand by this: there is no reason he should have gotten off scot-free. End of story. There has to be some kind of repercussions here. I suppose not...
Speaking of, do we have a page for him? Someone should get on that. Jake Holmesyell at me 13:52, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
A new trial should be done. A court of law is supposed to be unbiased hence the term "Justice is blind". The judge in this case was extremely biased. There is not supposed to be bias in court. --Channel 48 EAS (talk) 14:21, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Not going to happen. The double jeopardy part of the Fifth Amendment says so. Kencolt (talk) 14:56, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
He might be re-triable on Federal civil rights charges. The law on double jeopardy is rather unsettled right now because the US Supreme Court has been making noises suggesting that they may reconsider the 'dual sovereignty' doctrine, which holds that an offense against both state and federal law may be prosecuted by the other after an acquittal. And this might be a good case to test that, given the attractiveness of this bozo to Republicans, and the dual sovereignty doctrine was never anything other than bullshit. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 15:35, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
The House Judiciary Committee (aka Nadler) did ask the DOJ to look into it. My understanding is that Rittenhouse was charged on higher crimes (murder versus different kinds of manslaughter charges) and so, the prosecution tanked it. I have no opinion about this beyond this is not a well-regulated militia. Kntai (talk) 15:44, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
In what way was the judge unfairly biased in favor of the defendant? Corm (yak) 15:48, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
The bias argument as I understand it is as follows; cursive is argument, normal is rebuttal:
  • The Judge forbade the use of the word victim, but allowed the defense to call those who died rioters and looters: This is legal pedantry with a degree of precedent. Not every judge does this, but the rough motivation is that because Rittenhouse's lawyers went for self-defense, the language used to describe Rittenhouse's victims has to be presented as neutral. Victim is what is used when a crime is committed, and the argument at question is if a crime was committed. The question isn't if Rittenhouse's victims were rioters and looters so that question wasn't relevant.
  • The Judge yelled at the prosecution in front of the jury: Partially true. First I'd like to get it out of the way that this is according to every US lawyer I've spoken with and listened to a pretty common occurence. Judges are basically teachers in that regard; they have the power, they decide what happens and if you misbehave they can kick you out of class (/hold you in contempt of court), so you better listen. Besides that, not everything the judge yelled at the prosecutor for was in front of the jury. In addition, the judge had every right to yell at the prosecution - they tried to indicate guilt by using Rittenhouse's right to remain silent against him, which is a big no no. (This one did happen in front of the jury) Furthermore, they tried to reintroduce evidence the judge had previously ruled as irrelevant to the case to the jury, when they thought it relevant again, but without checking with the judge. This provoked the judge as well. (The jury was not prsent for this one; they were formally recused while the judge yelled at the prosecution for this).
  • The Judge permitted diversions based on a blatantly incompetent display of technology: This one is easy to refute; Judges are old people, old people are bad with technology. Specifically, this pertains to an argument from the defense that a certain image couldn't be used as evidence because of potential tampering from the zoom function. The judge tossed the question to the prosecution, which at a glance seems unfair, but when you get down to it, you can clearly see the judge wasn't expecting it. The reality of this is that there is pretty straightforward case law that covers this argument, which the prosecution from my understanding just cited the next day and that ended the argument. The other thing were two requests for mistrials based on other technical incompetences, which the judge just refused to rule on.
  • The Judge is a TRUMPER!: This is a character argument that should be irrelevant to the rest of the trial but sigh. Firstly, nothing in the judges conduct suggests that his political stances influenced the way he presided over the trial. The only evidence we have for this is that his ringtone was the song "God Bless the USA" (which uh existed before Trump), which Trump used on rallies a lot, and that he's an old white guy, who is statistically more likely to support Trump.
In short; no, the judge was not biased. -- Techpriest (talk) 16:02, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
I am certain Kyle deserves to have been convicted for carrying around a weapon while under age and for endangering the protests with his rifle. I knew ahead of time that those homicide charges would not pass due to the indisputable self-defense shown in video, but damn am I disappointed there. Senioritas (talk) 18:31, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Again, those laws do need to change. "Anyone who carries a firearm during a riot/mob/protest is guilty of a class B misdemeanor" or something along those lines. The question remains if carrying the weapon should itself be enough to void your ability to use Self Defense as an affirmative defense in court. If I break into a home and the homeowner points a shotgun at me, if I shoot the homeowner I can't argue Self Defense to avoid a murder charge. If I walk on someone's grass and the homeowner points a gun at me, my crime is nowhere near sufficient for me to lose my right to defend myself. However, the jury needs to deliberate based on what the law is, not what the law should be. I don't believe he should have been allowed to bring the gun there, but Kyle was allowed to bring the gun there. Ergo, simply being there did not cause him to lose the right to defend himself. Corm (yak) 18:51, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
America has a longstanding gun culture and a culture that promotes violence. Sociologists will tell you that the violence associated with war contaminates a culture and generates violence within a culture (Glorification of war, war coverage by the media). America's entertainment often has gratuituous violence that desensitizes people and must generate violence within some people. America needs more peace activists and more people condemning gratuitous violence in entertainment.
If the federal government is foolish enough to bring charges against Kyle Rittenhouse, it will make him a martyr and even a bigger hero to many people. And ultimately, the feds will lose in court. If there are more legal matters related to Kyle Rittenhouse, it might be civil suits against him by the families. Or Kyle Rittenhouse filing defamations suits (Accusations of him being a white supremacist, etc.). — Unsigned, by: SUM / talk / contribs
While America is more violent than Europe, Canada and Australia, it could be worse as can be seen by this Murder Rate By Country 2021 map which also gives tabular data. Central America, much of the northern part of South America, Russia and parts of Africa are more violent than the USA.
Agree with CorruptUser that laws do need to change (particularly, buying a rifle for "self-defense" should be an invalid reason to own it; even owning a pistol I think should be difficult). I just think Rittenhouse should be convicted of reckless endangerment and manslaughter, but he'll probably get cleared of that because people focus way too much on self-defense rather than how he brought a rifle to a mass gathering. Regardless of how he acted, what happened was that he was seen as an active shooter and he killed people. Prosecution went too far to saying he murdered people. Rittenhouse is going to walk away as someone who killed another person, but Republicans are trying to turn him into a well-known speaker and pundit, like we need another one of those spouting off garbage about how guns are good for liberty and whatnot. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄(Mod) 20:29, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
(EC)Related (though only somewhat) to that, my biggest concern about the Kenosha affair is not so much the trial but what it inspires.-Flandres (talk)
Reminds me, the riots that happened that Rittenhouse attended should not have happened either. They happened over the shooting of an armed man with a knife, but that's not really convenient for the ACAB folk on Twitter dot com that uncritically spread whatever police shooting that happened is it? --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄(Mod) 20:36, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
True...but on the other hand ACAB twitter people pose a minor threat/represent a tiny amount of people compared to the "rightist wannabe vigilante man" subculture.-Flandres (talk) 20:41, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Oh, sure, but they still spread misinformation regarding policing and they're still vocal enough that you will get some resistance and accusations by them if you suggest cops are less than absolute monsters. But yes, they're nowhere near as numerous or organized as the vigilante culture promoted by gun nuts. Sovcits, a category of that vigilante group, after all, are one of the most dangerous groups in America. That vigilante subculture led to this trial after all, and right wing media and pundits are promoting this Rittenhouse guy as an example to be followed. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄(Mod) 20:44, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Actually, it's that last bit that worries me (thank you for bringing that up). ACAB is a fringe position which even the vast bulk of progressive dem politicians wouldn't seriously endorse, with centrists even rejecting the (relativley) less radical "defund the police" talking point, while powerful conservatives basically try to canonize Rittenhouse thus giving cover to people adjacent to him.-Flandres (talk) 20:57, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
(EC) Not to mention that the armed man the police shot was a(n alleged) rapist who was in the process of kidnapping a kid. I'd like to think the police would've just yanked him out of the car, but with him holding the knife that's a good way to acquire a few new scars. The other option would've been to let him drive off with the kid in the backseat, which is unacceptable.
As for the Rittenhouse shooting, given that of the people involved, Ziminski, Rosenbaum, Huber, Grosskreutz and Freeland ("Jumpkick Man"), all five are convicted felons (it turns out Grosskreutz's conviction was expunged), it's remarkably easy to spin this as a tale of a "single good kid vs a band of dangerous criminals", and that the media reporting on this is how the "evil Liberal MSM would rather support the criminals than the victims" or something.Corm (yak) 21:07, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Also, did anyone else think the prosecutor looked like Mark Jefferson from Life is Strange? Corm (yak) 21:13, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
There's probably not much police can do whether Jacob Blake is a rapist or not (he apparently pleaded not guilty), but what they do know was that he resisted a taser and he was acting threatening toward a cop while holding a knife, which is enough reason for them to shoot him. What can transpire with a knife-holder happens extremely rapidly. I'm still relieved Blake turned out alive and he did say he didn't know what he was doing with that knife, which also sounds plausible to me. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄(Mod) 21:24, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

The people who Kyle shot were acting very aggressively towards him during a riot while he had a rifle. That was very foolish and malevolent behavior on their part. And they had a history of bad behavior. Sooner or later that type of behavior catches up to people. SUM (talk) 01:16, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

The rifle was even more foolish and malevolent behavior, new account. What do you think about the upcoming midterms, eh? --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄(Mod) 08:02, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Ongoing riots engaged in the destruction of property is precisely the time and place for law-abiding citizens to openly carry rifles. 96.60.168.60 (talk) 09:38, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
That's just recipe for disaster and vigilantism, which was just demonstrated. While riots shouldn't have happened, open-carry rifle escalated and led to the mess here. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄(Mod) 09:45, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm just gonna put that there https://www.reddit.com/r/Vent/comments/qyq4ow/sick_of_seeing_my_brothers_rapist_being_praised/ (Profile) - (Spoke!) 11:12, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
"Disaster" happened the night before when various things were torched. Vigilantism is the appropriate response when police fail to maintain order. How do you propose that the open-carry rifle escalated things? Do you mean that people attacked the person with the rifle? That's escalation by the people attacking the person with the rifle, who is legally entitled to defend against attacks. As for "the mess", what do you think happens to communities whose businesses are destroyed by rioters? Did you read the link above? What do you think of the Koreans of Los Angeles forming militias to defend their livelihoods? 96.60.168.60 (talk) 11:27, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
The rifle did not stop conflict. It ended up killing people. Rittenhouse brought a rifle to a mass gathering, acted aggressive around it, and when fires are shot, people assumed he was an active shooter. Are they not also trying to defend themselves? If it was Rittenhouse dead and two others standing do they get to claim self defense? As for the LA riots, I don't think that's an example to follow and it is not a reason you yourself should buy and stockpile guns since such a scenario where you'll need it isn't going to happen. What's going to happen is that you have things that can get stolen, brandished at the most mundane of conflicts, and so on. Having the populace own more guns isn't a solution, it only worsens the issue that led up to people dying and this trial. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄(Mod) 18:33, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
LGM, when did he "act aggressive around it"? Some guy claimed Kyle pointed a gun at him, Kyle sarcastically replied 'yes' to avoid a conflict. The video evidence of Kyle allegedly pointing a gun just before being attacked by Rosenbaum is too blurry to make out anything let alone Kyle pointing the gun at anyone, Kyle apparantly had the gun in his hands after Ziminski started waving around his gun. Even if you believe that Kyle did provoke the attack, that does not completely void the use of self defense. In that case, the bar gets a bit higher; you must exhaust all other options and only use self defense if absolutely no other options remain. Once in the situation where Rosenbaum was chasing him, and he is running away but getting stuck, I don't see what other options he had beyond taking a beating and hoping for the best.Corm (yak) 19:07, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
I do think Kyle acted in self-defense, but I think he was provoking people, and Rittenhouse was under mistaken impression held by many Americans like him that open-carry is a defensive gesture rather than an overall hostile gesture that other people will interpret. The issue still remains that firearms were involved in this situation, where Kyle and others were hostile, someone fired a gun, and people immediately thought Kyle was an active shooter. The solution to a skeleton crew police being unable to carry out their duties is to reform police, as we need police to do this job, not armed people from rooftops. Having random people be armed might be a quick response to their stores getting looted, but they're not general examples to follow and they're not a reason you should personally own a gun. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄(Mod) 20:40, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Now that Kyle is free, can we focus on another person from Kenosha, Chrystul Kizer? Chrystul is a Black woman who was trafficked for sex by a pimp at the age of 16, and at 17 she shot him in the head, and escaped from his home. Same age and city as Kyle, but different sex and ethnicity. Corm (yak) 16:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
This is not the best analogy, more of another situation all together. She shouldn't be charged for murder, even though she did kill someone, probably to escape, but I don't think the trafficker was perceiving a life-threatening situation that the rioters with Rittenhouse did. I also don't think the rioting is near the same level of crime trafficking is either. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄(Mod) 20:40, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Not going to split the responses
1) I don't think Kyle did anything specific to provoke the people. Him being their with a long gun is definitely a scary thing in NYC, but this did not occur in NYC but in Wisconsin, where the gun culture is much different and seeing idjits running around with long guns is not unusual. Ergo it was not itself enough of a provocation to void most of his self defense claims, and even in the event it was a provocation I still don't see what option he had beyond "accept a beating and hope for the best". If he had pointed the gun at someone before either the shooting or someone else brandishing their own gun, which I didn't see any strong evidence of, I'd say he should at minimum be found guilty of reckless endangerment and threatening. I actually looked it up during the end of the trial; pointing a gun at someone, even unloaded, is a class A misdemeanor, and the prosecutor should face some punishment for that stunt.
2) Yes it's another situation entirely. The girl did not go to the authorities immediately, she tampered with the evidence by burning, and given that the rapist was in the chair it might not be a true self-defense case. It's not clear she couldn't have gotten away without killing the man. However, given the year of sexual abuse plus the fact she was under 18, I don't want to meet the person who could be in the right state of mind after experiencing that, and she should never have been charged as an adult. Furthermore, if there was ever a time for jury nullification, "the man had raped by dozens if not hundreds of times and forced me into sex slavery", that'd be the time to use it, and a Just society would recommend probation, counseling, monitoring, etc, instead of prison in this particular instance. Corm (yak) 20:56, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Yeah I think so too. Hence why I think Rittenhouse shouldn't be convicted for murder. I don't think the case with the young woman would be as controversial given the huge power imbalance and the taboo nature of trafficking. I'm not entirely sure if people in Wisconsin are entirely comfortable with the idea of open carry, I still think the presence of a gun always increases tension with people to an extent, which has been borne out in studies (I'm not very good at study evaluation without some assistance and knowing context surrounding them), and open carry increases violence from a study by Donahue et al called "Right‐to‐Carry Laws and Violent Crime: A Comprehensive Assessment Using Panel Data and a State‐Level Synthetic Control Analysis." --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄(Mod) 21:04, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Going to create a new poll re: Rittenhouse and gun culture. Corm (yak) 21:20, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
"The rifle did not stop conflict. It ended up killing people." And thereby stopping the conflicts caused by three people engaging in aggravated assault. Do you think any more cars have been burned there since then?
"Are they not also trying to defend themselves?" No, legally speaking. A claim of self defense requires an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm, that the actions taken were appropriate to end the threat, and that a reasonable person would agree with those assessments. In particular, chasing after someone who is fleeing typically rules out any claims of self defense.
"since such a scenario where you'll need it isn't going to happen" It happened in 1992, which prompted the example I gave. Riots that destroy privately-owned businesses are not rare historically. When do you think the last month without such a riot was? Why do you think Rittenhouse was in Kenosha and armed that night?
"Having the populace own more guns isn't a solution" But having more armed citizens guard against criminal violence when the police fail to do so is. That is, after all, how things were managed before police took over that job. Allowing criminals to burn cities with impunity doesn't make things better, and many people value a functional society over the lives of the people trying to burn it down. 96.60.168.60 (talk) 12:16, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
@96.60.168.60 Unless you can provide reliable evidence for such inflamatory language, I'd lay off the claims of "Allowing criminals to burn cities with impunity". ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:41, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Killing people stopped immediate conflict but there was a contentious court case that followed. Is the price of these people also going to stop the riots? Maybe that particular super localized incident but people got killed here due to the guns here. Not saying rioting can't kill, but is this not a consequence of rioting killing? The guy was perceived as an active shooter and fleeing with a rifle, how are people supposed to know that he was fleeing and not causing more trouble? Also statistically, open carry increases violence, has people perceiving you to be a threat, you have increased overreactions to perceived threats, and owning a gun increases likelihood of dying from a gun, and what you're advocating, to arm the populace, others can construe it as promoting vigilantism. Riots are not restricted to the U.S. in the developed world either, and rifles sure as hell didn't make them more noticeably manageable. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄(Mod) 16:15, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
It was unclear and chaotic, and people acted as a mob rather than as individuals. Rittenhouse was heading towards the police and not shooting anyone else at the time in spite of being in a target rich environment, which I don't think are the signs of an active shooter. But, well, you see a guy with a gun running from a place where gunshots were fired, everyone else is saying that guy shot someone, I can't really blame anyone for assuming he was a murderer.
I have always maintained this is a textbook case of why you need police and not vigilantes, along with George Zimmerman and now I guess the Ahmed Arbery case that's still going on. "The only thing stopping a bad gun with a gun is a good guy with a gun" presumes you have any way of knowing who the Good Guy and Bad Guy are. When you have "concerned citizens" doing police work, everyone else has absolutely no way of knowing whether the crazy white guy chasing you is a wannabe-cop or a serial rapist. Heck, in his last phone call before he died, Trayvon Martin described Zimmerman as a "creepy-ass cracker". Corm (yak) 16:48, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
"such inflamatory language" Do you not remember 2020? Did you miss the criticisms of Rittenhouse being there to help prevent more arson? Such criticism implies that people shouldn't prevent rioters from burning cities. That is, the rioters should be left to burn cities with impunity if the police don't get involved, as they often didn't.
"but there was a contentious court case that followed" And? A case being contentious is a statement about politics, not the merits of the situation itself. It's not unusual for self-defense killings to result in a court case.
"how are people supposed to know that he was fleeing and not causing more trouble?" Fleeing would be an indication. Especially towards police. And he wasn't the only person there with a gun. He wasn't even the one who shot first.
"why you need police and not vigilantes" Police maintaining order is nice, but they don't always do that, as has been shown in various riots. And so people faced with a riot have the option of letting rioters destroy things with impunity, or of taking measures to stop them.
"presumes you have any way of knowing who the Good Guy and Bad Guy are." Being actively engaged in felonious activity would be an indication. That's often how police identify "bad guys" to stop (perhaps wiith their guns) after all. 96.60.168.60 (talk) 19:47, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Rittenhouse was playing Rambo and the consequences were predictable. Of course the riots were terrible. And not enough was done to contain them (both in a preventative way and through effective enforcement). A 17 year old with a weapon a quarter his size engaging in warrior role-play is a stupid=ass thing to do during a riot. ShabiDOO 19:56, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

So what you are saying is, what everyone should've done is just talk with Rittenhouse and give him a hug?. Yeah, that's about right. Corm (yak) 20:27, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
@CorruptUser Yeah, guns and violence sure did improve that situation... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:35, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
@96.60.168.60 I remember a lot of violence and similar getting played up by the right, to the point where any protest was deemed a riot de facto. So yeah, inflammatory language unless you can back it up with solid sourcing. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:38, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Did you not understand my Rambo reference? Man, you need to watch some more movies. "I can't even hold a job PAHKING CAAAAAAAAHHHHSSSSS!!"Corm (yak) 21:01, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
"They drew first blood - not me." - Rambo, Movie: First Blood (1982). W235M (talk) 00:14, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

So apparently, the first lawyers Rittenhouse had were responsible for associating Rittenhouse with the Proud Boys. That lawyer also sat on the pile of money raised for Rittenhouse, and refused to post bail, saying he was safer in jail than with his family. Those lawyers are currently representing the Jan 6 rioters and are involved in QAnon, so it doesn't seem like it's a far fetched "blame someone else" claim. Corm (yak) 21:29, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

"So yeah, inflammatory language" Again, do you not remember 2020? That link from before is to an image search that should show you an assortment of burning cars and buildings. Literally criminals literally burning cities.
"solid sourcing" Let's consider the specific riot that led to this incident. Here's a news article from 12 hours before the shootings. This one is specifically about the car dealership where Rittenhouse was the following night. So what precisely is your issue here? 192․168․1․42 (talk) 14:54, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Voting is live for the mod election

Hail ye hail ye and cast your votes! -- Techpriest (talk) 17:17, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Bumping thread for 7 days. -- Techpriest (talk) 17:18, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
I voted bitches! Now RationalWikians! Rock the vote or Super Mecha Death Goat will consume you for a Thanksgiving dinner. --Ja milch. Nein brot (talk) 17:34, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Vote or die, Muthafuqa, Muthafuqa, Vote or die! Corm (yak) 18:14, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Fairly important technical issue - Rockford the Roe is just listed as “Rockford”, the other candidates are all listed correctly. Christopher (talk) 18:18, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Fairly tiny in the end. The names just show up on the results - Cosmik (or whomever else does the ballots) sets the actual results manually. -- Techpriest (talk) 19:36, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Voted. Surprisingly, I thought GrammarCommie was a candidate. Ah well, voted for the green Italian instead. Oh, it's a secret vote? Online? Really? You can do that? In this digital age of leaks and bugger all secrets? No, really? Ah well, not going back now and changing it. Cardinal Chang (talk) 22:15, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
You know you vote for all candidates by choice, right? I hope you chose more than 1 person. Corm (yak) 22:47, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I chose to vote for one person as is my right . Cardinal Chang (talk) 12:29, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Ok. I actually voted all 9 in order. Also, if the "green Italian" is LGM, I, uh, put them somewhere in the middle. Andrew5 (talk) 22:21, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure "green Italian" refers to CorruptUser. Who will for for themselves, because I will! --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄(Mod) 01:23, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
I put CorruptUser as 2nd or 3rd, I believe. It was them and Rockford, can't keep them straight. Andrew5 (talk) 02:53, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, though I feel like I should've created the username "Aaardigan" or something so that I get all those types of votes...Corm (yak) 04:12, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Nope, you're still the green Italian. I don't know anyone else that is. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄(Mod) 04:16, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Personally I voted for those I think would be the best candidates. To be clear, casting one vote is just as valid as casting nine preference votes. The only difference is that your vote is slightly more likely to be dismissed when counting the results if the candidate you voted for has already been elected with enough default preference votes. -- Techpriest (talk) 11:41, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

New York city hall removes Thomas Jefferson statue because Jefferson enslaved people

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/nov/23/thomas-jefferson-statuue-new-york-city-hall — Unsigned, by: 189.40.87.76 / talk / contribs

Yeah, they're boneheads. All of us who live in this area and ever have to deal with anything in New York City know they're boneheads. And? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:26, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
@The Blade of the Northern Lights The unstated implications is obvious. "Since the left got away with taking down confederate statues, they won't stop until they destroy all of our precious moments!" "Those crazy leftists/BLM/antfia have gone too far!!" ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 04:30, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Don't they realize this will be compared to the Taliban blowing up Budda? Dutchbag (talk) 09:44, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
They probably don't realise anybody can be that stupid, since there's no real comparison. Dendlai (talk) 10:27, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Thomas Jefferson and other members of the founding generation were deeply influenced by the enlightenment. The enlightenment was flawed and the people it produced were flawed. Most revolutions do not achieve the aims they strive for. The American Revolution turned out better than most revolutions, but it wasn't perfect. If people are looking for perfection in their countries history or leaders, they are going to be disappointed. W235M (talk) 13:06, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
'Those who forget history are condemned to repeat it' and also 'The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there.' are applicable here (as in other contexts).
Some variant on 'Statue Park' (Communist period statues etc) might well be appropriate: feel free to suggest wherever. Anna Livia (talk) 14:13, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Here's a thought guys and gals. What if we don't idolize people and put them on (literal) pedestals. I know, the idea of treating historical figures as humans instead of demigods is radical, but maybe we should do it. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:15, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
The purpose of making public statues of historical figures is generally to commemorate a notable person and their actions, so that they may be kept in public awareness. What are your thoughts on the statue of George Floyd recently put up in New York? 96.60.168.60 (talk) 15:41, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Probably not getting lionized to any remotely similar extent compared to the guy in our money. Jefferson isn't going to be forgotten, and I feel the situation you bring up is comparable to comfort women statues or statues of Martin Luther King Jr (who's also subject to martyrdom mythologizing to an extent) rather than statues of powerful household heroic figures that frequently show up in mythology. Neoclassical art DID do a lot of celebrating and ventures close to worship. I don't think statues are universally bad but we probably don't need be constantly reminded about founding fathers especially when people don't bother viewing them as flawed, even vicious, human beings. No one is seeing Floyd in the same light as those historical figures, and Floyd remains controversial today. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄(Mod) 16:00, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
folk like jefferson are not merely flawed people from a bygone age where we can hand wave it all away as a different time, their flaws are very much central to the racial strife of today. statues like those of jefferson present ideals of freedom, tolerance, democracy, justice for all, while the george floyd statue present the injustice and on going struggles of peoples deliberately denied freedom, tolerance, democracy, and justice for all by jefferson and friends and so many people since. the statues of floyd and co highlight the hypocrisy of the statues like jefferson. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:49, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
The people of any given locality have a collective responsibility to decide what monuments should be present in their own locations. George Floyd might be considered as a social martyr. It would be best to view him that way and agree to resolve that no human being should be treated the way he was treated. Jefferson represents more than a common slave owner. As author or coauthor of the US' founding documents, he can never be ignored without promoting a distortion of history. I suppose Americans could create their own academy, as the French have done, which body could decide who should be honored among historical persons. But then, America would be a different place, with a different Bill of Rights. Ariel31459 (talk) 21:34, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
I just have a simple metric. Do we believe that the world is "better" that the person existed? If so, they can have a monument. Otherwise it's inappropriate.
Is the world better off because of Washington and Jefferson? For those of us in the States, yes, yes it is. Did they bad things? Yes, horrible things even. They were products of their times, but they improved the country. If simply owning slaves in a time and place where that was the norm means you should never be commended for what you accomplished, well, Mohammed owned 50 slaves, and I can say that Mohammed did indeed do a lot to bring the Arab world from the 4th century into the equivalent of the early enlightenment era, so to speak. I do realize there aren't too many statues of the guy, but I dare anyone to publicly condemn Mo for the slavery. Corm (yak) 21:56, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
@CorruptUser Why do we need moments though? I mean fuck it, I'll say that not having public moments to Floyd and others is fine too. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:30, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
For the same reason we have Nobel Prizes and any other rewards. To remind the people alive of why they have what they have, and hopefully inspire others to do important things with their lives. Corm (yak) 23:04, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
@CorruptUser And to create idols to shape how people aspire... Remind me again why any of those things are good? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:26, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Because rewards and recognition motivate people to be better, producing a better society. Or accomplish goals or anything else. Corm (yak) 00:08, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
@CorruptUser But only within encouraged parameters... Is it really so hard for you to admit that there's less altruism in this shit than you'd like to believe? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:08, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
The whole business seems to be like some playground game. When the issue is helping African-Americans shake off the legacy of slavery, removing a statue of Jefferson seems a minimal contribution to that project at best. It's actual purpose seems to be self-promotion by going for the immediate gut reaction. Altruism's got nothing to do with it. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 04:28, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
I think statues have their place. Are you supportive removing statues of Anne Frank, Sadako Sasaki (victim of fallout from Hiroshima bombing), Etty Hillesum, Harriet Tubman, Sojourner Truth?
"This will be compared to terrorist organization". I don't actually really care if Jefferson stays or not, maybe lean toward removal (his removal is merely symbolic and it's not much meaningful change), but I'm not really persuaded by the argument that disingenuous comparisons will be made. They're already being made even with more clear-cut cases like Robert E. Lee's statues (which were blatantly made to intimidate compared to Jefferson's statue) being removed. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄(Mod) 04:33, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm going to take the opposite stance of GC and say we should have monuments of all people. Walking through a city street should look like Medusa went on a sightseeing tour in the Pope-Mobile. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 14:58, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
or maybe change em up on the regular and as the world changes. and make em biodegradable so they melt on their own after a while AMassiveGay (talk) 16:02, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Bronze is eminently recyclable. That said, grownup politics is about getting people to agree to common plans of action that will improve their lives. Statue controversies are a form of territorial pissing that does not help. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 16:23, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Transgenderism: Is It A Cult?

When I was digging deeper in the TERF side of YouTube, I have found this propaganda series full of conspiracy theories, untrue stuff and bullshit about the "trans cult" supposedly "analyzed" under the BITE model. Here are her videos along with brainwashed populace in comment sections: Behavior, Information, Thought and Emotional control. Exactly the behavior she uses herself but attempts to shift the baggage onto the trans community without any evidence. Bhp99 (talk) 00:26, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

TERF objectives often overlap with far right ideology. Not shocked. --Ja milch. Nein brot (talk) 01:21, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
First of all, there is no need to link definitions for common ideas such as propaganda, conspiracy theory, etc. Secondly, you are quite right to point out that the person who made the videos is no expert, but maybe not for the reasons you have in mind: "transgenderism," is a category of ideas and not an organization of individuals as a cult must be. Thirdly, that person , Waffling Willow, who made the videos in your link, is ostensively a damaged person. She allegedly thought she was a transman, according to her bio, and then realized she wasn't one. Resentment arising from this kind of misdiagnosis, which could have been a self-diagnosis or a projection onto therapy in general, may be the source of dissociative behavior. I feel sorry that this kind of thing happens at all, of course, but remember that "trans community" is but a term of art within our contemporary rhetoric. UncleKrampus (talk) 04:32, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Nothing more than ideology and delusions. Not that there is much else that comprises a TERFs worldview. Revenant Raven (talk) 04:06, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
its the internet. the other side is always a delusional cult with mindless adherents immune to reason and relentless attacking their foes with any means necessary. 'cult' is usually just a slur rather than some clearly defined academic term that some folk you dont like meet the necessary criteria for its application. i suspect a more realistic term that could be applied to most groups, at least the internet based manifestations, would perhaps be tribalism. or some description of it. one shouldnt cling to rigid and narrow definitons for these kinds of terms when outside of academic papers. they are often loosely applied and just meant to give a general idea or impression of a thing. its normally fine on social media and the like, with zeroing in on some term used for not meeting some specific criteria often misses the broader points being made or purposely intended to derail the conversation. i see that everwhere from all sides of whatever conflict is currently in front of me. or there will be someone insisting some relatively innocuous phrase or wording should taken in one specific and insanely literal way, and only this one incredibly specific way and is proof of some great intolerance. twitters great for that one, but i've seen it plenty on this site. true believers of all strips amplify the acrimony of everything they are a part of.
that said, i know it can be difficult to step back from things or let things slide when it personally effects you and is part of greater issues deeply personal to you. things concerning identity (especially so when still young) can be felt keenly and deeply. but we dont need to debunk every bit of bullshit made in every screed of every internet no mark. with some youtube video thats clearly bullshit, its enough to dismiss it as just that - bullshit. we give them to much credit to go through every claim made and why its nonsense. it will be either filled with PRATTs or just flinging shit to see on what sticks. you'll go mental responding to everything, actively searching for more shit that you already know is shit. its a response, getting under your skin, they want and theirs a danger it will warp your own sense of perspective. pick your fights. dont give them the oxygen of your attention. let them asphyxiate in obscurity AMassiveGay (talk) 13:28, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Oh boy another cultural marxist boogeyman rehash. Calling "trans ideology (bullshit in itself)" a cult is nothing new at all, it's also the same beating stick as aforementioned 'leftist cults' that the right regurgitates every now and then, without realizing their own schizoid delusional propensities. There is no mirrors in the right's house. BumblingBuffoon (talk) 08:14, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Is Right WIng Watch allowed to be criticized

Rough storm pirate.png Ahoy, matey!
Beware, for there be a great sea of
Concern Troll Bullshit ahead!

It is a noticeable trend that for specific groups any criticism is inherently removed without any double checks to see if what is said is accurate or not. Right Wing Watch is one such example. When one puts in sources that are not youtube videos that provide criticism for said website they are deleted with the following statement "This source was also used by a youtuber we do not like, thus it is invalid" Could you explain why this is rational. Jared Holt sent those inappropriate messages so it does not actually matter whether or not youtubers that the moderators have an irrational hatred for also cite said sources, the sources themselves should be evaluated on their own merits, correct?2600:1702:2A00:B3F0:6112:CB4D:A9A5:3A47 (talk) 18:42, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Think you've been trying to smear Jared Holt of Right Wing Watch since May of this year, and you've been constantly adding some rather heavy allegations that require way better sourcing than a YouTube video and some heavy.com opinion piece. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄(Mod) 18:53, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
yes, everything should be whether you agree with it or not; case closed. Silver Star of David.gif J3wzus (TC) Silver Star of David.gif 19:33 25 November 2021 (UCT)
Have no idea if it's directed at me, but the IP has accused Jared Holt of sexual assault, which is an extremely serious allegation and requires pretty solid sourcing. What the IP gave us was an Facebook post from the depths of Facebook by an idiotic high school student regarding some other idiotic high school students[1] by a guy called Jared L. Holt as well as a link to a Styxenhammer666 video called: "Andy Warski Jared Holt Audio ft. High School Sexist/homophobic Archive" characterizing Styxhexenhammer666 as "nonbiased", which is ludicrous as the guy made statements skeeting close to Holocaust denial. Other sources include tweets with little care for context that don't in any way support serious allegations. Finally, there's a allegation that he's strongly associated with the Dayton shooter, with a source being a heavy.com article that's digging up dirt on the Dayton mass shooter and not much solid sourcing that supports another serious claim. I know the term "hitpiece" is thrown around really loosely by random drive-bys, but this is exactly an attempt to make a hitpiece against Jared Holt. These are extremely serious statements that would be extremely problematic to remain in our article and would make our wiki, especially characterizing a 2009 Facebook post possibly by him, possibly not, as sexual assault, go into potential legal trouble we'd rather avoid.
Additionally, if you look at the history of Right Wing Watch as well as in the talk page, there's a repeated BoN address that's been trying to add the same information since May, edit warring even. The BoN's behavior also strongly suggests of a recurring user User:TheDarkMaster2 who had been banned in this coop[2] (with ban upholded)[3] (gee these votes went fast back then) who also repeatedly tried to defend Styxenhammer666 especially in the talk page multiple times, shared videos by him even despite being told to stop sharing Styx videos, and has repeatedly accused RationalWiki of similar allegations, and he also has reregged or tried to pose as multiple IPs agreeing with him, even before his ban, and he was caught lying several times.
If you want legit criticism, get better sources. While it can be difficult, it's not impossible to corroborate controversies of organizations or people that are guilty of severe misconduct. Southern Poverty Law Center, I've made significant contributions regarding allegations of an abusive work environment as well as abusive behavior from their co-founder Morris Dees with sourcing from LA Times, New York Times, The Montgomery Observer, and The New Yorker, which are far more credible than some conspiracy theorist YouTuber and extremely thin gruel of scattered amalgamation of Facebook and Twitter posts with zero corroboration. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄(Mod) 22:15, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Which IP? Silver Star of David.gif J3wzus (TC) Silver Star of David.gif 10:41 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi TDM2! I saw you on one of Chudlogic's streams! Congrats! ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:32, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Squid games has been taken to the next level

[4] In this video by MrBeast, 456 people compete for $456,000 in a real life Squid Games! (But the people don't die if they lose.) The video by MrBeast was released on November 24 at 21:00 UTC and since has achieved over 48 million views, so definitely watch. Andrew5 (talk) 02:36, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Squid Game: *talks about how capitalism is bad and rich people make poor people dance like monkeys for entertainment while dangling money in front of them*
MrBeast: “That sign can’t stop me because my 5-year old audience can’t read!”The 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 talk stalk 03:02, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Shit like this is why aliens won't talk to us. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 05:05, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Squid Game isn't even subtle about it. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄(Mod) 05:55, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
What's more frustrating than the tone-deafness of the video is the host's awful grammar. "tons of steps is gonna get intense" at 19:02 instead of "tons of steps are gonna get intense" and "If I was you" at 4:38 and 9:25 instead of "If I were you". Maybe the host should spend some money on decent education so that he can conjugate verbs correctly instead of wasting it on his cringy channel. LongStylus (talk) 06:08, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
He's clearly a candidate for Private Eye's Commentator Balls Cardinal Chang (talk) 13:16, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
A: "Capitalism is bad and rich people make poor people dance." B: "OK, let's make a TV series about that with lots of eye candy and a predictable plot then market the shit out of it!" Bongolian (talk) 19:10, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Well, anything that famous can always be a cash grab for big personality Youtuber. Layman only care about the "game" portion of it rather than what the message behind really was, clap clap humanity. Neil Cooper (talk) 01:02, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

have none of you seen tv before? its been making the poor dance for money since it began. big brother ring no bells? anything with described as 'reality tv'? touch the truck? or those japanese endurance game shows clive james used to show clips of that were exercises in cruelty? anything with simon cowell? squid game without the murder is 90 percent of tv. hell, the dance marathons depicted in they shoot horses dont they were before tv. there have been tv shows with the actual games from squid games already.

squid games, a tv show with an anti capitalist message, is available on netflix, earning them over £650 million. its not a youtuber trying to cash in thats missed the point.AMassiveGay (talk) 17:05, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

BoN pages question

As something cheerful - how soon will RW reach 7777 articles? (Just over 300 to go currently.) Anna Livia (talk) 12:53, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Maybe if you created one, we would get closer? Bongolian (talk) 18:32, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Title it, Article 7777. Fill it with strange sentences and vague meanings open to interpretation but ultimately mean nothing. Wait for the Q nutters find it and think it means something. Cardinal Chang (talk) 21:39, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Bongolian commits the unacceptable sin of asking someone to do work on the wiki. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 02:17, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Probably best activated when much nearer to the figure in question (and everybody will be trying to create the 7777th page). It would include a reference to Daniel 12:4, and a concordance between Finnegan's Wake and the Voynich Manuscript, along with some doomsday prediction. Anna Livia (talk) 11:57, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Watchlist Notifications

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

There are various bugs with WikiMedia software around notifications, which you can find on their bug tracker (not all will apply here). In addition, notification emails might be disappearing into spam, and some email companies seem to block or silently delete automated emails rather than file them nicely. Not sure what to suggest, other than come by RW more often! --Annanoon (talk) 12:56, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Wrote a blogpost about the Shinigami Eyes browser extension a week ago...

Here. Given I'm sure some of our userbase makes use of this extension, I highly encourage people to read it. -- Techpriest (talk) 21:50, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I used the extension, but not anymore. Thanks for writing the tech stuff out in a way that a not tech-savvy person like me could understand. And the other stuff... No comment really. Good piece, very helpful. armed_roomba (she/her)What am I doing wrong this time? 22:04, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

wow

An AFD on Wikipedia is somehow 436,000 bytes. What has Wikipedia come to? Andrew5 (talk) 22:54, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

James Bond!

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

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

Christ Church Moscow

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

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

The Times has gone full tabloid

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A BBC journalist purposely picked r/detrans

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

TERF island strikes again! Britbongs have always been the biggest transphobes (that heat map of TERFs around the world essentially being a large British light kills me every time). I've given up on journalistic integrity on trans people from British sources. It's just too ingrained in their culture at this point. armed_roomba (she/her)What am I doing wrong this time? 01:42, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
'purposely cherry-picked a hate forum r/detrans] in order to get a transphobic take on detransition' this is dogshit. from their post 'this work will not take a view on transitioning itself: it is purely interested in the work of the service and how it has evolved - operating as it has done as the only NHS gender clinic for children and young people.'
it is also false that detrans is the sole forum they have sought information and is easily shown as by by clicking on the journo's name.
these claims are unvarnished dogshit unsupported by anything that was in the original post or anything at all anywhere. this kind of egregious dishonesty and the regurgitating of lies as unquestioned fact does nothing but play into terf claims of cults generate acrimony. the op should be ashamed of themselves AMassiveGay (talk) 13:02, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
oh and 'britbong'. weird racism/xenophobia. charming. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:20, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

In regards to society

https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/2268080/fpart/2/vc/1

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

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

That's entirely up to you. As for Alan Stone, he should stop eating mushrooms because he is not doing it right. UncleKrampus (talk) 22:37, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Tell me a fun RationalWiki fact…

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

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

RationalWiki has 87,254 registered usernames, of whom 1,162 are sysops. RationalWiki is very generous when handing out demotions.

Bongolian (talk) 21:26, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
That’s actually the reason I asked the question… I was getting bored of the same fucking 5 boring facts over and over again.The 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 talk stalk 13:05, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
How often is 'But I thought this was Rationalwiki - Drink!' invoked? Anna Livia (talk) 13:25, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Reverse logic

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

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

Everybody is familiar with the practice (and [5] is related) but there does not seem to be an obvious name. Anna Livia (talk) 10:34, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

School shooting in Michigan

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

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

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

The point of the Second Amendment is that the general population knows how to use a gun. Given that the US effectively subsidizes the EU through NATO, allowing Europeans to spend less on national defense than would otherwise be required, I wouldn't be so quick to criticize the existence of that amendment. That isn't to say the amendment is perfect or is applied correctly; I think handguns should face more restrictions given that 2/3 of gun violence is handguns alone, the laws regarding ownership should be standardized, and requirements to own one should be similar to those for joining the military (with obvious exception for age or physical disabilities). Corm (yak) 17:02, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
I think someone has a rather strange take on both the second amendment and cold war Europe. Christ. Cardinal Chang (talk) 17:58, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
"The point of the Second Amendment is that the general population knows how to use a gun." Is that really the reason it exists? Is every US citizen a proficient firearms user in that case?
The second part of the argument is so bizarre I'm still trying to understand it. "The US pays for 65% of NATO so the Second Amendment is a good idea?". Or have I completely misunderstood.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 20:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
1, 2. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 19:47, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Bob, I think you misunderstood something there. 2/3 of gun violence in the US being from handguns means that to stop crimes (and, yes, suicides) we should be more focused on handguns than on AR-15s.
You don't need absolutely everyone to be proficient with firearms, and it probably shouldn't be mandatory, but the more people you have with those skills, the better you'll fare during wartime. From the dawn of civilization to only relative recently, the Nobility imposed various restrictions on weapon ownership but they virtually never barred peasants from owning bows, because bows took a lifetime of experience to learn how to use accurately. Imagine for a moment we lived in a world where self driving cars replaced all drivers, and for public safety we began phasing out manual controlled cars. But in this future, warfare is still dominated by tanks, jeeps, and other ground vehicles, whereas self driving isn't available offroad. If a war were to break out, who would drive those vehicles? Sure, you could train a bunch of new recruits, and driving a tank is obviously different from a sedan, but the guy who spent 10 years driving to and from work every day is probably going to pick it up faster than the guy who didn't.
As for NATO, my point is that the EU's defense strategy relies upon having the US there to back them up in a crisis. The US having guns everywhere, even if it causes problems Stateside, somewhat indirectly makes the EU safer. Combined with the US spending more on NATO than required, allowing Europeans to underspend, means that it's a bit crass for the EU to criticize the US on gun culture.Corm (yak) 21:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
So let me get this straight, if the US didn't overspend a ridonculous amount of unecessary money on pointless toys for their absurd military budgets, then the Mongol hordes would suddenly invade Europe? Is that it CorruptUser? Does the safety of Europe (a continent with an enormous combined military force) hide behind the US from their enemies (which countries are those exactly)? Americans can be so insanely arrogant and grandiose sometimes. Zheesh. ShabiDOO 22:12, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Suicide

As an aside, how serious a crime should we view suicide? It can be thought of as "murder" of sorts, but obviously it's not the same thing. Like, if we had the scenario where "Bob is under a lot of pressure, he snaps and he ________", of all the things Bob could do, from shoplifting to murder, where would suicide rank? I would prefer Bob had stolen a cellphone than killed himself, but I would prefer he killed himself over raping someone, but I don't know what everyone else would think. Could make a macabre Pointless Poll. Corm (yak) 21:15, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
more crass and grossly insensitive than macabre. such acts of desperation are tragedies, even for cases wherre it might be viewed as a mercy. they are not crimes - not morally, and for most of the world including your neck of the woods, not legally. and ranking it? i know folk here do like a list, but fucking hell. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:57, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
@CorruptUser Suicide, a crime!? The fact that you are unironically thinking of making a poll about suicide … about comparing suicide to rape and murder … shows a bewildering lack of self-awareness and empathy. The only amusing thing about this, is that you earnestly think this is an appropriate thing to do.LeucippusSalva veritate 17:28, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Suicide is 1000% a mental health issue and as far from a crime that an unfortunate event could be. In some cases it is genuinely a case of mental troubles that may have been resolved with support and care, in other cases it is a quick decision under mental crisis and in other cases it is a well thought out and rational decision. Humans should have as much agency over their bodies as possible (that doesn't mean there aren't consequences to decisions like not getting immunised btw or potentially losing custody of children under certain conditions after suicide attempts). I think the state prohibiting a reasoned voluntary suicide is one of the most grotesque violations of freedoms (short of slavery, torture or unjust imprisonment). I would only see it as a crime if it was accompanied by another crime, for example a parent killing themselves while leaving their babies uncared for or suicide by cop (which can traumatise the first responder). Even then, I would be extremely hesitant to have that person be culpable considering the extreme mental health crisis that would accompany the overwhelming majority of such cases. Resistance to reasoned suicide is a toxic hold over from the poisonous ideas of abrahamic religions. Do t be unwittingly held hostage by them.ShabiDOO 17:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Suicide used to be a Felony in most states until the 1960s. They couldn't exactly throw your zombie in prison, out of the risk you might start biting the other inmates, but they could give you an undignified burial and punish your estate. It's been decriminalized in most states, but one person was indeed convicted of it just 3 years ago, but that case was a bit more complex considering his attempted suicide involved a risk to others.
And yes, obviously it's the sort of thing that doesn't get fixed by sending an extremely stressed individual to prison. Corm (yak) 18:02, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Going back to an earlier point in this discussion - suicide is not necessarily a mental health issue - the Dignitas option, and eg where it is considered the more honourable option. Anna Livia (talk) 19:44, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
How is unbearable suffering (even from physical pain) not a mental health issue? ShabiDOO 22:14, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

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

https://news.yahoo.com/airport-being-proposed-serve-both-202527539.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall

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