Information icon.svg Our policy on articles on living people is under review. Your comments and inputs are welcome on the relevant project talkpage.

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.
Drinks drunk.gif For previous conversations see the automagic barchives. Friends.gif

What is going on?

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

Pointless poll

What languages do you speak?

Arabic 3Vote
Ukrainian 4Vote
High Valyrian (Yes this is an actual Conlang)4Vote

Should we make RationalWiki into a sovereign nation?

Are you insane5Vote
No way in Hell6Vote
Piss off11Vote
Hail to the Republic of RationalWiki!!!48Vote
No, but only because all nations should be abolished 31Vote
We are the Democratic Socialist Republic of RationalWiki26Vote

Does anyone give a crap about these polls?

I don't answer polls16Vote
What is a poll?26Vote
None of the above22Vote

Are you a George Soros fan?


Jaffa cakes - are they...

An abomination to the Lord?67Vote

Who will you be voting for in November?

Don Trump (Rep Party)77Vote
Joe Biden (Dem Party)82Vote
Howie Hawkins (Green Party)7Vote
Jo Jorgensen (Lib Party)6Vote
Kanye West (Birthday Party)6Vote
Giant Meteor (Doom Party)21Vote
Not legally allowed to vote; non-US citizen, convicted felon, child, etc86Vote
There's an election this year?!7Vote

How excited are you for Firefly reboot?

Holy crap how have I not heard of this before?!24Vote
Probably won't be as good as the original, but still better than most things on TV5Vote
I'll give it a chance, but I'm not getting my hopes up just yet9Vote
Without the original cast as anything other than cameos, it simply won't be that good6Vote
Fox will cancel it before it airs anyway7Vote
It's all just talk, I'm not giving it any thought until it's actually confirmed12Vote
I actually don't care for Firefly85Vote

Would you be willing to take the initial COVID vaccine?

Oh please, a "rushed" vaccine only has concerns about effectiveness, not safety13Vote
Sure, even rushed, the vaccine is probably safer than risking COVID31Vote
I'm a bit concerned, but someone at high risk from COVID should still probably take it83Vote
I'll take my chances with COVID9Vote
It would give me Autism!14Vote
I *cough* already had COVID *cough*10Vote
To do list

Can the world be called perfect?[edit]

I retreaded this old thing after it popped into my head, but I'm (not) surprised about how wrong a lot of the stuff in here is. I mean I guess there isn't much harm if you personally believe it, but to think that everything is just going to work out in the end sounds, deluded. I mean as far as I see the universe is not loving, but it is "fair" in that it doesn't care about us. All events are neutral in the grand scheme of things yes, but we don't live in the grand scheme of things so I think that is inaccurate. I also think that trying to assign a different meaning to everything that happens to you might mess you up emotionally.Machina (talk) 19:58, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

"Perfection" is a nonsensical delusion. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:03, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

It's also opinion. Hence why when I read that link I just thought about how wrong it all was. Especially the part of the Soviet Union falling.Machina (talk) 22:26, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Just read Candide. Voltaire dissected this drivel with more humor than I ever will. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 05:14, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
You can call the world anything you want, but it doesn't make the description accurate. Perfection is a state of utmost optimization, beyond which improvement is impossible even theoretically. In the real world, this is usually reserved for simple things. A perfect game of bowling is rare but attainable. Perfect optics have no flaws at the scale of the wavelength they operate at or larger. Perfection gets tricky when there are multiple variables that need to be balanced, and if thermodynamics is involved it's right out. But for a suitably vague and abstract notion of how the world ought to be, you can indeed make the argument that the world is perfect, though the formulation of that would remove the verification of this putative perfection from the realm of possible empirical investigation (that article touches on this). However, "What if..." does not constitute an argument, and that article shows a remarkable lack of intellectual rigor. There are some good points, though. People are generally as happy or sad as they cultivate their habitual thoughts to be, so that's something to consider if you value happiness or whatever. And yes, the Soviet Union fell largely due to a catastrophic misunderstanding of human nature. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 05:23, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
You could call the world a teacup if you wanted to.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:33, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Define "human nature." Oxyaena Harass 13:36, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
nature | ˈnāCHər |
2 [in singular] the basic or inherent features of something, especially when seen as characteristic of it:
• the innate or essential qualities or character of a person or animal
• inborn or hereditary characteristics as an influence on or determinant of personality. Often contrasted with nurture.
Human nature is the set of traits typical of humans in general. To begin with the cladistic definition, humans are mobile multicellular eukaryotic heterotrophs with a notochord and dorsal nerve cord, a backbone and jaws, endothermy and mammary glands, prehensile hands with opposable thumbs and flattened nails, shoulders with a wide degree of motion and no tail, bipedal locomotion, and a gracile skeleton with a rounded braincase and projecting chin. I went into that detail on the physical nature of humans to make it obvious that humans are a very particular sort of thing. The same applies to human psychology. Humans are very far from blank slates (a blank slate would be like something like a computer with no operating system, BIOS, or other firmware, and would just sit there inert), and come loaded with all sorts of instincts and drives. As with anatomy, there is individual variation, but there are general traits, particularly as expressed in group social interactions. Humans are hardwired to make and use spoken language, to pursue various positive stimuli, and avoid various negative stimuli. The details of these are the subject of fields such as psychology, sociology, political science, and economics. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 02:24, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
And in what way does that preclude communism from "working?" And yes, there may be commonalities, but in order for something to qualify as innate it has to be universal. These are only general trends, not universalities. You have yet to justify your thought terminating cliche regarding communism. As for biology, I direct you to Hull (1986) "On Human Nature". Oxyaena Harass 10:20, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

The Japanese Wikipedia article on Japanese people is sexist as hell[edit]

I took a look at the Japanese wiki article on Japanese people. I notice that the infobox contains portraits of Japanese people, almost all of them being men. Of the 27 portraits, only two of them are women. That means 2/27 = 7.4% of the pictures are of Japanese women. This is sexist as fuck and reflects the extremely conservative culture that exists in Japan. Can a courageous person please fix this fucking problem? (talk) 22:01, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

This isn't Wikipedia, we aren't the help desk for them. Secondly, really? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:26, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
I know this isn't Wikipedia. I don't know where else to report this shit. I don't speak Japanese, so I can't bring this up on the talk page. (talk) 22:27, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Okay, so there is a place you can raise concerns on the Japanese Wikipedia, in the event you do not speak Japanese, that is the Wikipedia:Help for Non-Japanese Speakers (The page is in English), I'd take the concern there. Follow directions, and I'd go look at the related English page (Wikipedia:Help deskWikipedia), for guidance on how to ask for help if you've never done it before. You'll want to have a link to the article. The basic wiki format rules should be the same regardless of project. Think to keep in mind, there are not a ton of foreign language speakers on that project, so be patient. Pro tip: If you don't have an account on Wikipedia or any related WikiMedia projectWikipedia, go create one (I'd do it on your native language's project, so you can read and understand the sign up screens). It'll make it easier for the other editor to communicate with you (such as leave replies and ask questions, know they're talking to the same person if you switch between computer and phone, etc).
(If you have no luck with that (and remember, you might have to wait for a reply), come back I have one more plan, but it's a bit more involved/time consuming.--NavigatorBR (Talk) - 03:59, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for offering to help. I will keep in touch with you on your talk page if I need any more help from you. (talk) 02:28, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
"This is sexist as fuck" Those people in the infobox are significant historical figures. Are you claiming that an accurate portrayal of history is sexist if a selection of significant individuals does not approximate a 50/50 breakdown (e.g. a list of the signers of the Declaration of Independence)? Or are you claiming that Japanese society was sexist in the past, which produced this imbalance in significant figures, which should be fixed with a time machine or something? 192․168․1․42 (talk) 04:47, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Good post! ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:04, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Strawman argument. This is about gender bias in an article about "Japanese people", not "List of Japanese people". A single picture of a Japanese man and woman together (similar to the English wiki article on "Human" [1]) OR omitting the gallery entirely (as in the English wiki article on "Japanese people" [2]) are both good solutions. Thus, even if I were to concede that "history has been sexist, so it is OK for articles to be sexist as well" (which I do not), that still does not excuse the gender bias of the article on "Japanese people" as it is about Japanese people in general and not about notable Japanese people specifically. Secondly, gender bias is a real problem on Wikipedia. Perhaps it is a reflection of the gender bias that existed in history and still exists now, but that does not excuse Wikipedia from solving the bias. The WikiProject Women in Red [3], which addresses the underrepresentation of women, has helped significantly. In October 2014, 15.53% of articles were about women, and as of September 29, 2020, 18.59% of articles were about women, showing that not only are there more articles about women, but that the proportion of articles that are about women has increased. [4] Thus the gallery is not suitable even if it is for an article named "List of Japanese people". Even with historical gender bias, there is much we can do to give women better representation on Wikipedia. (talk) 02:28, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
“Strawman argument.” I wasn’t making an argument. I was asking for clarification on what the supposed sexism is and what would constitute fixing it. Can you supply the definition of sexism you’re using there to make those claims? 192․168․1․42 (talk) 02:26, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I can't believe it. You have found something you feel is wrong on the internet?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 10:08, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Excellent, Bob Scream!! (talk) 20:15, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

More on the failure of philosophy (or "why they can't seem to get past solipsism")[edit]


Just an answer from Quora that got me thinking about how we cannot know that others are conscious or have thoughts and experiences:

I’ve been asking myself that question from when i was a kid – I can see how i have always WANTED to BELIEVE that other people think and feel and experience stuff inside their head/themselves, just like me — yet, i could never get over the FACT that when i am looking at them with my eyes, i see none of that going on – i am just seeing a picture. Yet the picture looked so much like my picture that I didn’t want to accept that maybe what i think about what other people think and feel and experience ‘within themselves’ isn’t actually real and really only exist in my own head/’consciousness’ and i truly am ‘alone’ in my ‘consciousness’/’inner experiences’ as ‘thoughts, feelings and emotions’.

Because, that would then imply that i am ALONE here, ALONE in existence, AS existence – and even though common sense deduction of the FACTS would indicate that to be reality, i see how i started to, throughout my life, deliberately convince myself that what exist inside of myself as my ‘mind’, exist within others as well through ‘interpretative perception’, even though i could not and cannot possibly see this for real – as i cannot actually open up the head of another human and see the thoughts and feelings – just so that i would not feel so alone or have to realize that i am alone.

Because, what would it imply to be/exist ALONE here? It would imply that i am responsible for all that exist here as this world/reality that i am seeing with my eyes, as it all IS me, just me, alone, here. It would imply that i am ‘God’ and all that exist here is my creation — it would also imply that i would have to face the fact that i have never been aware of being ‘God’ and of when, how or why I created this existence in the first place — which scared the living shit out of me. So, i took the road of self-deception and pretended that i am ‘not alone’ because ‘other people feel what i feel, they think what i think – and i am my thoughts and feelings, so that means that i am not alone responsible for what is here’. Though what i have had to come to terms with is the deliberate self-deception in convincing myself that i am this ‘system’ of ‘thought, feeling and emotion’, while deeeep down within myself I kind of know that that is not really who i am – i simply brainwashed myself deliberately into losing myself within that system to just not have to face the FACT that i am ALONE here.

This is the sad reality of it because it is the FACTS – as i can see that ‘consciousness’ as what i believe about what ‘other people’ think, believe, feel and experience, still only exist within MY MIND — so, it’s a matter of making that decision: will i stop fooling myself and face the FACTS that ‘consciousness’ is my own self-made illusion or will i continue hiding within myself to not face the ‘God’ that is me and the enormous responsibility that comes with it?

Machina (talk) 02:05, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
You know, I have a simple solution for you. If you act like (rather than just imagine secretly) other people aren't actually human long enough, and eventually someone will punch you in your smug, miserable face for it. Appeal to consequences, sure, but it's consequences you're just begging everyone around you for. I'd say we, collectively, don't like being discounted. Call it Talos' razor. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:48, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Alas according to Occam's Razor philosophy ends up digging it's own hole that it can't get out of. Oddly enough the razor was used to argue in favor of God when it was first developed.Machina (talk) 22:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Occam's razor is a rule of thumb that has no great significance with respect to the progress of philosophy. ikanreed's advice is quite pertinent: try treating others as though they had not minds like your own. Why? Because proving solipsism is false is not the work of philosophy. It is a scientific question. The nature of consciousness cannot be rationally deduced from a finite list of propositions. Bertrand Russell once wrote: “As against solipsism it is to be said, in the first place, that it is psychologically impossible to believe, and is rejected in fact even by those who mean to accept it. I once received a letter from an eminent logician, Mrs. Christine Ladd-Franklin, saying that she was a solipsist, and was surprised that there were no others. Coming from a logician and a solipsist, her surprise surprised me.” Ariel31459 (talk) 23:18, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
That's a pretty good own by Sagan. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:29, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
This again? This is such an easy problem to solve: It doesn't matter. There, done. Can we talk about something interesting like philosophy of language now? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:51, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
I feel like the philosophy of language bores me(mostly because it's mostly metaphysical stuff). The number of questions that aren't better answered through science are few. "when you speak words how does that transfer knowledge into my head" comes down to neurology and psychology. I guess Chomsky style grammars are philosophical and not reducible to measurement. But I don't know what interests you about the field. Maybe it's just ignorance. What is an interesting question in philosophy of language? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:16, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
@Ikanreed I mean, most of the questions are answered, it's mainly just interesting to talk about the subjective concept of language. Basically, I just want to nerd out on this subject a bit. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:20, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Sorry for being unclear. That wasn't a rhetorical question. I literally mean it when I say "What's an interesting question in the philosophy of language?" ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:36, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Not much knowledge of Philosophy of Language as such but I wasn't aware that people working in that field were actively looking at questions that have been or are being currently answered by science. In fact, I find this highly implausible as empirical questions tend to (for the obvious reason of being best answered by scientific investigation) not be of much interest to philosophers, and where interests overlap there tends to be the usual academic co-operation.
Perhaps you are more familiar with this topic than I am but this "lol, silly philosophers thinking about questions when they could just doo dah science" sounds suspiciously naïve of how philosophers and the scientific community actually interact (outside of pop-culture bitchiness). Get ready, it's... (talk) 22:31, 22 October 2020 (UTC) Tikitime As I have said before the burden of proof is on the realist to claim an external reality and other people, not the solipsist. It's argued on here that it is the default position to take. Also "it doesn't matter" isn't a solution as it very much matters because it affects how one behaves from that point on and their emotional state as well. To say it doesn't matter is just flat out wrong.Machina (talk) 23:40, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

The claim that all that exists is naught but illusions is quite the extraordinary claim @Machina, one I think you ought to try to demonstrate. Secondly, screw your obscure forums, read Descartes instead. At least he bothers to make his case. Finally, again, my position is that it doesn't matter which is true, since either way the mechanical functions of reality remain, even if reality itself isn't real. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:25, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
"What properties do these illusions have such that they're different from a material reality?" you might ask machina, and get only stomping feet and red eyes in reply. "I say my unnecessary elaboration on a predictable damn-near provably deterministic universe must be the default because I say so"
You don't actually think about this problem like you say you do. You might get anxious and hung up on it, because you refuse to apply any sort of specific rigorous intellectual methodology, allowing you to retreat into any "You can't prove my conjecture wrong" territory that would make ID proponents blush. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 04:42, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
It does matter because if no one else exists then one is all alone and everything you do is meaningless because there is no one to interact with. That's why I say is matters whether it's true or not. Also the argument is literally on the page I linked to so it costs nothing to at least look at what they are saying about solipsism being the default point of view because it makes the fewest assumptions according to Occam's Razor. I do think about it but I can't tell which is the "Simpler" or default explanation. That solipsism is the default or realism is and which one does Occam's Razor favor here. But I'll quote the response if you don't feel like reading it.

I will begin by saying that by any standard of proof, the onus is on an opponent of solipsism to prove solipsism is false. That is because solipsism is the default stance. You exist, and that is all you can be sure of. Basic Descartes which has not been shown to be false. The best argument against Cogito is that 'maybe you only think you exist' but this argument can never get off the ground since this already implies the Cogito. (How can you think something without existing?)


IT is important to define the different notions of solipsism.

First there is the notion that all that exists is your mind. This might encompass an experience.

If if encompasses an experience then nothing disproves solipsism. Your feeling something bump is just a sensation of yours, as is your sensation of being in control of things when you are. All that exists are the sensations, and they are what comprise your mind.

Mind might encompass experience plus action If it encompasses action then there must be something that you have action over. Therefor either you have action over all things or else you have action over some thing, IN WHICH case there exist multiple things.

Now solipsism can still hold true if you think the self has action over some of its 'body'. IF you think that the self is comprised of a body and a mind, then solipsism is still defualt, because quite simply, the things you experience, the 'people' you have relationships with are just part of your body, part that you do not have control over.

To deny solipsism in this sense is to say that other people have consicous minds, but this is not proven and in fact we have no way of proving this. We take it by faith.

If the self is considered to have control over all of itself, then solipsism is clearly FALSE because we do not have control of everything.

So the senses that solipsism is not disproven are:

All that exists is your experience, including your experience of control and of being affected by things that you percieve as 'other'.


All that exists is your mind and your body. You have control over some aspects of the body, and not others. The body supplies your mind with sensations. The crucial point is that no other minds exist.

A sense that solipsism IS disproven is:

All that exists is you (either body+mind or just mind), and you have control over every aspect of yourself. This is not true because we simply dont have control over everything.

Solipsism is a most potent idea in the context of philosophy of MIND. Does your consciousness exist in a world with other consciousnesses or is it just your consciousness?

Since each consciousness only has access to its own consciousness, it has no way of proving that any other consciousness exists. Therefor the default stance is SOLIPSISM. Nevertheless this is hard to accept because we see other 'peope' who seem to behave just like us, therefor we infer INDUCTIVELY that other consciousness probably exists, unproven.

Machina (talk) 01:20, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
@Machina How do you know any of that for sure? How do you even know that you exist, perhaps you don't. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:09, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
I mean there how else would I be posting on here or writing this if I wasn't real. IF I didn't exist then this wouldn't be happening. It sounds similar to a Quora post on the subject:

Solipsism is the belief that only the self can be known to exist as a certainty.

What if I’m just an illusion? What if all this is simply an image to entertain you for a certain period of time, before you cease to exist?

All we know as individuals for certain is that we ourselves are real. We know we are, why wouldn’t we?

But what about everyone else? What about them? Do they actually exist or is this just my imagination or some force I’m thinking of. What if everything is fake like the Matrix except there is no Matrix?

Solipsism in my opinion isn’t a false statement. Rather, it is a half truth.

With our limited senses, anything can be made to feel anything, and as such, we might be the only things that truly exist because we willed ourselves into it, such as an omnipotent creator might do if you believe in that sort of thing.

But in the end, I feel as though something has to exist aside from ourselves. Sure our bodies are limited, but our souls are beyond our human capacity to feel, or souls can sense.

To people who are logical to a fault it is truth

To those who are emotional see it as falsehood.

Normal people see it as not necessary.

I see it as an idea to be balanced with others to make a true world view as it is created.

Machina (talk) 22:24, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
@Machina First off, I don't give a fuck what Quora says. You are terminally unable to actually answer questions posed to you, and honestly, it's kind of annoying. So, again, how do you know any of this is real? How do you know that you're real, and not just an elaborate simulation deluding itself? Answer that and you disprove Sophilism, and your dumb ass watered down Nihilism. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:06, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

You can't disprove solipsism. The thing is I can't know if any of this is real. As for me being real the answer is that there is a thinker and something around which all these thoughts are being organized and processed.

Solipsism requires nothing other than sensation/perception. Why does this "mind" have to exist anywhere? Why does it "require a brain?" You don't even know that you have a brain, other than from what you've gathered from other dissected creatures that appear similar to yourself and science textbooks. This sounds absolutely absurd to the conditioned mind but logically it does add up when looked at from a different perspective.

I suppose sensation is being as opposed to not being. Without sensation, there is nothing, which is inconceivable to the conscious mind. Stop moving completely for a moment, stop thinking, do not attempt to rationalize anything and just be still. Your state of being at that time will be the only thing in existence from your perspective, to assume that anything else is existing will require faith. I guess I can't give you a concrete answer because you are still presupposing that you are experiencing a "thing." Why does this have to be so? When you tear down the labels and rationalizations behind everything you'll find there is no longer any point of reference, and no coherency. You are left with nothing but the sensation of your own isolated perception, with no clear source or meaning in sight.

It's not like I want to believe it but my faith in an external reality is severely shaken by all this.Machina (talk) 04:07, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

To be honest I didn't even consider at first that I was presupposing the existence of some "thing" I was experiencing. I suggest you take a look at the thread I am linking as the discussion brings up points to it that most don't look at: (talk) 04:22, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I did find it weird however that one of the guys in the thread said that his observations support the conclusion of solipsism or how solipsism is the final product of Occam's RAzor. If I never heard of solipsism my observations wouldn't support such a claim.Machina (talk) 00:33, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Jordan Peterson is back home[edit]

-TheOldMan (talk) 09:46, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Who cares, ignore the charlatan and his hyper twitchy circle-jerk of cretins Cardinal Chang (talk) 12:54, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Don't be so ableist. Oxyaena Harass 13:30, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
We don't even know if he walks funny. Kencolt (talk) 15:56, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Not seeing how that’s ableist. Pumpkin pixel glow.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoTry our pumpkin spice lasagna! 16:03, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
"Cretin" is an ableist slur, and "hyper twitchy" is also ableist. Oxyaena Harass 16:52, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Cretin, french for idiot. Twitchy referring to a drug addict, specifically a speed addict or pcp addict, twitching with withdrawals. Circle jerk, mutual masturbatory club of half wits (a broad but accurate desciption of Jordan and his enabling fucktards) Get off your high horse. Cardinal Chang (talk) 17:03, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Gotta agree with Oxy here. The man's an idiot but mocking him for suffering from an addiction is fucked up. Evilatheistheathen (talk) 20:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
You're throwing drug addicts under the bus here too, drug addiction is an illness, hence it's ableism. "Cretin" is used in English as an ableist slur, as is "'tard". Stop being so casually ableist. Oxyaena Harass 17:07, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Remind me again of what Jordan was using and how he decided to treat it? I'm well aware of what addiction is, I'm a recovering one myself. Tard again a french word. Maybe I should have used a word from my own native tongue, mallintinneach . You seem to be a tad overly sensitive Cardinal Chang (talk) 17:31, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
jordan peterson may well be a prick but his medical situation sounded hellish. he developed (according to his daughter, and ive no reason to doubt her account) a physical dependence through using clonazepam as prescribed, withdrawal symptoms include seizures, while at the same time suffering a paradoxical reaction to the clonazepam - it was having the opposite effect to what it was prescribed to do. so in effect taking a drug that he could not not tolerate, but coming of the drug was equally intolerable, and could not do so quick enough. its small wonder he took the drastic action he took. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:29, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Hellish, yeah. But, so what. The man is a fascist apologist and crank. I've no sympathy for the man. Or indeed for any fascist apologist or enablers. He's best left ignored or ridiculed. And not put upon any plinth for sympathy to be showered upon his suffering. Give him some broccoli and a bit of soy sauce, Mikhaila will love that Cardinal Chang (talk) 20:23, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
I take umbrage with "ableism". We have been trained to reject Racism and Sexism are wrong because we've been told that having dark skin or a vagina is not a flaw. A disability? Is. It's not the only thing, a person can still be disabled and a productive member of society, and we shouldn't for instance insist that an amputee be banned from stand-up comedy because legs are a prerequisite for comedy, but let's not pretend that a disability is something we shouldn't care about at all. -CU (talk) 20:18, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
And is equating a pack of assholes to people with a nervous disorder the former or the latter? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:23, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Given that we basically cured Cretinism a century ago, I'm not sure who would be offended. -CU (talk) 20:32, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Fuck off, ableist, and why should I care about productivity? That's a spook. Oxyaena Harass 20:38, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Cardinal Chang You ignore that words can have specific connotations unrelated to their etymology. Oxyaena Harass 20:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Do I? That's shocking, so it is. Fandabidozi Cardinal Chang (talk) 21:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
@Cardinal Chang Jordan Peterson is no fascist apologist.-TheOldMan (talk) 10:27, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
The propagation of the idiotic, and moronic "Cultural Marxism is killing our society" is fascist apologia. As I said, I've no sympathy for the prick. Here's hoping it's a long and painful recovery that lays ahead of himCardinal Chang (talk) 12:16, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
i cannot talk of cultural marxism killing society, nor facist apologia, but i can say that the polarisation that stops one giving pause at the grave misfortune of others is killing society. it goes beyond schadenfreude, and i care not if they do the same or do worse. be better. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:30, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
I am hoping he recovers, and gets better. Not sure where you think otherwise. And it's a step away from my usual stance on fascists, involving a wall and artillery. Soooo. there's a socially acceptable response I suppose Cardinal Chang (talk) 12:35, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
@Oxy You should care about productivity because as someone incapable of providing for yourself under any economic system, communist or capitalist, your existence depends entirely on what others are capable and willing to provide you. The less productive people are, the less they are able to give. If they become too unproductive and there isn't enough food to go around, you are going to have a tougher time than most. CoryUsar (talk) 13:25, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
jesus christ man, can you not let up on such personal attacks? for fucks sake knock it offAMassiveGay (talk) 13:29, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
@AMassiveGay I could introduce Corruptuser/CoryUser to the wall and artillery option. I've even asked nicely. Pleeese? Cardinal Chang (talk) 14:04, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
I have thick skin, you can insult and swear at me all you like, but don't complain when I insult back.CoryUsar (talk) 14:25, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Context, lad. I got given out to for wishing the pain upon Jordan Peterson. Was wondering if they felt the same if it included you. Anyway, the nib is on fire lately, Cardinal Chang (talk) 14:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
"The propagation of the idiotic, and moronic "Cultural Marxism is killing our society" is fascist apologia."
@Cardinal Chang Nope. Arguing in defense of Fascism is fascist apologia. JP never did that.-TheOldMan (talk) 15:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Allow me to interpret your words. "If you mindlessly regurgitate a (literal 1930s nazi party) nazi conspiracy theory to a mass audience, that doesn't count as fascism apologia, because you didn't run back and forth through the streets with a big banner that says 'I'm the bad guy'" ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:51, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Well, Cultural Marxism is essentially a updated version of one of the most famous Nazi talking points(Jews plotted the October revolution and the intellectual spread of communism more generally)...-Flandres (talk) 15:53, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Guys, you don't listen. Did JP ever argued in defense of Fascism? If not, then he's not a fascist apologist. Don't tell me about cultural Marxism, because fearmongering about communists is not fascist apologia (although some fascists and fascists apologists do it).-TheOldMan (talk) 16:27, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
What the fuck do you think "Cultural Marxism" is? Did you even read the Southern Poverty Law Center article posted above about the topic, before ole squeaky voice, shat upon social media his tale of woe at being repressed. The man enabled a horde of idiots to commit dreadful things in his name, and while he didn't do so in the name of fascism, and since there is no fascist manifesto, it's a slippery ideology that aims to instil hatred and violence against what it views as lesser, sub-human groups of society. So yes, the prick was a fascist apologist, get over it. THere's a lovely wall over here btw. Cardinal Chang (talk) 16:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
You haven't provided any example of JP arguing in defense of fascism. You can't because he is not a fascist apologist. Probably the problem is that you don't know what fascism is. In fact you talk about "a slippery ideology that aims to instil hatred and violence against what it views as lesser, sub-human groups of society" but that's not a special characteristic of fascism. Indeed it's a tactic common to almost every authoritarian ideology.-TheOldMan (talk) 17:54, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
In broader terms, many of his speeches are about how stupid people are completely useless for society, to the point where it's almost an obsession. That's generally a "milk before meat" type of argument for Eugenicists. CoryUsar (talk) 18:37, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Jordan Peterson is a racist, sexist, homophobic, trans-phobic, intellectually deranged, intellectually dishonest, immoral, manipulative pseudo-intellectual who would do the whole world a great favour by fucking off...but he isn't a fascist. If you can point to a single video or article where its clear to everyone that he supports fascism...then could you link it please? ShabiDOO 20:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm also not sure he's racist. As far as I'm aware, the worst I've heard him talk about WRT race is his insistence that Racism is actually some form of "majoritism", e.g., societies favor the majority rather than any particular race. Which is basically a Diet Coke argument; all flavor and no substance. It doesn't really add or subtract anything from the debate, or suggest anything radical in terms of a goal of making a world where race has virtually no impact on your opportunities in life. CoryUsar (talk) 20:33, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Both Nazis and fascists tend to believe there is an entity trying to undermine and overthrow the prevailing hegemony, and that a certain culture/heritage must be preserved at all costs by any means necessary. Nazi is a more specific term for the people who think it's the Jews who are doing the undermining and overthrowing. Jordan Peterson does not seem to believe the culprit is the Jews. He instead cribs the rhetoric Nazis used about "Cultural Bolshevism" that vilified Jews and changes it to "Cultural Marxism" and "Postmodern Neo-Marxists" and vilifies the Left instead. Nazis say "We need to do something about the Jews before they dilute our bloodlines and ruin this nation." Jordan Peterson says "We need to do something about the Left before they indoctrinate our children and tear down Western Civilization." So Jordan Peterson appears not to be a Nazi, but his rhetoric concerning the Left can lead down a paranoid rabbit hole that ends in the conviction that Marxism will lead to the downfall of the white race in the same way a Nazi would have a similar conviction about the Jews. Once you're there, it doesn't take much more of a push to conclude that outright fascism is the rational solution to the problem of the 'Modern Left'. So while Jordan Peterson's surface-level critique seems more akin to "the Left has gone too far with pronouns and talking about white privilege," once you get deeper into the details of it you get to the stuff about 'Postmodern Neo-Marxists' and I believe it's fair to say that this is cryptofascist rhetoric. Because once you accept the narrative that we evil Lefties want to tear everything down, where else can you turn but to the part of the right-wing that takes this threat seriously and has ideas about how you should go about preserving The West? If that is not fascist apologia I don't know what the fuck is. Cardinal Chang (talk) 21:12, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
The term Cultural Marxism, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center : 'Cultural Marxism,' a conspiracy theory with an anti-Semitic twist, being pushed by much of the American right. 'Fascism' is not even used in the cited article, probably because it is beside the point. I don't generally agree with slippery slope arguments. The Nazis are not coming. At least, not yet.Ariel31459 (talk) 22:01, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
I have to agree with the OldMan, I don't think you have a strong sense of what facism is. Criticizing modern progressive or post-modern views by strawmanning it as "neo-marxist post-modernism" (and labeling it something that cannot actually exist) is not explicitly nor indirectly fascist at all. It's just straw-manning something. Just because one form of critique "might" lead to something doesn't mean something who critiques that way is fascist. That's like saying people who straw-man conservative talking points by calling them all "capitalist-domestic-terrorists" means you are a communist because it doesn't take much for someone who irrationally strawmans conservatives to become communist. Unless you can link a video or article where he supports fascism in a way that clear to most readers, then you've overstated your claim and might not want to be so generous in how you label people fascist. ShabiDOO 22:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
He may not be fascist, but he almost certainly is a fascist enabler. Oxyaena Harass
@Oxyaena Enabler, that's the word. Not apologist. You know when I originally wrote apologist I had debated with myself if it was enabler or apologist, and somehow decided apologist was the less damning of the two. Although I then describe an enabler and not an apologist for the rest of my whatever it was. Anyway. Apologist, enabler whatever, the man and is followers are scumbag shitdogs. Cardinal Chang (talk) 11:15, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
@Oxyaena "Fascist enabler"? Let's make up terms just to include the word "fascist" in them...-TheOldMan (talk) 07:57, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
@TheOldMan My understanding of Fascism comes primarily from two sources, firstly my maternal grandmother who would proudly tell all and sundry how she kicked Mussolini in the head as he crawled through the streets at the end of the war, and secondly from Umberto Eco's Essay on Ur-fascism I couldn't care less if you disagree, but as far as I'm concerned the only good fascist is a dead one. They left one part of my family in ruins. Another part was left in ruins by the Brits during the troubles. Cardinal Chang (talk) 11:27, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
@Cardinal Chang One of my ancestors was tortured by Nazis. Of course that has nothing to do with JP being or not being a fascist apologist. Likewise, your grandmother kicks couldn't be less relevant. All you have to do to prove your claim that JP is a fascist apologist is providing an example of JP arguing in defense of fascism. Everything else is irrelevant to this matter.-TheOldMan (talk) 11:58, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Read above a few lines. I confused enabler with apologist. English isn't my first language. Cardinal Chang (talk) 12:20, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Enabler makes a little more sense, but I still think that it is an overstatement. If you want to take an example of fascist enablers then you need look no further than Nigel Farage or Santiago Abascal Ortega or any number of conservative pundits. They don't clearly endorse fascism but certainly and knowingly say false shit to arouse their base and gaine supporters they wouldn't otherwise gain. In other words they are aware that their words enable fascists but don't care even though they may not support fascism themselves. I don't believe this is the case with Peterson. He actually believes in the sexist, homophobic, anti-atheist and highly traditional values he espouses and I don't believe he says shit just to arouse nutcases or gain supporters. He is a pseudo-intellectual-douche-bag beyond any doubt. A knowingly enabler of facism I think you'd have to demonstrate that better than "some people take what he says and goes nuts with it". I mean again, you can apply that to most ridiculous human beings. For example Richard Dawkins supports atheism and programs that help support the vulnerable. That doesn't make him a communist enabler even though those are two talking points that communists use, nor would that make him an enabler of radical-left-wing-terrorism even though, again, he supports and talks at length at several points that they may use to justify their over the top ideas and methods. I think we should be responsible with the kinds of labels we throw out at people. ShabiDOO 13:33, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
An "enabler" is a person or thing that makes something possible. X enables Y if, without X, Y cannot exist or occur. What precisely are the claims being made here? 192․168․1․42 (talk) 13:45, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
"I confused enabler with apologist. English isn't my first language."
@Cardinal Chang All right. So do you agree that JP is not a fascist apologist?
Regarding "fascist enablers"... I find the term quite meaningless. History has shown that, under the right circumstances, the majority of people do not oppose fascism. Because they don't care, they are too scared of retaliation against themselves or their family, they are "just following orders"... etc. All good people, when thinking about being a WW2 citizen of Germany or Italy, fantasize about themselves being heroes fighting fascists and Nazis, but - statistically speaking - they almost surely would had not. So if you are talking about "fascist enablers," then you are talking about the majority of people...-TheOldMan (talk) 14:27, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
@TheOldMan There is a world of difference between being someone who hypothetically in the 1930's and 40's would have idly stood by or collaborated with fascists; and being someone who essentially reproduces fascist or fascist-adjacent propaganda. Most modern far right movements propagandise through dog-whistles like "Cultural Marxism" or "the defence of 'western values'" to ensure a steady supply of people who have bought into key-points of the fascist world-view long before they've ever thought of joining an explicitly far-right group. They start of selling "western values" so they can later swap it for "European Culture"... and then chuck in a little bogus-but-convincing science around IQ and ethnicity... to turn 'I love European culture' into 'I must help preserve the white race'.
Whether Peterson likes it or not, people like him play an important role in fascist recruitment priming otherwise disaffected and mainstream people to respond to fascist themes around civilizational struggle, the benefits and naturalness of social hierarchy, distrust of intellectuals etc. I doubt he knows that that's his job for the far right but hey.. the shoe seems to fit unfortunately.
IMHO The fact that there are liberals who still think that fascist recruitment works by a man with a shaved head, wearing a t-shirt saying "Hello, I'm a fascist propaganda man" straight up telling new people how great fascism is. Goes a long way to explaining the failure of a lot of liberal anti-racist initiatives to curb the rise of the alt-right. Fascists have had three quarters of a century to adjust their sales pitch and they've learnt the importance of branding and concealing their actual beliefs until they have suitably warmed up their audience.Get ready, it's... (talk) 23:00, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
"They start of selling "western values" so they can later swap it for "European Culture"... and then chuck in a little bogus-but-convincing science around IQ and ethnicity... to turn 'I love European culture' into 'I must help preserve the white race'."
@Tikitime This is pure speculation, and there's no way you can prove that JP has such intentions. Ironically, it's very similar to speculations and fearmongering that see left-wing politicians / intellectuals as communists recruiters, ready to switch their ideals to pure Communism when the times are ready.-TheOldMan (talk) 07:39, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
@TheOldMan It's not speculation, it's well documented strategy. The example I gave of western values being later turned into 'white race' is paraphrased from a speech Nick Griffin gave at an American white supremacist conference on the BNPs use of 'saleable' terms. <- At the one minute mark a clip of this speech is introduced and played.

Likewise interviews with ex-members of the far-right often feature a period of ideological radicalisation that begins with pop-right philosophers and media figures whose work intentionally or not ends up prepping them for the more extreme ideas and beliefs they encounter further down the line. And when it comes to the alt-right especially, there are plenty of old /pol/ posts where crypto-fascists talk about the importance of 'hiding your power level'; the art of spreading fascist propaganda without outing oneself as a bona-fide fascist has been the hallmark of numerous populist far-right movements since the dawn of the French National Front, perhaps even earlier.
What Peterson personally believes or wants to achieve is kind of irrelevant as far as I see it. I don't think Peterson thinks of himself as a fascist or that it is necessary correct to describe his work as fascist, however... people like him either through malice, chance, or gullibility play a role in giving intellectual legitimacy to the themes of fascist philosophy.
Also... speaking as a (bit of a) communist the real irony is that conservatives are often somewhat correct in their paranoia, even if they are a little over-dramatic. Starting a campaign around something of material importance to people that the left can help with (LGBTQ+ rights, civil liberties, working conditions, animal welfare) and then using that space as a recruitment ground has certainly proved more effective than just wandering the streets yelling about how much you love (INSERT MARXIST FETISH) and hoping people magically fall in love with communism. So it's not fearmongering it's just an accurate description of political strategy as it applies to movements outside the Overton window! Get ready, it's... (talk) 10:35, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
"It's not speculation, it's well documented strategy."
@Tikitime I'm not saying that such strategy does not exist and nobody ever used it. I'm saying that it is pure speculation that JP's is engaging in such a strategy. Then you said that what Peterson believes or wants to achieve it's irrelevant. But how can you accuse somebody of engaging in a strategy, which requires precise intentions, and at the same time saying his intentions do not matter?
With these "It's a fascist!" (fascist apologist, enabler, whatever...) accusations it's always the same story: The more the conversation goes on the more the term "fascist" becomes meaningless, based on supposing other people motives, and unfalsifiable...-TheOldMan (talk) 17:47, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
@TheOldMan That's simply not the case. When people are being described as fascist enablers what is being commented on is often well documented links between figures in a particular political media-sphere and the identification of common ideological themes and dog-whistles that operate as fascist propaganda, regardless of intent.
Fighting fascism is not about just identifying 'the baddies' (tm) and condemning them in contrast to 'the good people who just did an accidental oopsie that happened to look like fascism but really wasn't because they had good intentions really!'. It's about identifying and countering the political/economic/social forces, that intentionally or otherwise contribute to fascist movements and violence.
Whether Peterson recognises it or not, many of his talking points are used to support fascist aesthetics and ideology. In particular, the conspiracy theory around Cultural Marxism that he rose to prominence on is a direct descendant, if not carbon copy, of Nazi conspiracies around 'Cultural Bolshevism' that were invented and are currently being used to justify excluding and purging left-wing opposition from public life: see Orban in Hungary and Bolsanaro in Brazil.
Much of fascist strategy is designed to hoodwink the politically naive into thinking fascist groups are just a bunch of unfairly maligned conservatives/liberals not worth opposing. Getting bogged down in debates about 'who intends what' is a losing game. It's one that has been manipulated by fascists, arguably since the 1920's, to leave you scratching your head and shrugging your shoulders saying "oh well.. they didn't explicitly **say** that they are fascists so... I dunno? Guess they ain't fascists then. If they were fascists they'd say so right?!?!!!'.
And even that is discounting the complexity one arrives at when you factor in dupes and regular conservatives (IMO like JP) who are unthinkingly parroting their memes!
Instead look at what is verifiable and provable about his work and where it fits in to history and the current political moment, whether Peterson actually *is* a fascist is really a moot point and anyone who seriously spends their time arguing it one way or another is pissing in the wind. Get ready, it's... (talk) 21:18, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Logic is not Transcendental[edit]

I’ve been thinking about this a lot lately and I want some feedback. I’ve reached the conclusion that the laws of logic aren’t transcendental. The laws of logic seem to me to be laws of nature. That is to say they are descriptions of how nature behaves. They describe how the mind accepts and rejects propositions. To be logical is to be consistent in how one accepts or reject propositions and to be illogical is to be inconsistent with how one accepts and rejects propositions. Am I on to something here or am I just denying G-d so I can sin Bonesquad11 (talk) 15:55, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

It's actually a bit of a difficult question. Take "All X are Y, All Y are Z, thus all X are Z". It's a statement grounded in the abstraction of physical objects, but it's impossible for me to envision a universe where it's possible that the first two are true and the last is false. It might be my lack of imagination and being a meat sack that's trained by our own universe to think that way, certainly if there were nothing at all instead of something, "all" becomes meaningless.
Transcendentality always bothered me as a silly thing to desire, anyway. "I'm an immensely complex machine that incorporates all the things about who I am, what I believe, my emotions, feelings, physical sensation, senses, memories, ideas, ability to predict the future, ability to actively gather information, and learning, all beyond the ability of any other person to predict or fully understand, but can I call the decisions I make with all that 'free' will if it doesn't bypass the laws of physics" is the weirdest sentiment to me. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
That’s my point. Logic seems to be a description of how your mind behaves. I guess this argument presupposes the mind is natural, but I see no reason why it isn’t. Bonesquad11 (talk) 18:32, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Nothing about logic is a hard physical rule, stop thinking in terms of Western metanarratives, logic is simply a tool used by people to help with reasoning. It's a social construct that has no actual bearing on reality, just like "morality" or "mathematics," these are simply tools constructed by people to help engage in a task, they may be useful, but they're not actual. Oxyaena Harass 16:55, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
The things that are socially constructed are, prima facie, parts of reality. The idea that they can be viewed as separable is a work of pure imagination.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:31, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Do you mean transcendental in a Kantian sense? ShabiDOO 18:36, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
That's sorta the same thing, but I'd guess they probably more in the sense of term Transcendentalism: there is some fundamental and innate value in something beyond its material makeup. I.e. logic exists in some form beyond the physical, by virtue of the fact that its rules are not bound to or require any physical thing(besides your mind, as Oxy notes). You would hypothetically understand that to be true if you could wipe out everything about our universe(the matter, the energy, the very laws of physics) go to an arbitrarily different universe, and logic would still have meaning. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:48, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
I tend to think of logic (and mathematics) as something more akin to chess. It's about the manipulation of symbols according to rules that define what they can do. Tokens like 'all' are not natural phenomena, nor is a 'right triangle' or 'three'; even if someone drank 'all' the whiskey, you can probably at least tell what was in the bottle, and the world furnishes no object that corresponds other than roughly to a point, line, or circle. Rather, they're as I said, tokens attached to human abstractions; once we agree on what they mean, we can elaborate more and more complex plays using these abstractions. In the real world any can divide an angle into three good-enough to be equal sections; it's only the rules that prevent it from being done in 'geometry'. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 22:20, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Right, but that's not the question they're asking. What they're asking is whether those mental constructs: deduction, implication, syllogism, induction, mathematics, and the rest are somehow fundamentally constructed based on our material reality, and it's simply a lack of imagination that doesn't allow me to envision a universe where they don't hold. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 02:07, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
"it's only the rules that prevent it from being done in geometry." Yeah. That's like saying "When I jump off the cliff it's only that sudden stop that keeps me from flying."Ariel31459 (talk) 03:30, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Not at all: again, it's easy to trisect an angle if you are allowed to use your straightedge or compasses as measuring tools, and that's exactly what you would do IRL. It is impossible only because the solutions break the rules. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 19:31, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Given any constructible angle y, an angle of measure 3y can be trivially trisected by directly constructing an angle of measure y. Its not the rules that lead to the fact that not all angles y are constructible. It's kind of a reality thing. The cosine of 20 degrees is, for example, not constructible, though it is approximable.Ariel31459 (talk) 21:40, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@Bonesquad11-In my opinion, your statement “Logic is not Transcendental” is incoherent: “Transcendental” doesn’t make any sense outside of our conceptual system. @Oxyaena- In my opinion, your statements about Logic result in a kind of conventionalism, wherein the truths of Logic are somehow made true by humans. This results in absurdity. Humans can only ever write down finitely-many Logical Truths, however there are demonstratively infinitely many logical truths, so at some point humans will have to go beyond that which can be stipulated by convention; inevitably, humans will rely on an understanding of Logic that is independent of convention. Leucippus (talk) 14:19, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

My proposed micronation[edit]

Kingdom of Rationality

Motive- to encourage skeptical thinking, free thought, civil rights for ethnic, religious and sexual minorities along with bringing to light the issue of police brutality.

I will be the king but it will be a constitutional monarchy.

The main territorial claim will be my bedroom and this little island in the river. --Possible Goat (talk) 01:14, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

You'll forgive me if I don't rush to join. For one thing, I don't know anything about the island, the river, or the surrounding countryside. For another thing, I have no desire whatsoever to visit your bedroom.Kencolt (talk) 05:18, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
I think that I might also make claim to the spot where the Liberland supporters want to settle; both to be funny and to be a smartass. --Possible Goat (talk) 01:40, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, only if it's a commune. OH there must be free weed! Judge Dredd (talk) 10:16, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
I am also considering the name "Principality of Ratilndonia". Pronounced Rash-al-do-nia. I will also legalize weed. --Possible Goat (talk) 21:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Bryan Denlinger vs vaccines[edit] "Hey people you wanna line up and get the vaccine? Huh? You wanna get our flu shot? You wanna get whatever you want? Fine! DIE in your sins and go to hell and burn! PERIOD!"

That has got to be one of the most unintentionally funny things I've heard in weeks. The fact that this dude is actually serious and says that straight to the camera with a straight look on his face makes it even funner. I wasn't aware of this windbag before I read his article but WOW, what a dummy. That's right, for anyone here who didn't get the memo, Bryan Denlinger hates vaccines. Gotta add this to his article. Aaronmichael5 22:30 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Got to love the pseudoscience crowd. --Possible Goat (talk) 00:48, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
That is one seriously squeaky voice. It makes Shapiro's sound low.𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 20:58, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Election Night Shenanigans[edit]

For those of us biting our nails, Florida’s the state to watch on election night according to FiveThirtyEight’s model. If it goes Biden, there’s less than a 1 in 100 chance Trump wins (his path to victory is basically all the other swing states, and Florida having been even weirder than usual), but if it goes Trump then it’s sadly going to be a toss-up and we’ll have to wait for a bunch of the other swing-states to finish their counts. Florida apparently hated being the center of attention in 2000 and gets their count done fast now. Artificius (talk) 07:09, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Isn't a Trump win a moonshot at the moment? It's more a question of the senate right? McUrist (talk) 08:34, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Trump's most likely path to victory is litigating his way from defeat. But I wouldn't put it past Trump to start a war or two before election day, stage his own assassination, or put "Biden is a Pedo" on every billboard in the USA. --Annanoon (talk) 10:42, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Senate is gonna be interesting. Here in Kansas we have an actually competitive race, so we have the chance to send a Dem to the Senate for the first time in like 90 years. Pumpkin pixel glow.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoTry our pumpkin spice lasagna! 13:28, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, in every single competitive Senate race this year, Democrats have out-raised their Republican opponents, sometimes by multiple times. It's the opposite of past years when Republicans routinely out-raised Democrats.[5] Trump's retreat from advertising in some states[6] has made it exceptionally difficult for down-ballot Republicans. Bongolian (talk) 19:19, 23 October 2020 (UTC) The fundraising analysis is here:[7] Bongolian (talk) 19:21, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
You guys will have to forgive me for this, but I'm fully anticipating a Trump victory again. I was in the Orlando area this past July and I saw nothing but Trump supporters: everywhere. Doesn't exactly look good for Biden TBH. Miami alone won't turn Florida blue. Could be wrong, maybe Orange County goes blue but I'd be surprised if it did. But I agree, Florida is a key state, whoever wins Florida is likely going to win the election. Can't IMAGINE Biden will win Florida and lose, same with Trump. On a side note, my favorite conspiracy theorist is saying Biden is rigged by the free-masons to win ( So IF Trump does in fact win, at least we can laugh at him shooting himself in the foot yet again (He will be 0-3 in election predictions btw). Aaronmichael5 19:35, 23 October 2020 (UTC).
{ec}Fifteen Democratic candidates have outraised their Republican counterparts, an astounding number. Trump could still win, and anyone telling you it's a remote possibility is full of shit. In 2016, Trump voters on election day gave him a 2-1 advantage. A similar turnout would erase the current early voting totals from Democrats. Bongolian pointed out that Trump is retreating from ad buys in some markets, primarily Ohio and Florida. Though this could be a sign he's in trouble, it's just as likely the numbers in OH, FL are good enough he can redirect them elsewhere. Winning FL is required for him to have any chance of EC victory, and no Republican has ever won the Presidency without OH. I really want to stress, and I think it's something a lot of people are struggling with, we will not know who won the Presidency on November 3rd/4th. Though some state begin tabulating before polls close, many do not. And with the amount of mailed ballots being returned, either via USPS or dropped in boxes, will create a massive counting effort that will likely take days. The legal challenges likely push counting efforts to weeks. I would be stunned if we definitely know the election winner before Nov 16th.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:42, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Given that Obama and Hillary easily won Orange County, I highly doubt that.𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 19:44, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm not terrified of Biden not winning. What I am terrified of, is the "blue shift". Basically, the scenario where mail in ballots are predominantly Dem, and the election day votes are predominantly Rep. Under such a scenario, Trump will initially be ahead, but weeks later, he loses. In such a scenario, he could scream "rigging!" and he'd seem somewhat credible. In which case, things will get... ugly. CoryUsar (talk) 20:46, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Ugh... I'm not looking forward to the endless recounts we're going to have to do. TheTallMass (talk) 13:38, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Radio campaign to encourage to encourage people with severe developmental/learning disabilities to vote[edit]

This radio campaign encouraging began a few weeks ago giving information on how people with severe developmental/learning disabilities can vote. Would it be possible to develop a unique voting system so people with developmental disabilities can have an easier time voting? People with disabilities, even those with severe disabilities should be given the access they need to vote. --Possible Goat (talk) 01:49, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't know. 2001:8003:59DB:4100:547F:2B3A:E3BE:1525 (talk) 02:45, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Every single citizen (or permanent resident) should vote. As long as someone else isn't forcing them to vote in a certain way...then why not? — Unsigned, by: Shabidoo / talk / contribs 15:35, 24 October 2020
Felons? Minors? Illegal aliens? People judged mentally incompetent to care for themselves? In order to keep working, democracies need voters that vote responsibly, or else the system will collapse, which has been known and commented upon for millennia. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 19:57, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
US is one of the few democratic countries to ban people with criminal records from voting. I cannot think of a single reason not to let them vote. In addition a lot of democratic countries (including Canada and much of Europe) allow prisoners to vote. Again...I cannot think of a reason why not to allow them. As for minors I'd have no problem letting people as young as 16 vote. I clearly said "citizens or permanent residents" which would exclude undocumented people (though I'd have no problem with a refugee claimant who has resided in the country for at least a year to vote). I have never heard of a reliable source demonstrating how prisoners unfairly skew election results, nor about undocumented people and certainly not about minors. If you could give us a source on that I would be interested to read that. If you could also explain how exactly allowing people with learning disabilities would lead to an electoral system collapsing? How would that collapse happen exactly? By what mechanism would that harm democratic institutions? ShabiDOO 20:05, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Zeal for equality has many slippery slopes to fall down, and this is one of them. I generally don't think that a being born with a human-derived genome has any business voting unless they can at least learn and remember the names of the top of the ballot candidates and articulate a reason for choosing one or the other. Allowing such beings to vote invites their manipulation by the cognitively average. Fortunately, few elections would be swayed by their votes, but it isn't impossible, and I would find it a bit strange if the next President is chosen, in a Bush v. Gore scenario, by a being who can't be potty trained. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 20:12, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
“I cannot think of a single reason not to let them vote.” That doesn’t mean there aren’t any.
“As for minors I'd have no problem letting people as young as 16 vote.” So you agree that some people shouldn’t be allowed to vote, you just disagree on where to draw the line. What criteria do you think should be used to determine who should be allowed to vote or not?
“I clearly said "citizens or permanent residents" which would exclude undocumented people” An illegal alien who resides permanently is a permanent resident. And the “illegal” part of “illegal alien” is generally not due to a lack of documentation, but from the violation of some immigration law. People who overstay visas are illegal aliens despite clear documentation. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 21:13, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
You don't seem to know what a "permanent resident status is". It is someone who is given the right to live in a country for an extended period of time or more usually...permanently but doesn't necessarily get citizenship. An undocumented person is almost never officially a permanent resident unless they get special permission.
Yes I do think there should be an age limit, it doesn't quite make that much sense for a new born baby to vote.
If you know of a reason why a person with a criminal record shouldn't be allowed to vote...then go ahead and say it. What is it? Please give a valid reason other than "because they broke the law once". Try to explain your reasoning in more than one sentence. ShabiDOO 22:15, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Smerdis, would there be a sort of test for people at voting stations to determine whether they are mentally fit for voting? Some people do need assistance (for example those with physical impairments) so it is not as though people don't show up with assistance or give someone power of attorney to vote for them (in some places). I wonder how that would work. Would someone working at a voting booth be on the lookout for people who might have learning challenges? Would they submit to a set of questions they had to properly answer? Or would social workers visit people with known mental challenges and submit them to tests to see whether they could vote? What would the criteria be (there has to be a cut off point)? I'm not saying it is necessarily unreasonable to have a criteria, I'm just curious what it should be and how it would be implemented. ShabiDOO 22:15, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Smerdis said: "I would find it a bit strange if the next President is chosen, in a Bush v. Gore scenario, by a being who can't be potty trained." Votes are cast all the time by "Spaghetti stain Joe" types who cannot even explain what a political party is, how their electoral system works, what their candidate stands for or even why in particular they are selecting their candidate. If thousands of such people vote I don't see why a fraction of that number aren't allowed to draw an "X" in whatever box they choose for whatever reason they like. A citizen is a citizen after all and if one shows an interest in voting, wants to hit a button, punch a ballot or draw an X because why not? then they should be allowed to. It is just as much of a slippery slope to deny an of age citizen the right to go into that booth. ShabiDOO 22:21, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Denying a person the right to vote due to disability is 100% Ableism. Nobody should be discriminated against. The Americans with Disabilities Act and the Individuals with Disabilities Act were put into place to protect the civil liberties of disabled people. --Possible Goat (talk) 22:59, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I didn’t think you (Shabidoo) were using the legal term (there are after all a lot of illegal aliens residing permanently in various places, and voting concerns regarding them has been a topic of interest in recent US politics), but if that’s what you meant, I withdraw that point. I would ask, however, that you respond to actual terms in turn. “Undocumented people” are not the same as “illegal aliens”, and “people with criminal records” are not the same as “felons”.
That still leaves us with the issue of coming up with a set of criteria by which people should be allowed to vote. Considerations of whether specific people or groups should vote is an issue for after the general criteria get worked out. You think that there should be an age limit for voting. Why? Whether it makes sense for a newborn baby to be eligible to vote depends on the goals to be achieved. It is not a trait that exists independently of any criteria. To repeat, what criteria do you think should be used to determine who should be allowed to vote or not?
As for administering selective criteria for voter eligibility, I would expect that any new criteria would be applied the same as current criteria: at registration, with a check at voting time to be sure that the person voting is the person registered to vote.
“Votes are cast all the time by "Spaghetti stain Joe" types who cannot even explain what a political party is” And that’s not a good thing. It’s an undesirable part of the current system that would be hard to remove under anything like current regulations. That doesn’t by any means imply that it would be a good thing to allow other uninformed people to vote.
“A citizen is a citizen after all” Not in regards to voting and many other issues. Citizenship grants certain things on its own, but voting is not one of them.
“Denying a person the right to vote due to disability is 100% Ableism.” If the disability in question is a cognitive disability that prevents making an informed choice (in the manner of why children are not allowed to vote), then it is an appropriate restriction. “Discrimination” is just a recognition of some difference between one thing and another. A synonym is “discernment”. Discrimination has a negative connotation because it’s used in legal contexts specifying protected classes upon which discrimination is prohibited in certain circumstances, but that’s a special use case, not the only one. Discrimination in voting rights based on age is ubiquitous and non-controversial apart from where specifically to draw the line. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 00:03, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
mental incompetency is not a bar to voting in the uk. indeed, the threat to democracy posed by such people voting being manipulated into voting a particular way is so slight when compared to the very threat posed by how various authorities have used legal limitations on who can vote to prevent large numbers of people voting. mental incompetency can be defined a great many ways, effecting people in a similarly great many ways or so specific that it often would not impair their judgement.
different states have different rules, restrict differing amounts of people arbitrarily, the us has so much in the way of deliberate voter disenfranchisement in its history and its present, and so shamelessly brazen, worrying about the hypothetical and miniscule threat to democracy removal a bar on voting thats implemention has in actual fact not hypothetically in some states arbitrarily and unfairly disenfranchised significant numbers of voters in some states is arse about tit. its not enough taking inconsideration what mental incompetency is, the many definition, the differing ways it is decided, the differing ways it can be contested, the differing amounts of people effected in differing states. its assuming a definition is both universal and applied fairly and correctly and prevents a hypothetical problem both unlikely and not really problem. its not just a legal bar to voting that serves no real purpose if perfectly and uniformly applied, its a bar that serves no purpose is haphazardly and arbitrarily applied from state to state that it has disenfranchised voters needlessly, and is in a real sense harmed democracy not protected it.
its not as if being legally declared competent by whatever standard is being use in your locale prevent anyone from being manipulated into voting against their interests, against voting irresponsibly, or voting by going eeny meeny miny mo in the election booth.
sure some limits on voting are required. a minimum age. 18 or 16? i dont think it makes a whole lot of difference. any injustice is pretty minor, and temporary. im not going contest attempts to prevent 16 yos from voting or aid them. there is little i can see that inherently hinders or aid a particular party, nor are 16 year olds unable to grasp what is required or nor unable understand the issues involved with sufficient depth to vote or at risk of undue pressure to vote a particular way. theres no reason why they shouldnt vote, and real reason why its an injustice that they cant. why not 17? or 15? 14 even? its ultimately an arbitrary cutoff. 18 was a good enough choice when it was reduced form whatever it was before, and i cant see lowering to sixteen rights any significant injustice requiring giving much time and attention to address. i suspect parties that push for lowering to sixteen feel they will be rewarded with 16 year olds votes rather than a heartfelt conviction. ::convicted criminals voting? a loss of participation in society, such as voting, is part of the penalty that a prison sentence entails. a short sentence for a misdemeanour say 6 months though? maybe should still be able to vote. someone else can argue the toss for the cutoff.
the specifics for these limitations could be argued for one thing over another without greatly effecting the substance of the limitation, and mostly have nationwide implementation and cant easily be used to disenfranchise large groups of voters by design or effect of their implementation. mental incapacity test however, has great potential, if not already has, to disenfranchise many people unfairly, sometimes its automatically applied, often its ambiguously an inconsistently applied, while processes to contest a judgement can be daunting and costly.
its an unnecessary and inconsistantly applied. its only there so people can say they are tough on a more hypothetical than real threat of voting fraud at the expense of marginalised and vulnerable people. AMassiveGay (talk) 00:26, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
I work with people who are full blown paranoid schizophrenics and have IQs in the 40s, as well as many people who are entirely unable to speak and almost incapable of understanding any form of communication (think Angelman Syndrome or Rett Syndrome level disability). Though I generally agree with the idea of extending the right to vote to as many adults as possible, I can't for the life of me think of a good reason to even consider legally allowing them to vote; I don't think I really have to explain all the ways that inevitably would go horrifically wrong. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:20, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
So we would actually implement a cognitive test before people vote? ShabiDOO 02:32, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Blade, in many democratic countries literally every single citizen of age is allowed to vote. So it isn't even a question of whether they should be allowed to vote or not. The question is, should provisions be made to make it easier to facilitate people with learning difficulties to vote? If there are provisions to help the blind, people with physical disabilities...and people with learning difficulties are going to show up to the polling station anyways and attempt to vote, should effort be put in to facilitating it? I haven't the slightest clue how that would work but, again, if they have the right to vote I don't see why we would make provisions for some but not for them. ShabiDOO 02:37, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm still curious what the rationale is behind not allowing convicted felons to vote. Does anyone actually support that law? If so...could you explain why? The same goes with prisoners. Whats the deal with not letting them vote? ShabiDOO 02:38, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
As with age, the disagreement is not so much that there should be a line as precisely where it should be and how to practically implement it. And that really does need to be nailed down for a policy to be put into effect. As I mentioned above, eligibility criteria in general are checked at voter registration. The institutionalized people mentioned above typically have some legal declaration of incompetence made, which has various effects on rights and privileges depending on the jurisdiction and details of the case. As for felons, it goes something like, “In order for a democracy to work, voters must be interested in the wellbeing of society. Felons have demonstrated that they are not interested in the wellbeing of society, and conviction of a serious crime involves various restrictions on normal rights. As such, one of those restrictions is a revocation of voting rights.”
“if they have the right to vote” That is a point under contention. Rights are normative statements indicating that something ought to be the case, and people disagree about how things should be.
“The question is, should” In all questions of this form, the answer depends on the goals to be achieved. What are the criteria by which disabilities are qualified for accommodation in government services? And to repeat a related question, what criteria do you think should be used to determine who should be allowed to vote or not? 192․168․1․42 (talk) 02:56, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
@Shabidoo The reasoning behind felony disenfranchisement is many-fold. In no particular order (nor all the reasons (nor necessarily substantiated reasons!)), felons are considered lesser citizens with fewer rights, felons have demonstrated poor judgement and thus shouldn't have the right to vote, felons would vote for things that "honest" citizens might abhor ranging from legalized rape to decriminalized weed, and the punishment for crime is not just the years in prison but the loss of the right to vote and many other indignities that forever keep ex-cons as a permanent underclass. Not all the arguments have merit, but those are the common arguments.
As for the OT, I strongly believe in two things:
1) Those who don't contribute to society don't deserve the same say in how society is run
2) Due to human nature, any system that excludes the "unworthy" will always result in more problems than the systems that simply lets everyone vote CoryUsar (talk) 03:39, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
For voting. The only qualifications in my opinion should be being a citizen who is of age and wants to go into a voting booth and write an x in a box (or communicate to someone else which x to cross). That's it and that's how it works in a lot of civilised democratic countries. I don't care why anyone wants to mark their x how they do (obviously it would be praiseworthy if they put thought into it but that's their prerogative). I don't care if you have any criminal convictions, are completely uneducated, want to vote for the person you find prettiest, have physical or mental limitations, want to spoil your ballot by drawing a happy face on it or write in the name of your dog as a candidate. All of age citizens should be allowed in that booth. I don't buy any of the arguments limiting anyone and find it completely exaggerated the claim that doing so would lead to democracy's collapse (most especially in countries with proportionally elected governments or without a directly elected executive. ShabiDOO 18:23, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
I still haven't heard anyone suggesting if there should be a cognitive test for people at the voting stations or how a state could reasonably (and within a reasonable economic budget) determine who can or cannot vote without making voting a more tedious process. ShabiDOO 18:27, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
@Shabidoo As I basically said before, no, there shouldn't be a cognitive test, because any attempt to limit the vote to those who "deserve" to vote will inevitably be abused in some fashion that would result in far more serious problems than would occur if we just let idiots and felons vote. CoryUsar (talk) 18:29, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Fuck off you ableist pieces of shit. You know, I keep asking what human nature is, but all I get is meaningless drivel by fools pretending to speak for something they cannot even know, for an entire species of over 7 billion individuals. What is human nature? That held in common by all human societies? Well, guess what, for every so-called "rule" you can come up with about the human condition, there almost always is an exception. You're all a bunch of fucking idiots, bigots, scoundrels, the lot of you. A bunch of Dunning-Kruger jackoffs who know nothing about what you proclaim to be scientific fact. "Felons shouldn't vote" why not, haven't they already served their time? "Minors shouldn't vote" again, why not? A 16 year old is certainly capable of grasping complex societal issues "Illegal aliens shouldn't vote" why the fuck not? The notion of an "illegal alien" is an illegitimate one anyways, this country was founded by illegal aliens, so fuck off with your xenophobic bullshit. Oxyaena Harass 18:43, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────If the RW user base is comprised of such irredeemable scum, you should probably fuck off back to Twitter and try your best to survive on the pitiful amount of attention and ass pats you get from your fellow gimps and loons. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 19:57, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I see Oxy has hit the "fuck everybody but me" stage again. I sigh. Pumpkin pixel glow.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoTry our pumpkin spice lasagna! 20:19, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Oxy please, when you have the urge to insult the entire community, take a break and come back before aiming your attack on more than just the members of the conversation. ShabiDOO 20:25, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Allowing undocumented people to vote without somehow documenting them would be open too much realistic abuse (unlike say, allowing people with learning challenges to vote which would have a trivial effect). Allowing anyone without documents to show up anywhere and vote (which they could potentially do multiple times in multiple constituencies) could effectively seriously challenge democratic principles (unlike say, just allowing a small group of marginalised people like those with learning difficulties). I could imagine if an extremely liberal government somehow registered undocumented migrants who have lived permanently at an address for a certain amount of time without the risk of them later being visited by ICE (an extremely unrealistic scenario but let's pretend it's somehow possible) then they would, at least for voting purposes, no longer be undocumented. I would prefer that anyone residing in a place for a certain number of years for whatever reason, be allowed to vote. But I only think allowing undocumented people to vote should be done through some form of legal registration which some countries, such as the US are unlikely to tolerate any time soon. ShabiDOO 20:25, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
The sad thing is that she is too delusional to even be capable of seeing that she is the common denominator in every failed relationship in her life, whether those relationships are family, friends, employment, romance, whatever. It's part of why, a while back, I was trying to get her to answer why she thought communism would somehow be better for her. CoryUsar (talk) 20:30, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Actually, I have a loving family, many friends, and two loving partners. I was also talking about the people in this thread, who think it's okay to deny a vote to someone for something they cannot control. It reeks of ableism, but none of y'all take it seriously so, lol. Also, HBC, do you really have to be so toxic? Oxyaena Harass 20:36, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Let's all chill on the personal attacks please. That goes doubly so for Helena Bonham Carter, remember that you've been dragged to the coop for being an excessively toxic ass and escalating conflicts. The same goes for Cory, please don't make insinuations or drag Oxy's personal affairs into this. Sirius (dog star) 20:45, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
"You're all a bunch of fucking idiots, bigots, scoundrels, the lot of you. A bunch of Dunning-Kruger jackoffs who know nothing about what you proclaim to be scientific fact." Go clutch your pearls somewhere else. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 21:09, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
"Let's ALL chill on the personal attacks please." (Emphasis added by me because you seem to be having some trouble reading.)-Flandres (talk) 21:11, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
It wouldn't be proper Oxy-going-apeshit without you emerging like a fart in a lift. Thanks for upholding the tradition, man. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 21:28, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
HBC, I said all for a reason. Oxy made an inappropriate comment as well, it's just that you pointlessly escalated the personal attacks, hence why I pointed it out. Sirius (dog star) 21:30, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
HBC, please step back. At least Oxy is trying to say points that can be affirmed or rebutted in all of her needless invective. What have you actually contributed to this conversation other than useless personal attacks? Furthermore, I was not defending Oxy when I quoted Sirius-I was clarifying something he said that you did not get. Please read that post again.-Flandres (talk) 21:41, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
At this point, your enabling fug is so thick you could cut a slice and take it home with you. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 21:58, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
No response to any of the points I made? I know it is difficult for you to talk in anything other than (rather incompetently made) personal attacks, but please try. Or are you tacitly admitting I am right, and attempting to derail the conversation we are having to avoid admitting it? So predictable, Hmhmhmhmhm....-Flandres (talk) 22:02, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
At this point, we could quarry the lift for a decent building material. In other news, "Hmhmhmhmhm" as a sign-off: No. Just no. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 22:46, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Also, no one has yet responded to my comments on human nature. As for convicted felons not being allowed to vote, haven't they already served their time? Why punish them even further after they have completed their sentence? I also don't think someone's worth should be defined by how much they can produce for capital. This hallowing of work as something sacred has got to stop. Oxyaena Harass 20:46, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Personal insults and criticisms only derail a discussion. How about we all chill and stay on topic. --Possible Goat (talk) 20:55, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
This might come off as sarcastic, but I mean it seriously. Since you obviously enjoy reading, have you ever considered at least sampling How To Win Friends And Influence People? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:47, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
TIL that "fug" is a word-Hastur! (talk) 22:05, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Huh, so it is. Had to look it up, but it's a great word for an extra point in Boggle. CoryUsar (talk) 22:16, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
CoryUsar, I don't understand why you have to be that cruel to Oxy. You can communicate your frustration without the acidic speculation about her personal life. ShabiDOO 00:13, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Back on topic[edit]

“All of age citizens should be allowed in that booth.” But WHY? Why do you think age-based restrictions are appropriate while others are not? Do you have a rationale behind your position? For the fourth time now, what criteria do you think should be used to determine who should be allowed to vote or not? This is an important question here because it addresses the underlying reasoning for why some people should or should not be allowed to vote rather than just repeating unsupported conclusions. That is, it would permit an actual discussion of the issues.

“I don't buy any of the arguments limiting anyone and find it completely exaggerated the claim that doing so would lead to democracy's collapse” As with other forms of government, democracy has a number of failure modes, and plenty of democracies through history have failed. This has been known for millennia. The point of democracy is to ensure that the government looks out for the interests of the general population, and that power is transferred peacefully if the current government isn’t doing that. In general, giving person or group X authority means that X can misuse that authority, and democracies are no different. Much of the theoretical work on the topic of democratic governments has been aimed at how to avoid socially-dysfunctional incentives like people voting themselves benefits at the cost of a minority group in a manner that harms society overall, and this has taken the form of various representative systems, rules on what is and what is not and under what circumstances things are subject to democratic review, and restrictions on who can vote. And these are real problems that societies ignore at their own risk. For example, if a minority of the voter base pays for a welfare system and a majority uses it, there is an incentive to make the system overly generous, resulting in things like unfunded liabilities that can result in the overall collapse of the system. For another example, democracies reward propaganda, tribalism, and sensationalism over a sober discussion of actual issues, which can distract the corrective mechanisms of democracy from what they need to focus on in order to keep society functional. This can result in the replacement of a democracy with a tyranny as voters delegate authority to a central authority to deal with perceived problems. All these problems can, of course, be avoided if the voters are responsible, but history has shown that this is not a reliable assumption to make of the general population, so there have been various attempts to restrict voting rights to groups that are perceived to be less likely to destroy society when given their way.

“I still haven't heard anyone suggesting if there should be a cognitive test for people at the voting stations” That’s because, as mentioned previously, such tests (or claims of dependency/incompetence) are generally done elsewhere beforehand, and the results are used as part of eligibility criteria when considering a person’s attempt to register to vote.

“You know, I keep asking what human nature is” You’ve asked it once on this page, and I answered it above before you wrote that there.

“Well, guess what, for every so-called "rule" you can come up with about the human condition, there almost always is an exception.” There are no humans that are not eukaryotes. Want more?

“"Felons shouldn't vote" why not, haven't they already served their time?” Conviction of a serious crime often entails punishments beyond jail time. Felons are also prohibited in many jurisdictions from owning firearms, or from living in certain areas depending on the nature of the crime. The idea is generally an attempt to avoid future trouble from people who have demonstrated an intent to cause trouble in the past. This is, of course, arguable as a matter of costs and benefits, but dismissing it out of hand doesn’t address the actual concerns.

“this country was founded by illegal aliens” No, it wasn’t. The founders of the US were mostly born in the colonies that eventually became the US. And those colonies were formed by colonists building their own societies rather than immigrants (legal or otherwise) moving to a pre-existing society and joining it.

“deny a vote to someone for something they cannot control” A two-year-old can’t control that state. Do you think that such a person should be able to vote? If not, denying the ability to vote to someone for something they cannot control is not a problem per se.

“I also don't think someone's worth should be defined by how much they can produce for capital.” A person’s worth to society has, pretty much always and everywhere, depended largely on what that person can produce for society (which is not necessarily material, but it must be valuable). The nicer societies take care of their less fortunate, but their ability to do so is dependent on the surplus production of the productive members of society. Production is not just important, it is of foundational importance since it is required for the attainment of nearly all other goals. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 00:56, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

And I'm still waiting for some evidence that allowing people with learning difficulties would lead to the collapse of democracy. Babies wouldn't be able to draw an x in a box nor tell anyone what x they wanted to draw. I honestly wouldn't have problem with any young person entering a voting booth and voting if they weren't being coerced into doing it nor coerced into voting for someone. However, considering how extremely unlikely it is a country will ever allow 8 year olds in a voting booth my criteria comes down to three things (which I've already stated twice now): Citizen (or if it were up to me permanent residents), of age (whatever age the country's not such a big deal), they want to do it.
The greatest value of democracy is having a reliable mechanism to remove a really really bad government, something which is extremely difficult if you do not live in a democracy. Even if 5% of the population was voting in an absurd way you still have the ability to remove a truly dangerous and sinister government. The benefit of a democratic government representing a cross section of the populations interest (which America does extremely badly by the way with your electoral college and gerrymandering by the way) is secondary. It is a great benefit but hardly as valuable as the first.
As for representing people's interests, well I would say that the more people who vote, the more chance they have to voice their interest however it is up to them if they choose to voice it or just mark whatever x they want or even spoil their ballot or piss on it. I don't care what they do in the booth, it would be praiseworthy if they made a reasoned choice but we can hardly force them to. I don't see how limiting citizens of legal age from going into that booth makes representing a proper cross section of the population any better. Right: let's improve how government represents a proper cross section of the population by banning some of them from entering (including prisoners or people with learning difficulties). Yeah...that makes sense.
If you could please explain how allowing people with learning disabilities would lead to the collapse of democracy or any example of allowing small marginalised groups to vote has disrupted an election, I would love to read about it. ShabiDOO 01:43, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
It wouldn't be the end of democracy, but if you've ever actually met someone with (for instance) Rett syndrome you'd pretty quickly understand why they're not given the right to vote. They have no capacity to even understand the concept of voting, or very much of anything for that matter, and little to no ability to communicate; how on earth is someone like that supposed to vote? If done right, yes, I'm fine with declaring someone incompetent to vote based on mental status; states do this all the time for other rights such as marriage, ability to consent, and deciding whether someone can be his/her own guardian. Why would voting be any different? I'm not a psychologist, just someone who works with disabled adults and witnesses (among other things) the fallout of people overestimating some of our clients capacities (working with an industrial shredder while trying to pet imaginary cats and dogs, anyone?), so I won't pretend to know where the line is, but again you (generic you) can't honestly meet someone with Rett syndrome and conclude that said person voting is anything other than a cruel joke or an outright theater of the absurd. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:02, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
@The Blade of the Northern Lights - you say 'if done right'. there in lies the problem. 'if.' it seems not to be done right in too many places, while there are so many places where it isnt done at all and there have been no problems at all. for the kinds of people with conditions such as you describe, just what kind of threat to democracy or electoral integrity would they pose if allowed to vote? how many of those people are even able to express a desire to vote in the first place for it to become an issue? AMassiveGay (talk) 05:25, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
(ec)i note we are relying on hypotheticals way too much here. it doesnt begin to get to the root of the problem of the arbitrary nature in the application of actual existing legislation surrounding mental incapacity and voter disenfranchisement. some more concrete arguments [8][9][10][11]
it simply is not true that there is no cognitive test when it comes to voting rights, its just that it is not required of most americans. the rules differ from state to state. terms like 'mental incapacity' 'mental incompetence' and variations of, are not uniformly defined across states. in some those put in a guardianship are automatically deemed mentally incapable, even when they are not, even when their disability is purely physical in nature. voting rights here can be removed automatically, not through a court judgement and often their voting rights can only be restored by application to the courts. a test no required of most folk. mental incapacity is a vague and broadly defined term in a lot of cases. it is arbitrarily applied and can have implications lasting long after it was even relevant, often harking back to a less enlightened era's views on mental health. legislation is often based on stereotypes and outdated medical thinking that favoured asylums over care in community.
it seems most states legislature is far more enlightened, requiring court orders to strip voter rights, if at all, but for dozen or so states it is a disgrace.
a few minutes googling can provide many articles like those above detailing specific cases to what ive broadly summarised. no hypotheticals needed. thats not quite the case when we talk of the threat to democracy that not having such poor and discriminatory legislation poses. i struggle to find anything at significant. there are just as many states which do not discriminate along the lines of an ambiguously defined mental incapacity that the dangers would be evident if there are any dangers. the dangers to the democratic process in the us lies elsewhere, and are far more pressing.
the land of the free has such a troubling history and an even more troubling present of voter suppression, disenfranchisement, fraud and gerrymandering that we really do require a hell of a lot more concrete and significant evidence in support of disenfranchising anyone than some of the hypothetical pedantry on display here in their defence. it is also worth remembering that many comparable western democracies do not disenfranchise so many of their citizens for the reasons that have been debated here with none of the hypothesised dangers appearing nor any of the actual issues surrounding voting rights and electoral shenanigans in the us being of issue at all. not all states do either. we see the different approaches might have on electoral integrity. what does that tell us? AMassiveGay (talk) 05:14, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

just a comment on why preventing people with a criminal record is fucked up. you've done your bird and you are back in society a changed man. you are determined to go straight and be a productive member of society, but fuck you says society with a whole load of collateral consequences of criminal convictions of which being not being able to vote is just one, you are not part of society, you are not to engage with society in any meaningful way, you are out of prison but you havent served your sentence until you've paid your legal fees and fines and what not, and good luck with that because your employment options are severely limited. you cant even get food stamps and oh, you are already back inside, recidivism rates of up to 65% in some states, up to 77% for some crimes.

ok, thats not all the result of voter disenfranchisement alone, but is a result of all of that. and lets not forget the racial inequality in the land of the free and how it it is particularly apparent within the us justice system. no prizes for which group is fucked the most by felony disenfranchisement. this is why racism is so pernicious. its entrenched. you look at one specific thing, felony disenfranchisement for example, and you end up with a whole raft of differing but interconnected things that compound all problems and make piecemeal attempts at reform ineffective.

it also strikes me, limiting myself to just voting rights specifically now but also with voting rules and regs generally, as pretty fucking ridiculous that no two states have the same set up. it seems to me this is an area were legislation should be applied nationwide. AMassiveGay (talk) 02:45, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Ask someone what human nature was in the 10th century and they probably would've given you a very different answer. Human nature is determined by society, not the other way around. If you have a society that incentivizes selfishness, people are more likely to be selfish, if you have a society that incentivizes selflessness, people are more likely to be selfless. Oxyaena Harass 05:15, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Man, if only people in the olden days had thought to write extensively about themselves and the people around them, then we'd have some way to explore these questions of human nature. Damn shame there's no such way to find out whether older / ancient literary characters are recognisably human to a modern audience, or whether they'd come across as complete fucking aliens because of their radically different societies. Damn shame indeed. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 06:18, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
I`m not denying there are certain commonalities exhibited by human societies across time and space, but that these aren't anything innate. For instance, the concept of a personal name. There exists at least one society, a tribe of indigenous peoples in Ecuador, who lack personal names. At most using only nicknames to identify each other. Would you say that personal names are part of "human nature," even with this counterexample to prove that they are not innate? To say that "x is impossible because of human nature" is a bullshit thought terminator. Also, @BoN and @CoryUsar, read this. Oxyaena Harass 10:17, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
I am not familiar with Rett syndrome, just the little I could read about it. Would someone with Rett syndrome express interest in voting and insist someone help them go to a voting station and vote? ShabiDOO 13:45, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
My problem with cognitive tests is that they could be used to enforce further racial discrimination. What would stop a jurisdiction from using a cognitive test to say an African-American or Mexican-American could not vote? --Possible Goat (talk) 14:04, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Highly unlikely, but it would only take an unscrupulous caretaker to claim otherwise (since few people are familiar with the condition) and double vote. Not the end of the world, to be sure, but a rather easy problem to avoid. I think we're actually closer on this than we think, since it's an extreme case and I'd want to put a hard limit on keeping it to only the extreme cases; if I knew how to design it I'd say so. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:15, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Don't tell me to read 500 page long ramblings from Anarchist pseudo-intellectuals. There's a reason why Anarchism is a fringe idea in Academia. CoryUsar (talk) 18:09, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Funny, because David Graeber was an accredited anthropologist, hardly a "pseudo-intellectual." I'd like for you to stop spewing your pseudo-intellectual liberal garbage, but that's too much to ask apparently. Oxyaena Harass 18:26, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
He was expelled from Yale, and no other American university was willing to take him on. Not even Berkeley. So he's either too much of a loon for even Berkeley, or such a complete trainwreck of a person that no one else can get along with him. CoryUsar (talk) 19:03, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Anthropologists tend to be more radical than you, a clueless liberal suffering from Dunning-Kruger syndrome, are aware of. He also taught at the London School of Economics. Graeber's expulsion from Yale was also not without controversy, and many of his fellow anthropologists supported him in getting reinstated. Stay mad, lib. Oxyaena Harass 19:33, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Would someone so impaired that they can't think coherently even be interested in voting at all? I really wouldn't see any need to block anyone from voting on any basis like that. Pumpkin pixel glow.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoTry our pumpkin spice lasagna! 20:05, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

How do you make a draft enter main space?[edit]

Basically, I want to work on the draft and write it up and just was wondering how to convert a draft to a mainspace article. Thank you. --WMS (talk) 18:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

You just use the "move" option. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:52, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Oh, didn't notice that option before, thank you for the help!--WMS (talk) 19:00, 25 October 2020 (UTC)


Oxyaena Harass 02:58, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Lame. 2001:8003:59DB:4100:CD0A:4151:8444:534 (talk) 03:57, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Anyone heard about "The Great Reset"?[edit]

Would this merit an article on RW? This is a topic that needs to be addressed as it also ties in the new world order BS we hear again and again. Please. — Unsigned, by: Peowpeowmeowmeow / talk / contribs

On Human Nature[edit]

The analytical discourse deployed for the above description is a mere physiological one. Even that has a huge problem, as it leaves out the flexibility, plasticity and constant transformations of human physiology produced by cultural insiders/agents. Heterotrophy is debated in cultures where cannibalism used to be or still is (ritually) a norm. The analogy between physiology, which is nothing more than that, with sociocultural factors that reflect back to the physical structures the results of agency, is completely flawed. Also, "spoken language" is not a universal condition, given that there are humans who cannot speak. Also, positive/negative stimuli are not something given, but something always in the making of of active cultural agents. The description is so generic that fails to recognize all the grey zones that make up the subjective human experience what it is, therefore it says so little about anything that could be described as "human nature". I personally do not buy any singular, grand scheme. I can compromise with "human natures" though, on the basis of Margaret Lock's concept of "local biologies."

This was written in response to this trite by a certain BoN here:

Human nature is the set of traits typical of humans in general. To begin with the cladistic definition, humans are mobile multicellular eukaryotic heterotrophs with a notochord and dorsal nerve cord, a backbone and jaws, endothermy and mammary glands, prehensile hands with opposable thumbs and flattened nails, shoulders with a wide degree of motion and no tail, bipedal locomotion, and a gracile skeleton with a rounded braincase and projecting chin. I went into that detail on the physical nature of humans to make it obvious that humans are a very particular sort of thing. The same applies to human psychology. Humans are very far from blank slates (a blank slate would be like something like a computer with no operating system, BIOS, or other firmware, and would just sit there inert), and come loaded with all sorts of instincts and drives. As with anatomy, there is individual variation, but there are general traits, particularly as expressed in group social interactions. Humans are hardwired to make and use spoken language, to pursue various positive stimuli, and avoid various negative stimuli. The details of these are the subject of fields such as psychology, sociology, political science, and economics.

I rest my case. Oxyaena Harass 10:44, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
And philosophically, one should always be cautious of investing too much certainty into the term "typical" because "types" of all kinds are inherently a result of our own subjective analysis, and lack any metaphysical realness. I guess there's some extreme edge cases that could be argued like types of fundamental particles, and types of elements and so on. But if you follow core the logic hard enough "What's human nature?" gets answered by "Characteristics of a human" and "What's a human" gets answered with "thing with human characteristics", naturally begging the question. I blame Aristotle. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:05, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@Oxyaena As best as I can tell, you're choosing to take a stand on the following two propositions:

  1. Human nature is determined by society, not the other way around.
  2. There are certain commonalities exhibited by human societies across time and space, but ... these aren't (caused by) anything innate (in humans themselves).

Is this a fair characterisation, or do you wish to clarify further?

As ikanreed points out, human nature is not well defined. Do you have a working definition you're happy to stick with, for the purposes of argument? If so, let's have it.

Finally, I'm pretty sure this is just a round-the-houses exercise to get to something like:

  1. "Human nature" is a mere product of societal structures and influences, and not an innate aspect of humans themselves.
  2. Therefore, "human nature" can not be regarded as an impediment to the establishment of my ideal (insert utopian adjectives here) society.

Apologies if your reasoning is less motivated, and you're actually tilting at this particular windmill in good faith. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 19:51, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

That "human nature" is not well defined should surprise no one. Many words describing human behaviors are generic and lack specificity. Asking for specifics about a category that is not expected to be exact, i.e., scientific, is no better than an intellectual exercise. I'm not complaining, we all need to exercise. What should be part or a subspecies of human nature? Love perhaps? Not all people seem capable of it, certainly. But can we say love is an occasional behavior sometimes expressed by humans? Every so-called race, or as I prefer it, people from everywhere in the world are able to express love for others, regardless of culture or social traditions. We are not taught to be fond of family members, animal companions, friends who have been helpful comrades through our lives. We grieve when they are lost to us. No one teaches us to sorrow in the anguish of personal loss. I regret the hardships of others, unknown to me, but I don't feel them as if they were my own. Part of human nature? Perhaps. It's difficult to say.Ariel31459 (talk) 20:18, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't disagree. I'm just loath for the goalposts to suddenly become a basketball hoop mid-discussion. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 20:26, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I have begun work on my micronation: Kingdom of Ratildonia![edit]

This is the constitution of my micronation:

We the people form a (non-literal) nation with the values of liberty, rationalism and skepticism. Our nation supports equality of all people. Race, gender, religion or lack there of, sexuality (including sexual orientation and identity), income, disability and every other identity are not reason for discrimination. We are all born equal.

We do not accept or reject the concept of divinity. However we must put our faith in science. Religion will not dominate government as we are officially secular and support diversity. The government will not establish a religion or prohibit the free exercise of religion.

Education is important to a functioning society. Anti-Intellectualism degrades society and allows hate to grow. Education is for anybody, not just limited to the elite. Education should be given free of charge. Denying education goes against the kingdom.

Our economy will be a mix of capitalism and socialism. People have the right to own private property. However we need social safety nets and guaranteed income. Everyone will have say in government through voting. This is the ideal economic system.

On this day of October 26, 2020 the Kingdom of Ratildonia is established.

The purpose of my micronation is to promote rationalism, skepticism and equality. My country shall be a constitutional monarchy. (EDIT: Fixed a typo) --Possible Goat (talk) 17:50, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I notice that you don't happen to have any mention of a military or other means of defending yourself... hmm... where are you located and if, hypothetically, you were to be kidnapped as a slave, how likely are you to rebel? CoryUsar (talk) 18:01, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
I do plan on making a military. The two standard arms with be an airsoft BB pistol and a hunting knife. Obviously as an unrecognized nation and the main purpose is social activism, --Possible Goat (talk) 18:52, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
"We do not except or reject the concept of divinity". Should be "accept". Pumpkin pixel glow.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoTry our pumpkin spice lasagna! 19:57, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
I feel like the entire reason I'd found my own state would be to claim the title of God-Emperor. Artificius (talk) 20:36, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
@DuceMoosolini I will fix my typo. --Possible Goat (talk) 21:12, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Look, if you are going to call yourself "god-emperor", you might as well go a bit further than that. "Theophagus, Devourer of Gods". That's about as blasphemous and haughty as it can get. CoryUsar (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Not really looking for blasphemous or haughty, although it is that. Assuming I had any interest in governing and enough ethanol-soaked will to get anywhere near the upper echelons and go full autocrat, then any variation on Emperor, God-Emperor or even Emprah I crowned myself with (or likely had the Legislature do the honors) would *very* likely be a sci-fi reference. Although that's mostly out of the question, getting a load of boyz together and crumping the Liberlads seasteading in the English channel (or is it the North Sea?) might be an option. Artificius (talk) 09:26, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Water on the Moon[edit]

Surprised nobody has mentioned this yet today. Aaronmichael5 21:25, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

The real reason NASA hasn't returned to the moon: vicious alien maulings. HairlessCat (talk) 00:02, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
No, the real reason is the LEM, as the design stands, is not seaworthy. Kencolt (talk) 03:22, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Wait, is it really any surprise there's ice on the moon? I mean, there's a crapton of ice near Jupiter and Saturn, to say nothing of the moons themselves which have more ice individually than all of Earth. Granted, radiation, blah blah, but there's craters on the lunar poles which are permanently in shadow, to say nothing of subsurface ice CoryUsar (talk) 04:08, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Come on folks. The real reason NASA hasn't gone to the moon is because it has spent the last 25 years devising a way to attack and control the invisible pink unicorn. She lives in a near impenetrable bunker and her magic powers can be greatly exploited by the American hegemony. It's just a case of cracking through her fantastical moon-beam shield and resisting her Vulcan mind control techniques. Once captured then American empire can put the invisible pink unicorn inside a fusion plant and get unlimited and constant nearly infinite stream of energy which it can use to fight the evils of climate change conspiracies and the infection of atheism and wokeness. It's all really obvious if you know who to talk to and are educated about the IPU and the history of American exploitation of supernatural resources. ShabiDOO 05:16, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Get real guys. You think we went to the Moon? Come on! If Neal Armstrong went to the Moon why did he only go once? Answer that sheeple!Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:18, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
He made it the first time, but after they checked the records they found Neal had his named misspelled on the sheet and wouldn't let him in on the second trip. CoryUsar (talk) 18:08, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
The Illuminati has been trying to tell us all this for 50 years now. They've been putting it right before our eyes. The only reason we don't really know is because they've killed everyone before they had the chance the get the word out, but they've been trying for 50 years now to warn us. WAKE UP SHEEPLE!! Aaronmichael5 20:49, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Patriot Churches[edit]

More about American Conservative Christians

A perennial topic round these parts, as l recall. RagingHippie (talk) 05:39, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

The next evolution of conservative evangelicalism perhaps? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:29, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Bad news from a bad guy[edit]

President Putin now says that Hunter Biden did nothing illegal in Ukraine and Russia.

Ariel31459 (talk) 00:39, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Amy Barrett sworn in as new Supreme Court Justice[edit]

I have not gotten tired of winning. Four More Years!. 2001:8003:59DB:4100:51AF:261E:5699:841D (talk) 02:55, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

The first rule of being an attorney is that, when you're winning, be quiet. Try it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:00, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
If the 2020 scriptwriters are listening, taking out Clarence Thomas with a vicious dose of the 'rona would be all kinds of poetic justice. Thunderball (talk) 03:04, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Actually, I'm passing this one on to the 2021 team. Thomas and Alito in quick succession after Biden's inauguration, and then the camera pans to linger lovingly on McConnell and his breaking heart. Thunderball (talk) 03:14, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, but guys, Biden and Trump are exactly the same. That's why I'm not voting this year because Bernie didn't get the nomination-Hastur! (talk) 06:04, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Do you honestly believe that? After all the shit Trump has done to disparage trans people, you think Biden would do the same thing? You think Biden would keep the ICE camps at the border? At the very least Biden would pick more left leaning supreme court justices than Trump would. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 09:39, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
I believe Hastur was being sarcastic.-Flandres (talk) 12:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I think we can dislike Amy Coney Barrett but I can't stand those arguing that her nomination is not legit because it's only one week from the elections.-TheOldMan (talk) 09:48, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

They think that because the republicans lied and said that's why they blocked Obama's nomination in 2016, and that charges of hypocrisy mean a damn thing in 2020, that they're making some kind of point. The only thing to understand is that the legitimacy of the supreme court as a non-partisan, while at the same time lacking any democratic legitimacy, body is long gone. Anyone who's interested in reinforcing that point further should check out 5 to 4: A Podcast About How Much the Supreme Court Suck ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:35, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Eh, I liked Sandra Day O'Connor, and she was nominated by Saint Ronnie. But when it comes to SCOTUS, while "Originalism" is mostly a fig leaf for neo-Conservativism the way that "State's Rights" or "Ethics in Video Game Journalism" are also BS, we truly do need a strict interpretation of the Constitution. If there's a problem, amend it; we have a process in place specifically for that purpose. Simply put, if the words in the Constitution mean whatever you want them to mean instead of what they literally say, why even have a Constitution? Otherwise, we could declare that since the 7th Amendment says "In Suits at common law...", the law only applies if you are wearing a suit. CoryUsar (talk) 16:34, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
This is the ultimate test if the Democratic party is ready to play to win. I respect that Biden can't out and out say he's going to pack the court, but Democrats cannot afford to play nice. If the court does what the GOP put them there for, to stop progressive agendas, then the Democrats need to eliminate that. SCOTUS should not overrule laws created by a constitutional body (legislature), nor should it actively seek to worsen democracy or democratic values. Also it is totally within the power of the GOP to nominate and push through this nomination quickly, their cries of civility should be ignored with the Dem majority uses it's power ruthlessly.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:00, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I was against the idea until Barrett. Now I think we need to push it up to 13 seats. Use the justification that it's a long overdue reform to bring the Court into alignment with the number of federal appeals courts. But fuck the GOP and fuck their unworthy puppet justices. They've reduced the Court to a clown show. Expanding the Court is now the only way to save it. Pumpkin pixel glow.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoTry our pumpkin spice lasagna! 19:05, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
It would be seen as nothing more than packing the court, and will cost the Dems HUGE in 2022. And it opens up the door to, well, if 13, why not 21 justices in 2024? Why not 35 justices in 2028? Why not every single American on SCOTUS in 2032? CoryUsar (talk) 19:54, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
They aren't going to pack the courts, full stop. The Dems care more about the appearence of doing the right thing than actually doing it. Also, I agree with @CorruptUser, we have an amendment process, yet we're too timid about using it. We're fucking terrified of actually changing the constitution, and honestly, it annoys me. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:05, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Getting enough(37 or 38, I believe) state legislatures onboard might be difficult-I can at least see why people reject it in favor of other possibilities.-Flandres (talk) 20:12, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
You can always get each individual state to amend its own constitution first. That's how women got the right to vote; first legalize it state by state, until enough states had legalized it, and then the legislators in those states could expect to lose by a woman-slide if they dared oppose women voting. CoryUsar (talk) 21:00, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Rather than expanding the court, establishing a mandatory retirement age of 70 would open up three seats at a stroke (Thomas, Alito & Breyer), as well as Sotomayor's towards the end of Biden's first term. I reckon a plausible long-term justification could be made in terms of the value of SCOTUS receiving predictable injections of fresh blood, and it would likely play as less obviously norm-busting than 'packing' additional justices on to the bench.

It wouldn't look great given the ages of Biden, Pelosi and Schumer, etc., but it might just provide a better fig leaf for the required raw power hardballin'. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 01:36, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Problem is, that too requires a constitutional amendment. Justices of the Supreme Court "shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour." This has always been interpreted to mean life tenure unless impeached. This is why 'court packing' is the path of least resistance. Congress could if it wished establish a court with 1000 justices, but it holds little power to make existing ones retire. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 03:32, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
In the US, any system you design for yourself will be used by your opponents. So don't give yourself any powers you wouldn't want your opponents to have too, whether that's the fillibuster, Gerrymandering, packing the court, treaty signing (and revoking!) via executive orders, or anything else. CoryUsar (talk) 14:58, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Really dude, I can not stress enough just how awful packing the courts will become if it is ever allowed to exist at all. It is one of the hallmarks of Fascism, and you don't get to say "well, it's ok to do this type of thing when we do it, but not ok when someone else does it".
Hmmm... I don't want to Godwin's, but since you are advocating Fascism, it's warranted. Imagine if the US elected a Nazi and Nazi cronies into a majority in the US. Not a super-majority, but a simple one. Ah, the days when such things actually required an imagination... Now design the system you wish would exist under that scenario. For example, what rules should the Nazis be forced to follow in order to change the court system? What rules should they be forced to follow when deciding who is allowed to vote? When re-writing the constitution? When determining the budget and curriculum for the school systems? When funding and determining eligibility for SSDI (Social Security Disability Insurance)? Really, any procedural rule at all. Whatever rule that is, from "you need 3/4 of the vote to repeal the 13th amendment, gee sorry, nothing we can do, better luck next year" to "yes, yes, wives should always vote the way their husbands tell them, but the rules are that the ballot booth is private, sorry, nothing I can do bro". All those rules? Those are the rules that should apply all the time, no matter who is in charge. CoryUsar (talk) 15:38, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
@CorruptUser "Really dude, I can not stress enough just how awful packing the courts will become if it is ever allowed to exist at all. It is one of the hallmarks of Fascism," No it isn't. Seriously, no it isn't. That is factually incorrect. You are literally invoking Godwin's law here. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:05, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Alright, name one major dictatorship that took over in an at least semi-legitimate election that did not pack the courts. Hitler? Natch. Chavez? Yep.CoryUsar (talk) 17:12, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
@CorruptUser One, you're strawmannng me again. Two, dictatorships and fascism are not the same thing, you fucking moron. Thirdly, Chavez wasn't fucking fascist, he was a fucking shitty ass authoritarian Social Democrat that LARPed as a socialist, not a fascist. I'm not familiar with Natch. Fourthly, you still haven't explained how court packing is " of the hallmarks of Fascism...". ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:26, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
"Natch" is short for "naturally." I think the effect of court packing depends on the ambitions of the individual court packer. Let's say Joe Biden is the one packing courts, as is being widely brought up right now. That does not make him a fascist, because, well, I don't like him myself but I highly doubt he is plotting to become a Tyrant or something.-Flandres (talk) 17:36, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
{ec} Currently the Judiciary does not reflect the citizenry, FFS it has 6 Catholics. As @DuceMoosolini rightly noted, expanding the size of the Court to 13 seems to make the most sense, it aligns with precedent. But also, one need only look as far as 1860 to see a legislature bending the rules of government to its will to end minority rule. This Politico piece breaks it down thouroughly[12], and there are a host of things that are necessary to improve democracy in the United States beyond just the courts. A constitutional convention to me personally makes more sense, fucking rewrite the whole damn thing, while focusing on improving the Bill of Rights, 14th, 15th, 24th and 26th Amendments.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 17:37, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
@Flandres The premise itself is just utterly ignorant and moronic. No political expert I've heard of has suggested that packing courts leads to fascism. None. I don't know where Cory is getting this nonsense from. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:49, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
I really don't see how being Catholic would be worse in a judge than being Baptist. Evangelical Protestants would be more concerning, and Scientologists would be downright alarming. As for the Amendments and so forth, what we really need are judges that will stop abusing the Commerce Clause. If I'm a resident from Vermont borrowing money from a bank in Vermont to buy a house in Vermont using my Vermont-registered car as collateral, the bank loan should not be registered in South Dakota. But that's off topic.
Back to court packing. It's a tool, yes, but it's a tool that should not exist. There are people who believe there's valid reasons to Gerrymander, but it's so blatantly misused that we would be better off without it entirely than having it and simply promising it won't be misused. Remember, every tool you have will be in the hands of your opponents. Going back to Lincoln as an example is a terrible idea; one of the criticisms of Lincoln was that he did act in an authoritarian manner and simply had political opponents "disappear", but aside from the fact that we were in a literal civil war and existential crisis, we were extremely lucky it didn't blow up in our face. SCOTUS has been at 9 justices for more than a century and a half, and simply not liking the justices in power is not a good reason to change that. CoryUsar (talk) 18:29, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
With regard to court packing here is a solution I am considering: the problem is that one president can significantly change the tendencies of the court in as little as one presidential election cycle. The argument that judges should not be added for political reasons is a good one. And yet it is done all the time. The way to correct the problem is to increase the number of justices to prevent adoption of extreme positions, e.g., corporations are people. A commission could be set up to create a list of minimally ideological jurists. Then the court could be expanded to a larger group, say 25 justices. Consequently, an executive would not be able to exert undue ideological influence on the court, even in two terms of office. — Unsigned, by: Ariel31459 / talk / contribs
@Ariel31459 has it right, no one death should literally throw the court ideology wildly. The entire federal bench should rotate being on SCOTUS, with a 15 year term.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 21:35, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Wasn't someone talking about horror movies a few topics earlier?[edit]

Mutant self-reproducing Crayfish Invade Belgian Cemetery. Wow.[13] Kencolt (talk) 09:52, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I always forget these are a thing. It's bad, but the Red Queen will probably rear her ugly head before long. Artificius (talk) 09:44, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

So I think I'm getting over solipsism[edit]

After a long and hard time with it I am getting over solipsism. It still stings every now and then but after spending some time on the subreddit and seeing how bonkers it is I'm slowly moving past being able to defend it as something that actually matters. It might say something about our alleged certainty of knowledge but apart from simple doubt there's not much else. Well that and I saw this link on the reddit:

After which I quickly saw how nonsensical it was.Machina (talk) 19:30, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Now, that's a great step. But, while deciding that something you used to believe is wrong is hard, the really important lesson you should take from it is how you realized it was wrong. Having a serious meta-cognitive framework that allows you to question yourself is so important to being a good skeptic. You can probably be a good person without one though. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:02, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Machina, I have been where you have been. I agree with ikanreed, it is tough to leave behind a worldview. It is better to leave dogmatic views behind. --Possible Goat (talk) 22:21, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

It's tough, because it challenged "How do I know" and I didn't have an answer for it. It doesn't feel good to have your assumptions challenged like that. But the more I read on it the more it was just the same thing repeated over and over and most of the arguments solipsists had in favor of their view was just casting doubt on realism, and in the end it amounted to "I don't know" but them grounding their belief in "you can't disprove it". They're right, I can't. But Occam's Razor or being unable to disprove something doesn't make it right. I can't say I left this completely unscathed. I am convinced that other people exist and that there is an external reality, but at the same time I know it's not based on anything 100% solid.

I suppose sensation is being as opposed to not being. Without sensation, there is nothing, which is inconceivable to the conscious mind. Stop moving completely for a moment, stop thinking, do not attempt to rationalize anything and just be still. Your state of being at that time will be the only thing in existence from your perspective, to assume that anything else is existing will require faith. I guess I can't give you a concrete answer because you are still presupposing that you are experiencing a "thing." Why does this have to be so? When you tear down the labels and rationalizations behind everything you'll find there is no longer any point of reference, and no coherency. You are left with nothing but the sensation of your own isolated perception, with no clear source or meaning in sight.

Arguments like the above made it hard to let go. Though looking at it again I question his logic. It says the only thing existing is my state of being at that point, but I would argue everything around me does too (it's not faith, I mean if it didn't exist then why is it there?). It was from a thread I posted earlier, but now that I look at it again I notice him changing his stance a few times once holes are found in his reasoning and logic, to the point that he presupposes one is experiencing a thing. At the point it became to absurd to genuinely believe it was the end of Occam's Razor (which favors realism). I'll admit part of me wants a definitive counter to his statement, but I can try and settle for ignoring it since every other point he made in the thread was shot down.Machina (talk) 23:16, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

That is excellent reasoning. When you make a position your default and everything else has to overcome a standard it doesn't, it cheapens the belief. (I've got some cheap beliefs myself) ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 23:53, 27 October 2020 (UTC) This is the thread for the record. But yes, the more I saw him "Arguing" (since he wasn't really making points just doubting, which to me isn't really an argument though sometimes it is depending on the content) the more absurd his rendition of solipsism because to the point that you couldn't really claim Occam's Razor anymore. I kind of drew the line at "presupposing you're experiencing a thing", because it just leaves me as having an experience. I mean.....duh but so what? Wouldn't the mind and self fall under that experience as well? I mean it seems to me like his point can be turned back on himself as you presuppose there is an experiencer or that you exist. I mean at what point to we draw the line on presuppositions?Machina (talk) 00:18, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

So, why do you like this trip report forum so much? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 00:51, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh I don't care about the trip report part of it, I don't think the claims that those substances lead to any realization have merit as it's just a drug. I'm more concerned about this specific sub forum and the arguments made in it which have nothing to do with psychedelics.Machina (talk) 17:52, 28 October 2020 (UTC) EDIT: I backslide today though. It doesn't sting like it did before, but it's still tough trying to get over that I can't prove or determine if other people exist.

Solipsism is recognizing that you can't prove, or even determine, whether anything outside of your thoughts exists. So solipsism is a fact. But I guess you are asking whether it's possible that the world as you perceive it doesn't exist.

The answer is that it's not only possible, a logical case can be made that it's likely.

For example, the Simulation Argument goes like this:

It's pretty clear that computers will eventually be so powerful that even a normal household pc can simulate a whole person's life so well that someone inside the simulation can't tell it's not real. If that happens, and becomes common, there will quickly end up being more simulates people than real people, so the odds will be that any given person is a simulation. And there's no reason to think that hasn't already happened, and you're inside such a simulation.

On the other hand, I have some good news:

You're definitely not the only real person, because I know I (or at least my thoughts and perceptions) exist.

So now you can let me know if you are real, and we'll be set.

Well except that's exactly what a fake person would say. So we're screwed.

Or at least I am.

I mean I know there is no reason to NOT believe that the people around me are real and therefor exist, it just sucks I can't prove it.Machina (talk) 06:07, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Let's start simple, define "Real" in a way that they're not real. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:18, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I'll be honest, I don't even know where to begin with defining real. I mean to know what is real I would have to know what is fake. But when it comes to reality how do you define "fake"? My brain hurts just thinking about it.Machina (talk) 23:21, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not posing this to Machina but to everyone. If you one day suddenly realised you were embedded on a holodeck simulation that you couldn't get out of and realised nobody else was real...would that change anything for you? Would you still care about the people you've lived your whole life with or see them as empty objects? Considering you are still bound by the laws and consequences of that world and still had the emotional need for caring relationships with people you imagine it wouldn't take you long to forget about it and continue on as though nothing had changed? ShabiDOO 01:26, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
No, I think it'd turn into The Truman Show in space. You'd be compelled to try and escape and find out who was fucking with you and why. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 01:44, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Okay so, 20 years success in escaping. Still going insane and fighting it? ShabiDOO 03:06, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
So that question is literally the point of The Myth of Sisyphus. The success isn't the point of seeking a higher ideal, the struggle to do so itself is. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 13:05, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Building a ConLang[edit]

The purpose is a unique language for my micronation. I will call it "Ratildonian". I think that I will design the vocabulary around English and French but with an invented alphabet. --Possible Goat (talk) 22:30, 27 October 2020 (UTC) Just use Esperanto. It's a very useful and very widely spoken language that everybody loves-Hastur! (talk) 23:01, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

This country sounds like a terrible place to visit. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 00:18, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
I am a conlanger with some 45 years experience starting with a high-school acquaintance with Tolkien. Good luck with your project, and if you have any questions feel free to ask away. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 00:21, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Inasmuch as the purported populace of said micronation isn't always known for, nor unilaterally accepting of overly serious and/or complex items (Except for those in which they have a vested interest), might I suggest something more easily and immediately achievable?
Pig Latin comes to mind. Or perhaps a more elaborate version can be developed here, which we can call Goat Latin. Kencolt (talk) 03:45, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Just use English and claim Ratildonian is a minority and formerly the official language until the natives succumbed to outside cultural pressure and adopted the Lingua Franca. It wouldn't even be a lie, and it will give your Ratildonian (re)construction project some libcred. Artificius (talk) 09:35, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
I might just use an established alphabet instead. Now making a fully functional form of Pig Latin might be interesting. --Possible Goat (talk) 21:50, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Goat Latin! Kencolt (talk) 22:13, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
I warn you against rewriting the calendar. Didn’t really work out for France or Turkmenistan. Pumpkin pixel glow.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoTry our pumpkin spice lasagna! 22:41, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Or you can use the metric time system like we use in Europe. Every year has 100 days (or 100 centiyears). A day is 10 hours (or 10 miliyears). 1000 minutes to the hour (1000 micro years). A millennia is a kiloyear. I think earth is a few gigayears old. It all makes total sense and since the Earth is perfectly round and it's orbit around the sun is a perfect circle it all works out. Makes tracking time so much more logical than the primitive 24 hour American clock. Sheesh guys...adapt to the 21st century. ShabiDOO 22:52, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

The language building begins[edit]

Got a start on the Ratildonian language: Fun:Ratildonian language dictionary. Feel add on and or make suggestions. --Ratildonian King (talk) 01:57, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Mental Illness[edit]

These are a wide range of conditions that affect mood, thinking, and behavior. I may be mental. I can barely pay attention without looking at a screen, and I fluctuate from being happy to being upset. This may be a problem.Jeh2ow Damn son! 13:40, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I understand. I was diagnosed with ADD at a fairly young age, and took Ritalin for a very short time in elementary school, until my mother, who was bothered by giving psychiatric medication to children, took me off it. I struggled with incredibly basic organizational skills my whole life, skating by on being kinda clever. Recently it wasn't enough, and I finally tried, as an adult, taking presciption ADD medicines, and my ability to focus on an annoying or dull task is just higher. I can't say it's miraculous level different, I'm still a slacker at heart, but I don't find myself skipping out on an important task after seconds. It's more like minutes now. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:55, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
You may need to see a psychiatrist. In my opinion your problem could be Bipolar Disorder. Bipolar has those symptoms. Keep in mind that I am not a doctor. Take my opinion with a grain of salt and see a doctor. --Possible Goat (talk) 21:46, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Anyone here taking part in No Nut November?[edit]

Separates the ewes from the rams. (talk) 20:06, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I mean, when you really boil away the woo-woo of groups like NoFap or the Proud Boys, this isn't really anything that interesting. So saying it participating does anything other than reult in you not jacking off for a month is kind of stupid. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:20, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
It will make you hornier. HairlessCat (talk) 20:30, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
I snack on peanuts all the time, so I'll have to sit this one out, fellas. Pumpkin pixel glow.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoTry our pumpkin spice lasagna! 20:39, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
I have regular sex so, miss me with that weird fascist shit.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 21:41, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Tired: No Nut November
Wired: Destroy Dick December.
Sirius (dog star) 21:45, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Maybe I will do SRS or sumfin'.--HedvigsenSkreonk here 08:32, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
This whole concept seems wrong to me. If you need a wank or rub, it's basically a biological function. Devoting a whole month to abstinence might make you more focused, but I defy you to show me someone accomplished who's fine with their accomplishments. It's always more shit, more property, more fights with anti-trust lawyers. Artificius (talk) 01:48, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
"I'm totally wired!" No-nut is not all it's cracked up to be. Bongolian (talk) 04:16, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Can we just call a truce on months devoted to abstinence from this or that? These things worry me. After all, nobody ever went broke selling abstinence-based pseudovirtues to Americans. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 04:30, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
At least in the communities where I hang out, NNN usually translates more to "oh god why are you posting this stuff that makes me reconsider doing NNN" or "welp, I broke NNN". I think it's by a lot more people seen as more of a joke than a serious thing to uphold to (like how "speak like a pirate day" is mostly funny for entertainers to do bits about, even though it technically represents a warped image of what we think of as golden age piracy). In so far as things like NNN (as well as Nofap) work, it probably just works on the notion that if you're not flobbing the knob 7 times a day on all your free hours, you well... guess what, get more free hours (as well as probably just a healthier life in general cuz you're actually taking care of your other needs instead of polishing the bishop all the time). So ultimately, doing the devils handshake once a day probably isn't harmful for you (and is indicated to be healthy), it's when you spend your waking hours shaking the devils hand all the time that you have a problem. It's rather dissapointing then that the fairly real problem that is in this case addiction to masturbating then gets warped into manospherian bullshit about how pornography seeks to corrupt your brain or gets co-opted into some stupid purity message from idiots like the Proud Boys, but such is the nature of the internet I suppose. Sirius (dog star) 11:13, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm a wanker,
I'm a wanker,
And it does me good like it bloody well should,
I'm a wanker,
I'm a wanker,
And I'm always pulling my pud. Spud (talk) 12:59, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
General Ripper said it all...

Ariel31459 (talk) 14:45, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Ah yes, I love that movie so much. What makes comedy comedy is something that is both absurd and true, which the movie does spectacularly. Nearly everyone is basically insane and focused on absolutely the wrong things, the only sane person in each situation is played by the same actor and he's completely helpless to stop anything because everyone around him is an idiot. Everything is sexual in spite of no nudity being present, heck the movie opens with two planes basically having sex. Ripper's actions are clearly the result of his own impotence. While the world is ending, the leaders are discussing how to design their own personal orgy pits. The names of the people might as well be from the porn parody, e.g., "Buck Turgidson", "Merkin Muffly", "Lionel Mandrake".
It basically rips apart the entire premise of Mutually Assured Destruction; MAD can only work as a deterrent when every player is both rational and infallible. That is, it can't work indefinitely because of Humans. It's not just the whole "what if a formerly sane man becomes insane due to a lack of viagra", it's the whole "what if due to human stupidity, a single bomb is dropped; why should that be enough to end the world?". Really, we need to have some system in place so that some accident or miscommunication does not lead to nuclear annihilation, because accidents will and have happened. The US accidentally dropped a nuclear bomb on North Carolina (it didn't have the core, so it was just a really big conventional bomb, but still), and then there's Vasily Arkhipov. Long story short, Cuban Missile Crisis, in a sub, radio silence. The US drops dummy depth charges to try to convince the sub to surface, the sub thinks that nuclear war has already begun. The sub has a vote whether or not to launch a nuclear torpedo, needs to be unanimous. Captain and Political Officer vote to nuke, Vasily votes not to, instead to surface (and as far as they are aware, be killed). If that vote were to happen again, would the outcome be the same? If that vote happened not just again, but repeatedly? Would that lead to instant launch of all other nukes? What if only most generals and admirals refused to launch nukes in retaliation, but just one or two did, would that be the end of it or would there be counter-retaliation and counter-counter-retaliation until everyone had decided to launch their nukes regardless of their initial "no" vote? CoryUsar (talk) 15:45, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Eh, decided to add that spiel to our MAD article. CoryUsar (talk) 16:21, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
that kind of thing has happened more times than is comfortable. computer glitches warning of all out nuclear attacks, but each time soeone just didnt believe it was happening. the last time itt happened it was in 1995 and yeltsin was being uged by his generals launch their nukes immediately. he dint believe clinton would nuke russia. he was right, a norwegian weather rocket had set of russian early warning systems. they were told about before hand but they forgot. or the message didnt reach the right people and yelstin had the nuclear football in is hands with his generals saying launch now. i reckon you could have nuked russia for real at one point and get away with it, thinking it just another false alarm preventing retaliation. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:26, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm aware of the event in 1985, but not under Yeltsin, always fun to learn. Good thing he was a fun drunk. I wonder why Putin hasn't accidentally ended the world though, he's basically the lovechild of Stalin and a social media influencer. CoryUsar (talk) 17:42, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
russia and the us arent exactly existential enemies any more. putin isnt scanning the horizon for a nuclear armageddon. it would probably be over kill for hacking some servers AMassiveGay (talk) 18:07, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Throwback: Josh Feurstein vs Starbucks + page?[edit]

So I know this was 5 years ago now, but I started watching this guy's videos just a few days ago. Unsurprisingly, they're all pretty bad, but this one (, oh my God. Of all the dumbest, moronic, and most idiotic moments of this guy's history on the internet, this one right here has GOT to take the cake. Oh my GOD this is literally one of the stupidest videos I have ever seen.

Weird question, but you guys think this guy warrants a page? I didn't really think so at first but taking a look at this guy he's actually a lot more popular than I thought. He's been on CNN and The Late Show with Stephen Colbert. Their might be enough material for a page on him but I'm not really sure. Aaronmichael5 23:47, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Uh happened again...[edit]

A knife-wielding attacker shouting "Allahu Akbar" beheaded a woman and killed two other people in a terrorist attack at a church in the French city of Nice on Thursday. — Unsigned, by: 2001:8003:59DB:4100:2C73:3316:C9B2:24A / talk

Let me guess, you're trying to imply that all Muslims are murderous savages. I'd like it if you actually did more than shitpost for once. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:17, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Now imagine he had a gun. And he was white. Oh wait...-RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:07, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
I have to say, the headline "Offensive Charlie Hebdo cartoon pushes Turkey-France tensions into overdrive." from NBC is quite an impressive exercise in mental gymnastics. Based on that, you'd almost think people have the right to behead people because someone offended their delicate feelz or something. I don't remember anyone framing white supremacist nutcases in such generous terms of late. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:10, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Trump is just adept as Erdogan at absurdly overreacting to minor slights from overseas. That's how international relations works with populist egotistical hatemongers. (See also China, Israel, and Russia. And all these leaders have killed people in response.) --Annanoon (talk) 15:24, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
You're a bit late. This has been in the WIGO for most of the day now. Pumpkin pixel glow.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoTry our pumpkin spice lasagna! 19:17, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Sure. France / Macron is rightfully pissing off a few hot-headed Islam folks by (IMHO) rightfully doubling down on the French secularism tradition. So you're going to get a few religious idiots doing stupid things like this. (Based on your Supreme Court "win" post, however, I would suspect that French style secularism is the last thing you want.) (talk) 19:32, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

2020: The year the US Gulf Coast cannot catch a break[edit]

Several hurricanes hit the Gulf Coast in a short period of time and with climate change, it will likely get worse. --Ratildonian King (talk) 19:41, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Covid-19 Deaths[edit]

This WaPo post detailing the administration deciding that herd immunity is the strategy for dealing with this virus brought up an intersting statistical correlation:

...For every 1,000 new cases each day, then, we can expect 18 deaths two weeks later. For every 74,000 new cases in the country — the rate at which new infections are adding up at this point — we can expect 1,300 new deaths in two weeks’ time.

That this metric has been so steady, falling in a range of 1.5 percent to 2 percent on 90 percent of days since then, suggests that not much has changed in our ability to combat the virus over the past four months. Yes, the number of deaths as a function of recorded cases is down from the spring. But it’s still steady, a grim shackle from which the country can’t shake free.

Seems like an issue to have this many people die a day, but the GOP is death cult so.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 21:22, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

1) Cases are not infections, only infections that are recorded. The death rate is .02 per case, but about .0067 per infection. Something like 35 million people in the US had covid, but the vast majority were asymptomatic or had such minor symptoms as to not be a worry. Of course, when talking millions of infections, every million cases is around 6700 deaths
2) COVID is interesting, in that the rich simply can't buy their way to health. While normally, the rich can get better medical care, skip the waiting list for organ transplants, get surgeries that ordinary people could never afford or insurance companies would never approve, get private nurses, etc etc, this is not one of those situations. If you are rich, your chance of survival isn't really different than if you were poor. At least relative to health; the rich tend to be healthier to begin with, seeing as they don't have to breathe coal dust or work double shifts just to afford greasy fast food. So you would think that the GOP would be a little more concerned about COVID.
3) I think I said it a while back, but I'll repeat it. If we had infinite money, or at the very least a budget surplus and minimal public debt, the answer would've been simple; close the economy, take on as much debt as necessary, then pay down the debt after the virus passes. But the rich have been avoiding taxes for decades, and as a result the US is broke. It would have been difficult pay down the debt even if COVID hadn't hit. So we don't have the option of "close the economy". Yes, people are going to die from COVID as a result, but a crapton more would die from poverty and crime if we go bankrupt. Everyone is going to suffer from this mess, but for the first time, the rich are going to suffer too, even if they don't suffer as much. And we need to drill it into the tax cheats' heads that this is their fault we can't shut down and had to let hundreds of thousands die, that actions do have consequences and it's not just poor people who will suffer if rich people keep avoiding taxes. CoryUsar (talk) 21:50, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
"as a result the US is broke." We literally pumped between $4 and $8 Trillion dollars into the economy. We sent it to the wrong people. Still doesn't justify thousands of unnecessary death.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:27, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
How many people will die if we cut funding for schools? CoryUsar (talk) 15:22, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Who is talking cutting funding? Literally no one. -RipCityLiberal (talk) 16:45, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

It's really telling that these dipshits talk outside of term limits, almost as if they don't believe in democracy or something...[edit]

I am going to miss President Trump after the end of his fifth term. (talk) 00:40, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Lol, you read the Daily Caller, what a rube. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:09, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
As a bellwether for the rabid right, Fox News is preparing to profit from Trump's loss in November.[14] Bongolian (talk) 01:47, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't care how much I like someone as president, I will never wish that they just stayed president forever. Term limits are an absolute in this country (Or any country for that matter). The logic isn't hard, you have a guy in you like, sure, it sounds wonderful for him to be in as long as the Queen of England has been. But then what happens when someone you don't like gets in, or worse, someone who ends up being a complete tyrant. Then you're screwed. All that said, I really hate it when I see people say "I wish [Insert politician here] would stay in office forever!" Yikes, careful what you wish for, you might regret it if it came true. Aaronmichael5 01:51, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Term limits aren't a given in most Western countries. Some countries with an elected president have them others don't. Just about no countries with prime ministers impose term limits. No Westminster system has it (UK and Canada for example) and they have had Prime Ministers certainly for more than two terms (several more in some cases). Nobody in those countries care about term limits and think term limits are stupid. If you have a bad prime minister you vote them out. If you have a rare good Prime Minister why would you bar them from running? Only countries which deeply distrust and have little faith in their own country's political system would do it. Allowing term limits does not equal staying in power forever. It means staying in power as long as you keep getting reelected (or manage to overthrow the democratic process). Lots of democratic countries have been running without term limits for a long time without the downfall of democracy or tyranny. I think term limits only make sense in unstable countries and only until they become stable. ShabiDOO 03:16, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Western democratic countries without term limits that have had leaders for more than two terms (sometimes far more than two terms) and are very healthy democracies: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Spain, UK. There are several more countries with only ceremonial presidents with term limits who have little to no power and where the Prime minister (or chancellor) are the country's leaders with no term limits such as Germany. ShabiDOO 03:23, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
I mean, I actually like term limits, but I'm not going to knock the lack of them. My original point was that well... Trump isn't that popular so... you know, tyranny... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:44, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Politicians are like diapers; you need to change them often, for the same reasons. CoryUsar (talk) 13:01, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Glenn Greenwald is a Trump defender[edit]

I must say, I thought he was a leftist. Lately he says: "the left is in bed with a CIA set on destroying Trump." And why does he care? Sounds like a fun thing to do, for a leftist and other rational people.Ariel31459 (talk) 03:24, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Don't look at me. Last I heard most of the leftists I know kept their distance from Greenwald and were very firm in their insistence that he wasn't one of ours. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:51, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Wasn't he merely an anti-American/pro-Russian stooge masqueradeing as a leftwing "civil liberties" activist? We seem to have lots of those, and it's pretty blatantly obvious. CoryUsar (talk) 05:38, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Glenn Greenwald is a conspiratorial ass that is certainly heading towards the Russian disinformation hellhole that Wikileaks ended up falling into. That being said, Ariel, be careful with your links. You linked to the Daily Mail, tsk tsk. A portion of the transcript is here courtesy of RCP. It's seems to me that it's less an endorsement of Trump and more Greenwald diving completely in the conspiracy hole. If you believe Greenwald, the "liberal left" is now "in a full union with the neocons, the Bush-Cheney operatives, the CIA, Silicon Valley and Wall Street." That's the biggest piece of horseshit I've seen -- there is a bit of a "oppose Donald Trump" union in this crowd at the moment, but it is a temporary alignment to combat Republican fascism, from all that I see... Westpoint and Goldman Sachs are still very far away from MoveOn. Add in all of of the "authoritarian" and "censorship" projection, coming from the party of Fox News and Donald Trump, and I'm pretty sure it's only a matter of time where he stands next to Julian Assange kissing Vladimir Putin's ass to obtain the next Z-grade who-cares "October Surprise" story, even if the story has more holes then a fabricated Jacob Wohl "sex scandal". (talk) 13:37, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Anyone remember when Greenwald's associate Mona Holland (allegedly) was on this site, promoting all of Greenwald's bullshit? CoryUsar (talk) 15:20, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Alright. I was just wondering what people here think of him. Thanks.Ariel31459 (talk) 16:08, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

The well-intentioned defense that perpetuates the injustice[edit]

I was thinking that there is a general pattern in which a person with good intentions tries to defend the victim of an injustice, but their defense actually perpetuates (at least partially) the injustice. Some examples:

  • The good guy who fights a violent bully by saying: "Why don't you pick on someone your own size?" Although he is exposing the cowardice of the bully, he is also perpetuating the idea of a society built on violence, just with the rule that violence should happen between people of the "same sizes."
  • The one who makes fun of homophobes by insinuating or even revealing that there are homosexuals. It's using their fears as a weapon, but also perpetuating the idea that being homosexual is despicable.
  • Somebody who fights body shaming by noticing aesthetic defects of the bullies. Albeit the intention might be pointing out that nobody is perfect, it is still perpetuating the idea of attacking people by their physical appearance (what if the bullies are actually beautiful?)

I think you got the idea.-TheOldMan (talk) 11:49, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I disagree.
First off, I don't believe in complete non-violence; the pacifist is the worst kind of parasite, claiming moral superiority over the violent upon whom they depend. Bullies? The first thing you learn in elementary school is that if you punch a bully once, you'll get your ass kicked, but will never have to deal with the bully again. Bullies are looking for easy prey, and they don't want to beat someone up if it means they get a bloody nose out of the deal. Also, be wary of sticking up for the kid who isn't fighting back; if they won't defend themselves, what makes you think they would ever go out of their way to defend you?
Second, pointing out that homophobes are often gay isn't about reinforcing "gay = bad". Rather, it's about showing there's no credibility among anti-gay people, and that even if they do believe being gay is wrong, the reason for their crusade against gay people is due to moral arithmetic; if I do wrong thing X, but convince two other people to stop doing wrong thing X, somehow I'm a good person. That's why we let firefighters occasionally commit arson </sarcasm>. It's also the whole "when you point one finger at someone, three are pointing at you" thing, basically making their attacks on others also attacks on themselves.
Back to bullies. It's another glass houses scenario, and people who body shame are often projecting their own insecurities on others; many people are beautiful because they have so many insecurities that they are constantly working out or going to the spa or whatever. Being body shamed themselves will piss them off, but hopefully through emotional pain, they learn to either not harass others, or that being ugly in itself is not the only thing that defines someone. To misquote Bobby Hill "I'm fat. So what? I'm also funny, have friends, a girlfriend. So I have a few extra pounds. Eh. I'm going to go outside and squirt my girlfriend with this supersoaker. What are you going to do?" CoryUsar (talk) 14:26, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
"First off, I don't believe in complete non-violence"
Neither do I. I'm afraid my first example was misunderstood. I'm not against defending themselves or others from bullies, even by violence if necessary. My example was the attitude summarized by the sentence: "Why don't you pick on someone your own size?" That's the wrong framing. The problem is bullying no matter who is physically bigger. Let's say the bully and the victim are of similar size, or even the bully is smaller then the victim. Is it OK then? Of course not.
"if you punch a bully once, you'll get your ass kicked, but will never have to deal with the bully again."
That's false. Actually, it is a common theme that a bully will seek revenge. Anyway, that was not my point.
"Second, pointing out that homophobes are often gay isn't about reinforcing "gay = bad". Rather, it's about showing there's no credibility among anti-gay people"
Note that my example included insinuating that homophobes are gay. How calling gay an homophobe, who is heterosexual, is not homophobic by itself? Also, you claim that homophobes are often gay is unsubstantiated an probably false.
"people who body shame are often projecting their own insecurities on others"
Maybe. But what if that is not the case? Surely there are Brad-Pitt-looking men and Charlize-Theron-looking women who body shame other people but cannot be body shamed. That seems like giving them a free pass.
"To misquote Bobby Hill "I'm fat. So what? I'm also funny, have friends, a girlfriend..."
That's a much better attitude: Claming of having other good qualities, instead of body shaming the bully. This strategy doesn't suffer from the problem I'm pointing at in this thread.-TheOldMan (talk) 15:02, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
You don't think Brad Pitt and Charlize Theron are incredibly insecure in their looks? They're aging fast, and every new wrinkle is basically life and death for their careers. As for homophobes, it's not about insisting being gay is wrong, but rather "we don't have respect for your opinion, and your continued harassment is actually costing you social status". That's basically what every insult is; attempting to convince someone they have less social status and are less 'valuable' to society in some form. Emotional pain exists for a very good reason; your life depends less on not being eaten by tigers and more on not pissing off the rest of the tribe so much that they throw you to the tigers. CoryUsar (talk) 15:16, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
"You don't think Brad Pitt and Charlize Theron are incredibly insecure in their looks?"
You are taking things too literally. I meant that (obviously) that are people looking much better than others, and the strategy of fighting body shaming with other body shaming is very much uneffective against them.
"As for homophobes, it's not about insisting being gay is wrong, but rather "we don't have respect for your opinion, and your continued harassment is actually costing you social status".
Haven't you just implied that being gay lower your social status?
An (hypothetical but likely) example: Bob is gay. Mike is homophobic and bullies Bob. Frank tries to help Bob by insinuating that Mike is gay.
Mike: "Bob is a f*ggot!"
Frank: "You say so only because you are gay too!"
Bob (thinking): <Frank might try to help me, but it sounds like he is against gays too...>
How is Frank being of any help? -TheOldMan (talk) 16:04, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't think you're getting it. Doesn't need to be Pitt and Theron. Any beautiful person. If they are body shaming, chances are, they are insecure themselves.
And no, we didn't imply that being gay lowers status. Rather that the person insulting someone for being gay is lowering their own social status. CoryUsar (talk) 16:09, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Come the apocalypse[edit]

So what is going to happen when the US election results are counted? Anna Livia (talk) 13:43, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

2 possibilities. First, Biden landslide, no question. Trump whines a lot but is out. Second, "blue shift". Early voters are mostly Biden, but the only people to show up at the polls are Trumpers. At first, Trump has lead, then mail in ballots are counted. Slowly, Trump loses state after state. He and his supporters call shenanigans, massive fight ensues. May go to SCOTUS... which just so happened to be stacked with Trump stooges. Massive riots in country no matter what. Everyone gets corona, and by January, this lockdown has become pointless. CoryUsar (talk) 14:06, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
This is 2020, so don't discount a Trump win to end this year with a boatload of shit. ElectrosPardon? 14:09, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, 2020 has been the kind of year that gets accidentally left in the backseat of the car on a hot summer day. CoryUsar (talk) 14:40, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Or the 'container of jelly sweets left in the shop window' on the same day (saw this once).
Given DT's statement about potential electoral fraud 'the possibilities have to be considered.'
Are there 'obscure party candidates' in the Presidential elections? If so possibility number 3 - people decide upon 'electoral presenteeism' Lord Buckethead/Count Binface and equivalents get in (forming a joint presidency), which might be 'interesting.' Anna Livia (talk) 15:00, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Counting our chickens[edit]

So apparently Trump has cancelled his DC election night celebration. They speculated on a couple possible legal reasons in the article, but danced around the personal one I think is far more likely: he doesn’t want an audience for his humiliation, and he privately imagines that’s likely. Artificius (talk) 14:28, 30 October 2020 (UTC)