RationalWiki:Saloon bar

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

edit

Conservapedia: Atheists and physical attractiveness

So there are atheist members on this site who are not overweight right? སྤྱན་རས་གཟིགས་ (talk) 03:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Atheists are inherently ugly because otherwise they would outbreed theists. 😜 Bongolian (talk) 04:06, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't looking for a counter to their arguements. I was just wondering if the statement that the majority of atheists being overweight had any truth to it. སྤྱན་རས་གཟིགས་ (talk) 07:02, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Obviously not, it's a smear job, and not a very effective one at that. — Ɖøn Ĵuan ^Harass 07:23, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't think 100 lbs on a 5 foot one inch frame is overweight now, right? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:38, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

The overwhelming majority of atheists are from China/Japan/S.Korea/Vietnam. An enormous majority of the them. And no, in general they don't have weight issues. Not remotely at the scale of the United States, most especially Southern States where obesity has become an unrecognized national emergency. Of all the atheists I've known in all the countries I've lived in, I've never noticed a notable difference in weight per religious vs. non-religious. Nor in intelligence nor social skills nor sense of humor nor languages spoken nor anything else except sometimes atheists have a better relationship with critical-thinking skills and empirical knowledge. ShabiDOO 01:08, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

It is good to see that we have dispelled these bastard notions my comrades. སྤྱན་རས་གཟིགས་ (talk) 06:19, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Heh, in the US at least, I think there's good evidence that it's actually the *reverse* and actually it's the religiously devout (particularly of certain religions like Baptists) that are more likely to be obese! https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3358928/ and https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28766892 for a start. The postulate of the first link is that many religions, particularly culturally conservative ones, overplay certain sins (such as alcohol or sexual promiscuity) but often barely touch on gluttony as a sin, if at all, Proverbs 23:20 etc. notwithstanding. Some church denominations are also fond of using food as their celebratory good -- often sugary or high-fat items that aren't very good for you. Note that the studies need work and acknowledge this themselves, but the above is way better evidence than the Conservapedia cherry-pick / wishful thinking on this subject. Soundwave106 (talk) 20:45, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Nope, it has no truth what-so-fucking-ever. I'm an atheist (a pretty outspoken and "militant" one at that), and I'm quite thin. --Goatspeed. _{Stalk me}CircularRasoning^{Steal my ideas} 03:05, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes there are, myself included. Additionally, there's been some demonstrated link between religion and obesity.Zipperback (talk) 19:05, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

How ironic, @Zipperback. I have no idea where the whole "atheism and obesity" thing came about. Must have been a figment of Ken

's ever-so-twisted mind. In fact, he seems to be so overly keen to make fun of the weight of PZ Myers and Hemant Mehta so many times, that I'm starting to think he's a closet-fat person who tries to project his physical appearance on atheists and lesbians. I wouldn't be surprised if that's true, given that we already know he's a closet homosexual, which explains his never-ending obsession with the sexual orientation. --Goatspeed. _{Stalk me}CircularRasoning^{Steal my ideas} 01:10, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

It may just be part of a greater trend of statistically unsupportable notions of superiority that seem common to conservative Christians, such as the notion that they have stable God-supported marriages (statistically their divorce rates are somewhat worse) and are sexually responsible (statistically conservative religious beliefs are linked to teen pregnancies. I think it's a "if it feels good, believe it's true" philosophy. Zipperback (talk) 18:05, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Ah yes, the "argument from Koolaid". --Goatspeed. _{Stalk me}CircularRasoning^{Steal my ideas} 22:41, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

"argument from Koolad" is a new staple. I started drinking beers again, . At 6 foot I went from ~160 to ~170 recently, and I'm over 30 so I keep putting the excess on the belly. I was an atheist the whole time though, so my body dysmorphic battle towards ideal thinness is a battle that never included God, it's always been a personal fight with physics and biology. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 06:00, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Trump government shut down

Whatever Trump says the shutdown will have a maximum timespan (until 'a large number of Republican politicians' start considering the elections and/or Trump's successor is elected).

What are the likely consequences of an extended shutdown if it were to happen? Anna Livia (talk) 19:43, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

On Tuesday evening TV in the US, Trump will try to scare the population into paying for his wall. Preview. Millennium Scallion (talk) 20:25, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

That actual duration would be disastrous with unfix-able consequences. Economy crashing hard, especially in the DC metro area, programs managing essential things like, I don't know, fucking water for crops, would go unmanaged, prisons will eventually go unguarded, leading to prisoners being unfed, unprotected, unmedicated. A good third-to-half of scientific research in the US would go unfunded. Many universities would have to fire staff. Thankfully the border patrol and ICE is on leave and months of no pay would force most of them to stop being evil bastards and get a real job. Not now, but within a year, no more passports. Soon: commercial flying might not be possible(or at least reserved to the small amount managable by redirected airforce and army ATCs. It's gonna be a real dumb next week or so, until the dems decide giving into a big loser baby is the lesser of two evils. Then it'll be real dumb forever, because overton window will be even dumber. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 20:42, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

And what about the states' "internal" government and their fiscal capabilities? Could they move towards 'devo-max' and variants on the West Lothian Question? Anna Livia (talk) 00:01, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

States are sovereign entities in their own right, they share power with the US government and are relatively autonomous in many aspects, so in theory they shouldn't be harmed that much. In practice, on the other hand, the states get as much as a third of their funding from the federal government, so they will be affected too, it's just a matter of degree, rather than kind, since the rest of the funding states get comes from their own ability to tax their citizens independently of the federal government. — Ɖøn Ĵuan ^Harass 00:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

My initial figure #is# the theoretical maximum: and I am 'speaking from unfamiliarity.'

As a longer term implication - would a longer term confrontational shutdown at government central result in states' governments developing more robust measures (so fiscal autonomy devolves). Anna Livia (talk) 13:05, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

States are already becoming more autonomous due to the rise of the Donald-in-Chief. One could ascertain that such a scenario could come about, but only time will tell what the consequences will be long term. — Ɖøn Ĵuan ^Harass 17:03, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

It's a real resiliency against problems built into the design of our constitution, if a state, like Kansas, completely fails, only part of the social structure government provides fails, in their case schools and roads. And if the federal government completely fails(minus military because we're jingoistic idiots who will fund any war any time), you only lose parks, international travel, document processing, and big high-level regulation. I almost wish it wasn't so resilient and we all had to eat the full consequences of dumb choices we make immediately. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 18:01, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm with ikanreed. I voted Clinton, but I really wanted to vote silly Jilly. I have beef that hits me at a very personal level, as HRC acted illegally as head of state in the interest of an oil company, and my state was the one to shut it down. She gave TransCanada the verbal go-ahead, which changed the entire process. I didn't want Clinton or Trump, and there's a vindictive part of my personality that flat out doesn't know whether I'd rather see people pay for their bad ideas/panic/indifference or stew in them. Either way, my vote didn't work out, and I don't get to say "I voted my conscience." Part of me worries that the minor American cities are the frog in the pot, not realizing they are going to be boiled because the heat is being turned up incrementally. But part of me can't blame them, because the economy-first policy asks them to do such hard work for less and less pay (or, rather, the same investment of capital in a market that is trying to suss out the absolute peak amount of capital it can pull without sinking). I kind of want it all to tank today so we can get on making it work tomorrow, otherwise you're just trying to change the hearts of men. But thankfully for the people in the middle, that's not how it works. I'd supervillain the situation in a second, though. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:31, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Pointless poll

The Garden of Earthly Delights, 1490, Hieronymus Bosch

We haven’t had a new one in months. I miss it :( 86.191.46.202 (talk) 13:39, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

What sort of curved shape do you prefer then? Anna Livia (talk) 16:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I prefer ass. — Ɖøn Ĵuan ^Harass 02:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

As if all ass is contained by the same curve, come on. Big booty Judy and little boop John? You really prefer them both? Flat-ass Cindy and love-seat Larry? Fill-them-jeans like Steve McQueen and hidin'-the-truth Ruth? Actually, I've just riffed myself out of this one, I prefer ass as a reference to a curved shape now... You're a monster. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:39, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Only you are responsible for the mental associations you make, not me. — Ɖøn Ĵuan ^Harass 10:12, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, I say. — Dysk (contribs) 11:08, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ We can make a new pointless poll asking people if they prefer ass or chest. Just a thought. — Ɖøn Ĵuan ^Harass 11:48, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

We could make a pointless poll on whether swords are more pointy than spears. But seriously, I don't know how to make the poll, I can't find the instructions. — Dysk (contribs) 13:09, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Are pricks more pointy than swords? — Ɖøn Ĵuan ^Harass 14:06, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Wait, you were actually in favor of poll? "Ass" is no longer a viable poll option because of Don Juan? This changes everything, my corkboard does not appreciate this. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:08, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Also, Bosch is taken out of context here. But I would like to say, the nuance is in the position, not the model, so this picture, while featuring asses, and, thankfully, flowers in asses, does not address anything regarding my argument that there are varying curvatures of ass. I like Bosch. I wish his work was taken as literally as Dante Alighieri Gol Sarnitt (talk) 07:11, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Do non-white countries have diversity/immigration and do non-humans mix with each other?

I was wondering if theres any counter-examples to the claim that immigration of other races (I know its not a greatly scientific concept, but I mean those who are views by society as different races) are only coming to white countries? For example, can you guys give me some examples of non-white countries (non-European descent majority) that are having a lot of immigration from "non-whites" since the 20th century?

And also, are there any good arguments countering the claim that all other subspecies want to stay with their own kind, but humans are the only ones to significantly mix people who evolved from such diverse backgrounds into a collective?

Do any other species do this especially other primates?

Also is there a good argument that addresses the claim white people deserve a homeland like all people do?

I am theamazingskeptic, but this is not a troll this is a legitimate post. I know some mods may act up and want to remove this like my other post, but I am posting this here because you guys are fellow skeptics and will probably have some pretty good answers to racialism. Please excuse my past bait you absolute fuzzcucks and just treat this legitimately and give me good counters thanks. 66.65.75.21 (talk) 00:01, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

To the second point: I think you've confused the terms subspecies and demes. I'm not a biologist, but homo sapiens doesn't have any subspecies. A population would have to be geographically isolated for a very long time and then present morphological differences from the rest of the species. A deme, however, does not need to show morphological differences, but it can exist as an semi- or fully-isolated population. Demes account for all diversity we see in homo sapiens. To make a subspecies distinction you'd have to provide evidence of homo sapiens with different bone structure or organ structure or something like that.

With that out of the way, to the actual question we go. Beyond the fact that humans mixing with humans isn't covered by your question (humans mixed demes, not subspecies), there even exists cross-species breeding. The mule is a great example. When a donkey and a horse love each other very much, though they are different species and the Donkulets and the Equitagues are at war and their love is illicit, they can make a mule by breeding. The Liger and the Tigon are also good examples. So yeah, mules. Their existence is a good argument against the claim that subspecies want to stay with their own kind. Koifishdevelopment (swim) 00:57, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

This argument relies on the already-shaky concept of races, but yes, non-white countries tend to have diverse populations and contain many people with different nationalities and ethnic groups. China alone has more than 50 recognized ethnic groups. They key fact is just large populations and countries in general tend to be more diverse than smaller ones. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 01:05, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Possibly relevant lists: net migration rate, immigrant population, ethnic and cultural diversity level. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 01:28, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

@Koidevelopment I need to make this point clear here: "races" =/= sub-species. There are currently no sub-species for Homo Sapiens. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 01:41, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie Yeah, that's what I said. Why do we need to make it clear? Did you not read the first paragraph I wrote? 锦鲤 (说) 03:20, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

@Koidevelopment Because I'm tired and mistook you for the original poster... I blame crazy people from YouTube, and my lack of success trying to find the ultimate singularity of Woo. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 03:25, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie Ah, no worries. Certainly not Anonymous user, whoever that is.^{[{{#rand:1|4}}][{{#rand:4|10}}]} 04:02, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie Actually, there is a subspecies of Homo sapiens. It's Homo sapiens sapiens! That would be us. Our race is a subspecies! Just being technical. Or that's what I thought I read in Wikipedia, but it seems like I have misread something somewhere. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 05:02, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

@LeftyGreenMario Err, no. To make a subspecies distinction you'd need at least two subspecies. For instance, homo sapiens sapiens and homo sapiens fill-in-the-blank. And besides, this was largely a 19th century practice that stemmed with Linnaeus that had declined by the 20th century. There are currently no recognised subspecies of homo sapiens. Koi "dammit Koi stop making such long sigs!" development 18:53, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

@Koidevelopment Well what about the now-extinct H. s. idaltu? — Ɖøn Ĵuan ^Harass 15:53, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @Don Juan I had no idea H. s. idaltu existed! Thanks for the cool deep dive! Yes, H. s. idaltu would make H. s. sapiens a subspecies. Koifishdevelopment (swim) 19:18, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

On the subject of immigration: I know South Africa has seen xenophobic violence over refugees from Zimbabwe. Same thing in Colombia over refugees from Venezuela. And in the Dominican Republic over immigrants from Haiti, to the point where they've coined a term for it: "antihaitianismo". And in Myanmar/Burma, the government claims (on dubious grounds) that the Rohingya people are actually furr'ners from Bangladesh. And for all we hear about refugees from Syria heading to Europe, the majority of them wound up staying in Turkey. Bottom line, it's not just white countries that immigrants and refugees go to (let alone being sent to by shadowy NGOs in the name of "white genocide", as in the fevered imaginations of the far-right); they go to wherever's closest. And they face xenophobia everywhere they go. It's just that the immigrants and refugees who go to the West are the only ones we hear about, because most of us live in the West and consume Western media. KevinR1990 (talk) 02:12, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Not a Rationalwiki member, but here are some answers:

A) This point have been covered by the other commenters, but here's another example: the Football war between Honduras and Salvador in 1969 has been cause by Salvadorian immigration in Honduras.

B) Human do not have subspecies, as has been covered. And animals mix *a lot* with other subspecies, as long as they have the opportunity. Wolves with dogs, wild cats with cats...

C) There's no "white people". There's no "black people" either. There are cultures. Sometimes (but not always) those cultures can superimpose on some physical characteristics that are in fact, not exclusively present in said group, by maybe more often. There's no homeland for "white people", however there's a homeland for french people.

Racializing stuff is silly, and lead to absurdities, like the Balkans mess (hey, let's ethincally cleanse a people from our homeland, even if it's their homeland too!), or in the US: if the US should be a "white" homeland, where's the homeland for amerindians? Are they legitimate to try to take back "their" lands, by force if necessary, if the US are an "indian" homeland? And where do the blacks go? No african country would want them, because they have a totally different culture. They only good answer is to stop considering people as race first, but as citizens first.109.205.5.33 (talk) 12:45, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Different species of corvid hang out with each other. Ditto many other kinds of birds - gulls, tits, et al. Multiple species of fish are found in many ecosystems (Not all preying on each other). There are biological reasons why multiple species or subspecies don't do exactly the same thing in the same place - the most fit will outcompete the other - but that pressure doesn't apply to humans. --Annanoon (talk) 10:06, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

With regard to the second question, there is extensive anecdotal video evidence that many species are capable of ostensibly amicable interaction with other species. Here for example.Ariel31459 (talk) 02:28, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Aww! 141.134.75.236 (talk) 04:39, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Fucking yes, you racist weirdo. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

A thought experiment

Much is made of the fact that all human beings belong to the same species. It is our moral philosophy however that determines how we treat one another, exemplified by such claims as, “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all [people] are created equal, that they are endowed by [their nature] with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness….” Suppose another species of hominidae did in fact exist. Suppose further that in most aspects its members evinced the common characteristics of people: that they possess similar personality, intelligence and culture one might associate with a civilized people belonging to our own species. Would we not decide to accept them into our society as equals? How could we do otherwise?Ariel31459 (talk) 15:21, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

The moment you start to look at functional capability as a metric of the worth of life, you have already proven to have flawed ethics. It begins a rabbit hole that ends up killing anyone over the age of 50, who has disabilities, is on welfare, or has a chronic illness. If lifeforms are only valuable to someone because they are 'useful', that person should be banned from any position of power. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 12:29, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Migrants only come to white countries! And races don't mix!

• Over 80% of the population of the very white country of the United Arab Emirates are migrants. Many of these migrants come from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and the Philippines. See Demographics of the United Arab Emirates.
• Over 80% of the population of the very white country of Qatar are migrants. Many of these migrants come from India, Nepal, Bangladesh, the Philippines and Egypt. See Demographics of Qatar.
• Around 70% of the population of the very white country of Kuwait are migrants. Many of these migrants come from South Asia and from other Arab countries. See Demographics of Kuwait.
• More than 50% of the population of the very white country of Bahrain are migrants, mostly from South Asia. See Demographics of Bahrain.
• Over 40% of the population of the very white country of Singapore are migrants. Many of these migrants come from Malaysia, China, India, and Bangladesh. See Demographics of Singapore and the country's 2010 census.
• About a quarter to a third of the population of the very white country of Jordan are migrants. Many of these migrants are refugees who come from Palestine, Iraq, and Syria. See Demographics of Jordan.
• About a quarter to half the population of the very white country of Brunei are migrants. See this and this UN report.
• According to the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, as of 2015, about a quarter of the population of the very white country of the Maldives and about a third of the very white country of Saudi Arabia are migrants. See this chart.
• About a quarter to a third of the population of the very white country of Antigua and Barbuda are born overseas, notably in Guyana, Dominica, and Jamaica. See Demographics of Antigua and Barbuda.
• About a quarter of the population of Israel... Wait, are Jews white? Are they? Yes or no? Which is more convenient now? Should we say that they're white so that we can condemn their "colonial project" (while whitewashing 19th and 20th century European colonialism)? Or should we conspire to agree that they're not, because, well, we're totally not racist, but we just, uh... hate them?

Welp! Clearly, diversity is a globalist codeword for anti-white!

But, do races mix? Nope! It is an empirical fact that the following races do not exist, just to name a few:

• The fictional Mestizo people
• The fictional Mulatto people
• The fictional Zambo people
• The fictional Mixed-race Brazilians, including Afro-Brazilian and Asian Brazilian people
• The fictional Afro-Arab people who mainly inhabit the Swahili coast
• The fictional Malagasy people, who are descendants of the Bantu people from Africa and the Austronesian people from Southeast Asia
• The fictional Eurasian people
• The fictional Chindian people
• The fictional Peranakan people, who have Chinese and Southeast Asian ancestry
• The fictional Filipino mestizo people
• The fictional Coloured people of South Africa. (Can you hear Die Stem van Suid-Afrika playing in the background?)
• The majority of people in the Dominican Republic, Panama, and Mexico (See Race and ethnicity in Latin America). Good thing most Mexicans don't exist, if not, teh woll has to be ten feet higher!

Clearly, these fictional ethnicities, many of which have non-existent populations in the millions, have been entirely fabricated by postmodernist liberal SJW cucks, so that they can use their invented politically-correct jargon to baffle others during their virtue signaling! REEE!

The OP mentioned that "all other subspecies want to stay with their own kind, but humans are the only ones to significantly mix people who evolved from such diverse backgrounds into a collective." Precisely. We should always follow the example of other animals. Humans simply don't - and thus, shouldn't - mix. The only reason that race-mixing occurs is entirely due to the deliberate race-mixing conspiracy concocted by modern degenerate communoliberal globalist miscegenation-lovin' regimes. It never happens naturally. Never mind that the racial groups in the list above have proud histories that span centuries, which are likely much longer than any of the regimes of the modern countries they currently live in. These ethnicities are all made up, remember? 77.111.246.76 (talk) 05:03, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Does anyone think this is a blocking level action? Also BoN is a very good Poe. Commie Lib (talk) 09:36, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Go ahead and block him/her/he/she/they/them/it if you wanna prove what an intolerant fascist you are. nobs ^{piss in my ear} 09:49, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment, Tabula Rasa. Although I do think that RobSmith is a much better Poe. 77.111.246.76 (talk) 10:10, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

@RobSmith yeah no one I was talk about you, not the BoN. Two I was asking if anyone else thought that saying alt-right talking points was a blockable action because such action has been taken before. Three you are calling me intolerant, after what you just said? Commie Lib (talk) 00:13, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

This is bullshit and the assertion that migrants only move to "white countries" is false on it's face. Every country in the world has an estimated resident foreign population of at least .1% as of 2015 UN report I would collapse this troll's comments.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:28, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ariel31459. Sigh, that's precisely my point. And this is why your country's education system needs to improve, especially when providing info about other countries. Even italicizing very white multiple times in the first list (of countries with a relatively large foreign population) wasn't enough for you to detect any sarcasm. The United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia are obviously not very white, but Arab countries. Among their citizens, the Southeast Asian countries of Singapore and Brunei have a 70% Han Chinese majority and a 60% Malay majority respectively. The largest ethnic group of the Maldives are the Dhivehi people, who are related to other South Asians. Around 85% of the population of Antigua and Barbuda have African or Black ancestry. And you would have known all these if you clicked on the sources listed. And which "troll" actually bothers to find and cite (somewhat good) sources?

Then there was the claim that mixed-race people don't exist. I actually bothered to cite a dozen or so (counter)examples of mixed-race groups, whose histories predate any current "globalist/communoliberal etc. regimes" that supposedly conspire to encourage miscegenation. Then I also deliberately committed the appeal to nature fallacy and the naturalistic fallacy - and even linked to them - when addressing the OP's claims. But all that wasn't enough to activate your irony meter.

Block me if you want. Collapse my comment if you fancy. I have mixed ancestry myself and hence "don't exist". Your actions will be futile. ;) 77.111.246.93 (talk) 00:37, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

How did you all miss the satire here? It was on point too. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 00:58, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, shoot. You got me there pardnerAriel31459 (talk) 02:02, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Here's where I'm confounded. The past had it right, and all them slave owners were just helping the less than people do human things. Not bad stuff, but! How come they all had beautiful little mulatto babies, AND I CAN'T HAVE NO BABIES WITH MY DONKEY!?! Cheeeeyackmate, sceince!!! Gol Sarnitt (talk) 06:12, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Or as the rest of the internet says, r/wooosh. 86.44.3.148 (talk) 16:48, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Cinemasins losing subs

So, I've been seeing more people complaining about Jeremy & co and I decided to check their account on socialblade and:

https://socialblade.com/youtube/user/cinemasins

Wtf happened on the 5th? Does anyone know? Because whatever it was, was enough for people to start unsubbing him since that date... Tinribmancer (talk) 02:26, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't have an answer for the question but I would guess it's because people are finally realising just how un-funny CinemaSins actually is. KoiDevelopment™ (thanks, Love!) 18:56, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I've been seeing people complaining about CinemaSins for quite a while now, particularly film journalists and movie geeks, and to be honest, I agree with a lot of the criticisms; I don't think I've watched their videos regularly since around mid-2017. Their main argument is that CinemaSins mistakes nitpicking for actual analysis, and hides behind the "satire" label in order to get away with it, like a non-political version of any number of edgelords ("we're not really obnoxious nerds who obsess over everything that so much as resembles a plot hole even if it's actually not when you look at the bigger picture, we're parodying those sorts of assholes!"). Their concern is that, for many people whose first exposure to movie analysis comes through CinemaSins, they will think that that's what being a critic is supposed to be, causing them to either embrace those attitudes or write off all film criticism and analysis in general. More broadly, I've also seen some describe CinemaSins as reflective of bigger problems with internet film criticism in general, feeling that it just marks the next evolution of the "angry critic" shows (The Nostalgia Critic, The Angry Video Game Nerd, Zero Punctuation, and their many ripoffs) that first started proliferating in the 2000s; CinemaSins took that style and made it palatable for the mainstream by cutting back on the F-bombs and the vulgar humor. Dunno what caused the recent drop in particular, though, as I haven't seen any drama connected to CinemaSins or its creators. KevinR1990 (talk) 01:17, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Good, CinemaSins low quality garbage that seems to exist solely to nitpick about every trivial detail. I've actually tried to use them for info a few times and found their reviews to be worse than the product they were trying to criticize. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 01:46, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

The nitpicking in of itself is fine. The real problem is that they take scenes out of context and then comment on them, and they make common careless errors like misspelling and miscounting. They are trend surfers, and their history has always been trying to capitalize on trends. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 05:31, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't get why some people get so angry about CinemaSins. If it makes you laugh, good for you. If it doesn't, then don't watch it. He's a jackass (his own words) making comments about movies, don't take it as a deep intellectual analysis. Thinker^(unlicensed) 18:14, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't like thought terminating cliché of criticism of a YouTube channel. People are entitled to criticize things that deserve criticism, and telling them "if you don't like it, don't watch it" adds nothing to the conversation, and I mean nothing because it's so needlessly dismissive. People can get mad at Cinema Sins because it floods recommend videos like other clickbait. And it actively misleads people in its nitpicking, which is really bad. There are scenes in movies they try tearing apart but they are taken out of context, and you can tell the cherry picking sometimes in the next scenes they show. Cinema Sins once "pointed out" that there is no gravity in space. It one time derided a guy who didn't move the wheelchair closer when he actually did move it closer seconds later. Cinema Sins derided apparently inconsistent car speeds on the speedometer while failing to take note of the kilometer/mile differences labeling. They derided Jungle Book for talking passage of time in "rains" when the setting, being India, refers to monsoon season. It derided someone getting killed by an arrow despite wearing a bulletproof jacket when bulletproof wear is designed to mitigate bullets, but not larger objects like arrows. It's wrong about a lot of other things like spelling mistakes and keeping track of its own counter, and it invites a habit of pointing out problems that aren't so (equivalent would be "waking up after sleep cliche). If you want to play the nitpicking jackass, you have to do the nitpicking correctly, not take scenes out of context or demonstrate poor understanding of basic concepts. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 23:16, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

One of the few things far left commentators on the internet convinced me of was to never watch anything they publish ever again. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 18:49, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I like Cinemeasins. It was an introduction to shitting on movies on youtube for me. I grew up watching MST3K, and when it didn't play on the Sci-Fi Channel anymore the VHS versions were occasionally rentable at Blockbuster. It's not always brilliant or intelligent, but it's a riff, that's their livelihood. Cinemasins should be fine. Kids in the Hall wasn't funny 100% of the time, Key and Peele have misses, SNL is awkward, like 3/4s of the time, trying to boil sketches and riffs down, well, bless them for trying. There are balls, strikes, and homeruns, do a better job of recognizing balls. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 06:33, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

In this case it's not about funny or not, it's about rote, formulaic comedy that pushes the most base and unuseful film criticism, often at the expense of serious critical thought. Especially jokes like "Why didn't they X" in a movie with underlying themes about how people don't do X when they should. No one expects factual perfection, but some things about cinemasins are just ham-handed hackery. I'm not saying you have to agree; you're allowed to enjoy what you enjoy, but the breakdowns of how they can completely miss the point of a movie then snipe about it really reverberated with me. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:37, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I find Cinema Sins to be hilarious. They made fun of many of my favorite movies. No one told anyone complaining to watch it. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 22:29, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Climate Change and suicide.

I’ve seen some people contemplate suicide because of climate change.

Thoughts?

Spacehillbilly (talk) 00:30, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Bad idea. Climate change is always bad, but it wouldn't make Earth unliveable and I think the worst of the worst effects are yet to happen or even be successfully predicted. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 07:18, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Not to mention that you'd be handing over the planet to the polluters & exploiters on a silver plate. Don't give them that satisfaction, folks! 141.134.75.236 (talk) 07:31, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

If everybody commits suicide there will be no climate change. At least, no anthropogenic climate change. --Annanoon (talk) 10:39, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Climate change is now inevitable. So, don't bother. Take a deep breath. Go for a walk. Stop believing everything is going to hell in a hand basket. It's bad for your blood pressure. You can still buy green bananas. Ariel31459 (talk) 16:40, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

"Thoughts?" It's idiotic. Thinker^(unlicensed) 17:50, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't call something people despair over "idiotic", that's not going to help them with their anxieties. — Ɖøn Ĵuan ^Harass 14:56, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

US public views on immigration

i'm staying pretty quiet on this wall business. as a britisher, i do not feel know enough about the pervading culture surrounding immigration to be able to have anything to add short of regurgitating stuff ive seen in the news. i feel like ive got a pretty good handle on reasons folk dislike immigration in the uk, but none on reasons in the us and i'm not convinced there are too many similarities - even our racism seems different in nature. all i can really see is people associate immigrants with crime. is this it or is there more too it? competition for jobs and services? feeling like a foreigner in their own country? is it all immigrants or just illegal ones? what about refugees? how important is the country of origin? what kind of people have a negative view and what kind have a more positive? i'm not so interest in talking points from media or politicians stirring things up, more about what you hear people say are their issues. A more nuanced picture than flat out racism basically. Can anyone help? if thats asking too much maybe someone can direct me to a website. thanks AMassiveGay (talk) 12:38, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

@AMassiveGay Here's how I understand it: In the case of the whole wall thing It's basically a bunch of white people hating on a group that is culturally similar, except, well... They aren't white. Meanwhile, the former group WILL NOT SHUT THE EVERLOVING FUCK UP about how great they think the U.S. is, blissfully unaware that such praise might just be the reason other people (such as the the aforementioned Mexicans and Latinos) keep trying to move here. Or, in short, Xenophobia + a complete lack of self awareness + reinforcement via media and pundits = morons who want a stupidass wall that will do absolutely nothing if it's built. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 13:22, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

thanks for the info. i think however, even as removed from things as i am, that i get that impression of the wall. i think what i am asking though is the rationale for the xenophobia - how does does an ardent supporter of the wall justify it to themselves or others? or those proud of tghe greatness of the us - what do they fear immigration will do to that or is just said like a mantra without any thought? i dont mean any that these will be real fears, just their fears, real or imagined.

in the uk, fear/hatred of immigration - at least in the current climate - stems from policies of austerity and beyond, services, housing, healthcare, schools being deliberately underfunded. though not the cause, immigration becomes more visible when you feel you might be in competition for those services, where it becomes easy to stoke fears and underlying racism of those unable to find housing in an area they lived their whole life while that family don the street with accents got a house. its difficult to say that its government policy to why there are no school places when some voices are shrieking about johnny foreigner jumping the queue. its easy to stoke fear in an old granny whos family moved to different area, and the small influx of immigrants to her village seems like an invading horde and the only people talking to her are screaming about pakistani rape gangs. i dont believe these are necessarily issues in the us. i dont know enough detail to say.

i ask because laying it all on racism - even if its a big factor - doesnt really cut it for me. calling people racist doesnt win people over to your side, it just entrenches them. its what we did during brexit and still doing now - we label folk who voted brexit as racist, and the only people who are saying they are not are actual racists. in fact we could do nothing else during brexit but declare them racists. the remain camp headed by architects of austerity could hardly counteract years of eurosceptism in the press and an upsurge in anti immigrant hysteria when it would involve reminding people of the causes of discontent is tory own policies, the remain camps own fault, while all in the brexit camp, similarly involved in austerity, just have to point at foreigners and tell lies about how great it will be without the eu.

so with the us and its wall - what issues are immigrants scapegoated with? what can you use to convince them of your cause that isnt accusations of racism or questioning their intelligence? that cant be all there is to it, can it? AMassiveGay (talk) 14:22, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Howdy folks! Check out these poll results. Nerd (talk) 16:33, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

@AMassiveGay made some good points here, @GrammarCommie. It is too simplistic to label people who oppose (illegal) immigration as racists and xenophobes. Remember the law of supply. Higher supply of labor means lower wages. This explains why people think that illegal immigrants take jobs most Americans don't want. See my suggestion above for how to reduce illegal immigration. Nerd (talk) 16:37, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

thanks for that. now just got to factor in a poor grasp of stats and i'm fully clued up :s im probably reading this wrong, but on the whole peoples views of immigration has slightly improved?

is there a difference between illegal and undocumented? would the stats change in anyway you swapped out one for the other? i can imagine people assume alot about immigration if they are not directly effected,and if its framed as 'illegal' then folk are likely to be against anything termed 'illegal' - its never a good thing. but when pressed on why its bad they fall back on crime and jobs. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:28, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

As far as I know, the terms 'illegal' and 'undocumented' are equivalent in the context of immigration, though the latter is less negative. It is important to note that how the question is phrased can affect the answer. That's just a fact one learns from statistics.

What I learned is that Americans generally support legal immigration and oppose illegal immigration. Most support a pathway to citizenship for illegal migrants already in the country and want non-US citizens to prove their legal status before getting hired. A majority thinks it is important or essential for migrants to be fluent in English. About equal numbers of people support prioritizing high-skilled immigrants vs. family reunion immigrants. An overwhelming majority agree that illegal immigration is a serious problem. Nerd (talk) 18:37, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

with reducing illegal immigration (im answering here rather than above - no clear point to interject) - as i understand it some industries cannot function without illegal/undocumented immigrants and that most illegals are as a result of expired visas. is the problem less 'illegal' immigration and more that there are problems with the visa process removing the legality of workers that are necessary to the economy? (i know nothing of the processes involved, just thinking out loud) if companies are fined for employing people that are necessary to a particular industry, who does these jobs if legit immigrants and citizens are not doing them? and whats the incentives for the status quo? if some system is in place for those whose visas have expired to stay in country legitimately, would they just find better paid work else where? seems like we've been discussing these kinds of workers for years but cheap fruit seems to trump decent pay and conditions for a solution to appear. at least with a wall, its ineffectiveness would be desirable while claiming you solved a problem that everyone wants to exist. if only it the message it sent wasnt so fucking awful.

you could just do what we brits do with unemployment figures - redefine the terms until the numbers look acceptable AMassiveGay (talk) 18:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

@AMassiveGay Careful! Playing around with numbers just to make them "look acceptable" doesn't sound to honest.

From what I understand, that is essentially why some business interests do not want a long-term solution to this national problem, even though, as I mentioned above, most Americans acknowledge that it is a serious problem and agreed on the most obvious solution. As for prices, yes, they will rise, but unemployment will fall and, in any case, the march of automation continues. Nerd (talk) 01:45, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

playing around with numbers - dishonest? yes. its standard practice of pretty much all governments everywhere though AMassiveGay (talk) 17:11, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Just because it is commonly done does not mean it should be done. Appeal to popularity is a logical fallacy. If we are to do that, why bother trusting the numbers? Undermining public trust in public institutions is a bad idea. Nerd (talk) 17:18, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

it wasnt actually a suggestion but merely a joke. it was obvious in my head, but probably not in reality - it was hardly a belly laugh.

with trusting the numbers - i dont not trust them, its just not being especially great with stats in the first place and i am very aware that polls can be misleading - the prime example. with the brexit example, i might have imagined this as i cant find a source, but a lot of people who voted leave just werent polled. polls online didnt reach them because leavers werent online (lots of elderly types) or not in places were they would encounter it it. they might have spotted the flaw if cameron and co had stepped out of their bubble for 5 second (can you tell im still bitter about brexit and the catastrophe it will be) i try to view them as a piece of the puzzle rather than gospel truth. that said i'll most likely take such things on face value if its not something i'm particularly interested in AMassiveGay (talk) 18:04, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

No death but just the passing of form

A line I often hear when it comes to spirituality. My attempt to make sense of it is that they think of everything as "one" or made of the same thing. I picture it like the universe is made of clay and that what looks like anything made of this "clay" as dying is really just the form that is passing away. On some level I guess it's true since energy can't be destroyed and the molecules and bonds of the body break down, dissipate and interact with others. But I can't shake the feeling like there is some gaping hole in ppithat, but I can't put my finger on it.

My thoughts are that it's just another way to make death seem less scary.Machina (talk) 23:50, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Seems like an accurate-ish description of death. Your being still dissipates though, so leaves plenty of room to be afraid of death in my opinion. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 00:28, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

That which is flesh is flesh. That which is spirit is spirit. Seems pretty straightforward and rational. nobs ^{piss in my ear} 01:42, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Either there is an afterlife, or else there is none. If there is, I assume that there is also a God and that he runs the place, and that my feeble attempts to worship him have not been entirely in vain. If there is none, there is only oblivion, of the sort where you soundly slept through world wars and great plagues. Merely ceasing to be is deliverance enough for me; the rest is a lagniappe. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 03:58, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

It is something like that. Let's leave discussion of the negative side of the leger out for now.

To have "eternal life," starts now, not at the moment of passing from the carcus ("that which is flesh is flesh. That which is spirit is spirit." Don't confuse the two - they live by different rules and standards. "The flesh wars against the spirit," and "to be carnally minded is death." To understand, you have to put off the carnal mind).nobs ^{piss in my ear} 05:16, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

So the next question becomes, "How do I put off the carnal mind?" Simple. You must be spiritually born. There's a simple logic to this process. nobs ^{piss in my ear} 08:00, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

@Smerdis of Tlön Any number of theoretical models could apply, given that places are not dependent on individuals, nor necessarily vice versa. That is to say, theoretically, there could be a deity or deities, but no afterlife, or an afterlife but no deities. Likewise, the "soul" could theoretically exist but still be unable to persist past death, or unable to leave the body post mortem, or even merely reincarnate rather than travel to an afterlife of any kind. The truth is we have nothing beyond theoretical speculation for anything involving the supernatural, and until someone comes forward with extraordinary evidence we should remain skeptical of such assertions. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 20:31, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Assuming there is a spirit, but that doesn’t get at the question. ^{— Unsigned, by: 104.186.77.29 / talk}

"My thoughts are that it's just another way to make death seem less scary." I agree and I add that it is a kinda delusional way. The fact that something is "just a passing of form" doesn't make it something not to care about. If you put your hand in a hydraulic press then the result would be "just a passing of form" of your hand... wanna try? Thinker^(unlicensed) 10:21, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Think of it this way. Death is like an SUV filled with masked persons screeching to a halt in front of you as you walk down the street, grabbing you and absconding with your person, careening down the highway and vanishing, never to be seen again. You could say it's more like a change of address. Or you could say it's like an infinite number of monkeys with an infinite number of typewriters. More on that later.Ariel31459 (talk) 20:13, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

maybe from a certain perspective but the OP seems to consider it from an Eastern Mystical perspective. The clay analogy would make sense if reality and it’s building blocks were like clay, but it ain’t that simple. ^{— Unsigned, by: 104.186.77.29 / talk}

Actually BoN-who-can't-format-or-sign-their-posts, It's ridiculously simple, either the claim is true, or the claim is false. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 21:45, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I've found some solace on this, even if it has a good dose of nightmare fuel if one thinks deeper on its implications. Panzerfaust (talk) 23:16, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

A lot of people don't subscribe to doctrine but still keep spirituality very alive. When these people are also greenies (like me) they like to compare humanity to parasites. My favorite thing to say when I am run into these people is "humans aren't parasites or viruses, we are just shitty agents of entropy. Energy we can use in, energy we can't use out. We know how to do it better than we do it now, but, you know, information we can use in, information we can't use out, that's a hard cycle to break." It's not likely I'll ever be able to say "that thing you said about spirits living in tools and instruments, that's information you can't use," but it's a better outlook for me to go over their heads and say what I want to say than just being dour about a planet you have to share with a bunch of people who want to waste energy on nothing special. I also listened to an interview with a transplant doctor where he talked about a recipient waking up and craving a hamburger, when that was usually not part of her diet. The donor family was shocked and took great comfort in that because the donor loved hamburgers. Ok. Alright, I mean... Ok, I'm glad about that... I think I have to leave it there, because not donating your healthy organs when you die is a pet peeve of mine. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 07:08, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

And the shutdown has gone too far...

Seriously, it's threatening beer. Kencolt (talk) 13:27, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Which crisis will overcome us first if the government doesn't get reopened:

• We'll get overrun by criminal gangs and dope dealers;
• Immigration control will release gangbangers cause the immigration judges are laid off;
• The planet will implode from fracking;
• Global warming will cause our blood to boil;
• We'll die in a nuclear holocaust at the hands of North Korea, Russia, China, and Iran. nobs ^{piss in my ear} 23:34, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

And all of that 'is' horrible, but what will we drink while the world's collapsing round us? Seriously, we're all going to need one. Kencolt (talk) 17:00, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Better get some Mike's Hard Lemonade while I can. Never got around to trying it. I will probably want a drink while shit hits the fan.This message is approved by Undead EAS Productions --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:24, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Arranged Marriages: You would think they would have died out in the Middle Ages

My brother brought it up while watching an episode of the Simpson's. It is not like the old days where it was needed for financial stability and alliances. Why do some still have these type of marriages? I harvested your dog's soul --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:33, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

@Rationalzombie94 For the same reason that Arranged marriages occur in India, and for the same reason Christians misread the story of "Lucifer" as being about the devil. (As I understand it, it's actually a metaphorical comedy about astrologers in another part of the region.) Cultural Traditions. Mid-eastern culture is extremely traditional, even to the point that several behaviors are exhibited without anyone thinking twice about them. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:58, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

As has been said in other contexts - there is a difference between arranged marriages and forced marriages; and arranged introductions (blind dates, dating agencies, debutants' balls etc) are slightly different again. Anna Livia (talk) 20:42, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

@Anna Livia While true, the concept of Arranged Marriage in Eastern and Mid-Eastern culture has generally had strong overlap with the concept of forced marriage. That being said modern culture has toned down and/or adapted such practices in certain regions, though some problems still remain (see India's dowry problem.) ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 21:00, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

More pertinently: child brides [1] and rape victims forced to marry their rapists [2]. (Yes this happens in the US too.) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:19, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

In homophobic societies, arranged marriages are practical and convenient to give cover.

Likewise, arranged marriages can be more stable with lower divorce rates because there's more than two individuals self-interest involved. It's an alliance between tribes and communities. nobs ^{piss in my ear} 23:14, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

In a discussion of arranged marriages, everything gets flipped: the enlightened rational view suddenly is about individual rights, and the conservative view is about collective and communal interests. nobs ^{piss in my ear} 23:20, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Note how Rob leaves out the... Shall we say unsavory aspects of arranged marriages, as well as putting words in our mouths. For example, "Likewise, arranged marriages can be more stable with lower divorce rates because there's more than two individuals self-interest involved. It's an alliance between tribes and communities." Leaves out the part where women are essentially nothing more than fruit baskets or fine wines, to be sold as part of business deals. Or, if you want the short version, the women are slaves, property to be used, abused, and replaced. Communal benefit my ass, this is about the few using their own family as nothing more than commodities. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 23:55, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I actually met a Saudi guy who was in an arranged marriage in one of my classes. He didn't seem too thrilled about it. Let people marry whom they want (provided it's mutual), thanks. սպրիգգինա (խոսել) (ներդրումներ) @ 23:57, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Another bad aspect of arranged marriages is that they have been used as a method of marrying off people with serious psychological issues. I know of two instances of this. The idea is that children need to be married off in birth order, and if they're not it ruins the reputation of the family (i.e., the thinking goes "someone's unmarriagable in the family, so they must all be bad"). So the family of the problem child searches and cajoles until they can find another family for a spouse for the insane child. The found spouse obviously has no say in the matter, and the results can be rather bad. Bongolian (talk) 02:37, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

That's bullshit. Would you go back to a used car lot that sold you a lemon? Your own logic contradicts you; Do they trade off the defective merchndise and place no value on someone without psychological defects? nobs ^{piss in my ear} 02:48, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Getting rid of someone with psychological defects is not the reason for arranged marriages - they just have a lower value in the subprime market. nobs ^{piss in my ear} 02:52, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I didn't say that, Nobs. I said that it has been used for marrying off the otherwise unmarryable and that I knew of 2 cases! I didn't say that was the only purpose. Do you have a readig comprehension problem? Bongolian (talk) 04:05, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I apologise, you're right. But you do seem to imply denying the mentally handicapped an opportunity to marry, which they wouldn't have otherwise, is preferable. nobs ^{piss in my ear} 04:16, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I said "serious psychological issues", which you also did not comprehend, Nobs. Try to contain your trolling behavior so that it's not so obvious. It's more entertaining and less annoying for everyone that way. Bongolian (talk) 05:11, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Your disclaimers are weak. Romantic marriages (the alternative of arranged marriages) have probably a higher instance of fraud by people trying to hide "psychological issues," whereas arranged marriages are based on finding suitable matches. You fundamently have no clue about the topic you think you're criticizing. nobs ^{piss in my ear} 16:22, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

And you clearly used the word "insane" to refer to people with "psychological issues." Do you have trouble comprehending the language you use? nobs ^{piss in my ear} 17:42, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

As to claims it belongs in the middle ages, arranged marriage was common in some Christian communities into the 20th century, such as in Ireland.[3] And child marriage is still a serious problem in Latin America[4][5] and eastern Europe[6] as well as in Asia and Africa. --Annanoon (talk) 14:12, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

A problem, huh? Sounds like a racist attack on other people's culture. What? You think your culture, with its broken families and high divorce rates is superior? nobs ^{piss in my ear} 16:33, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

are you suggesting child marriage isnt problematic? i'm going to assume, generously, that you are not even reading posts, just looking for the next opportunity to get your inane digs in AMassiveGay (talk) 19:52, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I never said any such thing. I simply pointed out the inherent racism in criticizing a cultural practice as old as the human species. What makes anyone think their culture is superior to conclude another's is problematic? nobs ^{piss in my ear} 20:07, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

and yet it followed in direct response to a post where it was child marriage specifically labelled as a problem. there is nothing inherently racist in criticising a cultural practise if you view it as abhorrent. because its been around for a long time isnt a defense or protection from criticism. nor does recognition of an issue in a culture not your own imply any sort of superiority or that there are no problems within our own culture. must we all be paragons of virtue to even discuss something? it does not, particularly when the problems within our are not germane to the argument. you could perhaps click on those links provided to better acquaint yourself with relevant information. maybe make a reasoned and principled argument rather than petty contrarianism and point scoring. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:34, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

its not as if child marriage isnt a crime or seen as a problem in the jurisdictions that they occur in - they often are. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:42, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Ok. Let me see if I have the facts of the direction of this whole thread complete: (1) "insane" persons and/or persons with "psychological issues" should not have the same opportunity to marry as gays do; (2) person's of another culture, Eastern European for example, should not be criticized if they find anal sex morally repugnant and objectionable. Did I miss anything or make too broad a leap in logic anywhere? nobs ^{piss in my ear} 20:55, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

i thought i was pretty clear that people are entirely free to criticise. but if your criticism is bogus its not going to go well. no one has suggested anyone should not be allowed an opportunity to marry. the key a question here is not if its arranged or you are just pissed and in vegas, but whether you have any say in the matter. thats clearly not the case for many (especially women) in many cases of arranged marriages for a whole variety of cultural, religious, economic reasons.

if you want to defend arranged marriages for reasons not solely related to being a dick, go for it. but you'll need to actually make an argument thats relevant to whats been said and not make such twisted contortions of logic - you just look a prick when you do. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:24, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

@RobSmith why trap people in a love-less where the hostages couple would divorce anyways? --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 21:27, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I dunno; it jus' seems to me ya'll come to this subject with a rather Western colonialists approach. nobs ^{piss in my ear} 00:36, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I've lived in Iran and spent a lot of time in India. Both places where arranged marriage in one form or another is common. It is always a business/family/class/caste/honor arrangement. True, in most rich families and some middle/lower class families, parents might consider comparability and the happiness of their children. However you have to be lucky to be rich or parents with that mind-set. There is very little endearing about arranged marriages. Most women have no idea what is about to happen to them and in all too many cases if they resist they are maritally raped. In India many men are as uncomfortable around their wives the first years as their wives are partly afraid of their husbands. In the transaction, women in India become a part of the man's family/household. That means in many cases free-slave-labor for the husband and mother-in-law. Violence is well known in a lot of arranged marriages, the wife is often isolated, lonely and unable to stand up to the problems she faces. A few friends of mine in the milk case have things a little different. The wife stays with her family (happily) and she visits her husband once a month or so. My friend had heart burn every time he met her as he doesn't know her, just has sex with a woman who doesn't want to and then gives her a disingenuous present and asks her to call him when she gets pregnant. He hates every part of it and reserves his sexual energy for prostitutes. What you see mostly via media, cinema, fiction is the arranged marriage of the rich. Things can be very different that way. For the lowest class things are pretty grim and I really don't think you're well informed about the realities of arranged marriages cause a few claims you've made are bloody crazy. A mentally disabled woman getting a chance at marriage where she might not have outside arranged marriage? Mentally ill woman become spinsters? Mentally ill women prefer to become a property of her husbands family, likely experience marital rape (with even less idea what is going on in the bedroom) experience isolation and removal from her family ... rather than possible happiness with a non-arranged marriage, or barring that, no marriage at all? A lot of arranged-marriage-wives (and husbands) would be quite jealous. The last thing a mentally disabled person needs is that kind of sexual-shock, isolation and loneliness. Except for the rich/upper-class, I didn't know a single Indian or Iranian guy in an arranged marriage who was happy. Those from love-marriages? Usually pretty happy. Wives treated better, less isolation, more caring sex, more equality in the marriage, loving environment for children etc. It's the obvious choice. It's like comparing caramel with rancid meat. ShabiDOO 22:12, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, but this terrible idea that hurts everyone involved is a tradition. You can't just ignore tradition, because of the systemic harm it inflicts! ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 22:18, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Okay, so now we found the cure for domestic violence - "love marriages." And being a retarded spinster is certainly preferable to having parents who care enough to find a family for you before they pass. Or being retarded in a "love marriage" certainly wouldn't expose you to rape, abuse, or a partner with "psychological issues." And true, the 50% in "love marriages" (or most of the 50% who don't divorce) are happy. How that stacks up against arranged marriages statistically we'll probably have to take some Western educated scientist's word for it, along with their cultural bias.. And if we don't like some Non-Westerner's statistical results, we can say it's tainted by cultural bias, so we can feel secure in our own cultural bias. nobs ^{piss in my ear} 07:46, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

@RobSmith Have you considered that the reason we don't have a lot of arranged marriage divorces are because the participants have no choice? Commie Lib (talk) 17:52, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

or that these things occur in the west too or that refusing an arranged marriage or seeking a divorce can result with a honour killing

its all beside the point when rob continues to rail against arguments no body made, with leaps of logic that i doubt even he is convinced by.

whats your goal here, rob? you know you not going to convince anyone with such shoddy logic, so what do you gain from being such a disingenuous prick? AMassiveGay (talk) 18:59, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Rob that is such a first class bullshit response. Did you even read my numerous comments and arguments? You are really good at dismissing a list of arguments by distracting the audience with some absurd garbage deflection on western-scientists and cultural bias. Please, grow up Rob. You aren't going to succeed with red-herrings here. You've totally failed making a case for arranged marriage with ridiculous arguments like "yeah but love-marriages end in divorce 50% of the time". Perhaps in your shallow analysis of the complexities of marriage in non-western cultures did you think that some might prefer a shorter marriage with equality and then divorce than A LIFE TIME OF MISERY WITH NO ESCAPE? Your argument about mentally disabled people bound for a life of spinsterhood getting a chance to marry some guy her parents negotiate for is nothing short of grotesque. And your dose of cultural relativism calling criticism of customs of other cultures as racist. I don't remember ever saying "arranged marriage is bad". They can get married however they like. What most of us have done is point out problems people suffer in arranged marriage. Pointing out marital rape is not racist. Pointing out alienation and loneliness is not racist. Repeating what my friends told me, their unhappiness in their marriages, is not racist. What post-modern cultural-relativist counter-science anti-knowledge trash book are you currently reading? ShabiDOO 22:28, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Also, it's worth noting that today's divorce rates are way lower, because much fewer millenials are getting married to people they're not compatible with just because "it's what you do". ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 22:32, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I'm not "making a case for arranged marriage." I'm pointing out the flaws and inconsistencies in your approach.

First off, divorce in arranged marriages requires legal grounds - no one is "trapped." Unlike Western "no-fault" which requires no basis whatsoever.

Secondly, as hinted at above, it's a question of societal and community interests taking precedence over individual choice, and individual freedom, which is the basis of Western abortion and gay marriage laws. Yet some of you tried to force me into an arranged marriage with health insurors just yesterday based on some notion of community responsibility. You give me the choice to get butt fucked, have an abortion, or marry whoever I love, yet on something as personal as having health insurance or not, you tell me I have a responsibility to the community that overrides my personal decisions, in essence saying "Fuck you." Well fuck you too I say, and your hypocracy. nobs ^{piss in my ear} 01:34, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Inconsistent tagging of Mormonism as a cult

The article on Joseph Smith contains the {{cult}} navbox as well as Category:Cults and Category:Cult leaders, but Mormonism just contains the {{Christianity}} navbox and no cult-related categories. So I don't start an edit war: how should this be fixed? — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 23:30, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

@Pythoncoder Both Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses can be classified as cults due to behavior their hierarchical structures exhibit. I can add the tags right now if you want. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 00:01, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Since the term "cult" can sometimes used as loaded language, it would be good to make sure that there is evidence in the article in question before adding such a category. Types of evidence that can be used can be found here. Bongolian (talk) 02:41, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

The interesting thing is that on most of those cult evaluation lists, Mormonism comes up a distant second to Roman Catholicism. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 15:05, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm gonna make the hot take(for an atheist) that early mormonism was way more cult-like than modern mormonism. The centrality of a leader/messiah, the weird sexual practices that gave sexual power to leadership, and the literal militancy. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:48, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

^ What he said. One of the key elements of a cult is the existence of a charismatic leader (like L. Ron Hubbard, Sun Myung Moon, or David Miscavige) and I couldn't name the current leader of the LDS Church. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 01:06, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Why aren't there any sightings?

You would think as it's more common for us to have cameras there would be more photos of UFOs and ghosts. But somehow UFO/ghost claims seems to be less common than ever.

I'm curious if anyone here believes in ghosts or alien visitation, and if they can differentiate the two for me. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 08:51, 13 January 2019 (UTC) 08:50, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

People are too busy chasing political ghosts and aliens these days. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 08:58, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Very cutting observation, but I would like you to state whether you believe in aliens or ghosts or neither or both neither. Ghosts or visiting aliens or yes or nah Maybe in some kind of anonymous poll fashion?Gol Sarnitt (talk) 09:09, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

This is maybe too biased. Too mean. If there was a scale for how much people believed in life in the universe, a scale for how much people believed in that life interacting with us, a scale for ghosts, and a scale for ghosts interacting with us, maybe I could get a grip on exactly what question I'm even asking here. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 09:24, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Flawed premise. You can't link the two. Ghosts are superstition, whereas UFOs are, as is common knowledge, a CIA plot to hide covert activity. nobs ^{piss in my ear} 16:43, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Gee whiz, How come nobody ever sited a UFO prior to the invention of radar during WWII? Gee whiz, Why did the 1947 UFO crash over the Trinity Nuclear Test site in Roswell New Mexico, consisting of a weather balloon with a Geiger Counter to measure nuclear particles in the atmosphere, which created the whole UFO phenomenon, lead to the above ground Nuclear Test Ban Treaty in 1962? nobs ^{piss in my ear} 17:00, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

they did. they just didnt call such things as UFOs. probs not aliens though, but people did see things in the sky - comets, lights of varying description etc all the time. attributed to angels or omens of some kind. probably dont hear so much now about such things as folk are generally more used to seeing stuff in the sky - even super secret tests of advanced aircraft arent going to phase most people if they happen to catch a glimpse late at night. its not like your seeing jet engines when all your used to is propeller driven craft. plus conspiracy theories have come along since www2. little green men are positively quaint when everythings the fault of psuedo jewish reptilians and hilary clinton. its been crowded out of the market. if aliens from another world landed tomorrow and enslaved us all, some folk will still be talking about an unsecured server. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:40, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Good rewrite of history, but I recall vividly standing in my backyard at the age of 2 with my dad's WWII sniper telescope looking for Sputnik during Sputnik crisis cause the Rooskies were getting ready to drop a nuke on us from space. (This was ten years after the Roswell crash and 2 years before the 'Miliary-Industrial complex' speech). I've spent a lifetime studying it. I can tell you UFOs are CIA disinformation. nobs ^{piss in my ear} 20:35, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I haven't heard the case for UFOs being deliberate disinformation to be honest (Google shows nothing), but I'm sure the various military forces at minimum thought that the UFO stories provided fantastic cover. :) I actually would postulate that the end of the Cold War was probably one of the bigger blows for the UFO conspiracy theorist, as the subsequent reduction of completely "top secret" aircraft projects considerably reduced the UFO conspiracy theorists' source material. The other phenomenon here is the growth in both the proliferation of high-quality photography devices like cell phones, and easy publishing methods eg Youtube. I think this has made it much harder to pass off, say, a fuzzy image of a lamppost or hubcap or misidentified ordinary planes and space phenomenon as a UFO. Not that people don't try on Youtube still, of course :) But things like ancient astronauts and political conspiracies aren't quite so easy to debunk, and these days at any rate it's probably more fun to *play* with your own UFOish-looking "drone" quadcopter than it is to conspire about it. :) Soundwave106 (talk) 21:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

i'm not sure where ive re written history nor am i doubting the role disinformation from governments or cia specifically has played. it doesnt account for all or even most things people have attributed to UFOs, just the term became popular. hoaxes and people readily jumping to conclusions, wanting it to be something more. its the go to term for things in the sky you cant sus out. if i see something now, it'll be down as a UFO, regardless of what it actually is. if i were unaware of the term, say i was a period before manned flight and i see the same thing? just because i dont know the term, its still the same phenomena. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:57, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

i dont thinking polling rw is going to be particularly enlightening. i would expect that as a group it would be heavily skewed to 'this is all bollocks' AMassiveGay (talk) 19:45, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Nope, no ghosts or spirits or underwear gnomes or vampires or real life smurfs or actual fortune-tellers. The default position on any of these incredible outlandish claims, is skepticism until we have acceptable evidence, which never ever ever appears (what we do get is easily discredited). The reason we don't see as many sightings with all our devices is...first of all...there are no ghosts or alien visits and secondly, its very easy now to identify a doctored image these days, making what once easy to pull a fast one on stupid people with fake images, pretty difficult task now (though disturbingly at the same time image-fakers are getting better and may soon be able to fake-images with image manipulation techniques very difficult to spot). But yeah, no ghosts. It's silly. No alien visitors. It's preposterous. ShabiDOO 22:26, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Some of the ghosts disappeared with public lighting and better fitting doors and windows, and others with 'scientific explanations' (eg ultrasound, 'toxic plant chemicals and ergot etc' no longer making their way into the food chain); and others may be in part 'attenuated collective memory' - stories told down the generations.

And, apart from the points made above, what is the correlation between 'alien invasion SF' (paper and screen) and UFOs - and also 'blimps, hot air balloons and other such devices'? Anna Livia (talk) 17:33, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Ghosts and UFOs continue to be hawked in the tabloids. Millennium Scallion (talk) 17:56, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Also there are "sightings" with phone cameras

"Oh, look at this slightly unusual lens flare in this dark room, it's a ghost" is a refrain most skeptics should be familiar with. Or the "flashing lights in the fog, I took a picture, it alien." This claims happen on paranormal and UFO forums literally daily. Not to mention purposeful photoshops, untrue stories attached to real photos. If you don't see them, it's because you're not engaging with the believers. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 18:18, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Pretty sure YouTube is still a hotbed of fake ufo/ghost videos. Millennium Scallion (talk) 18:23, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, but my baseline for youtube is "if that's your source, you're wrong". Remember when drive-bys would come to the saloon bar and post a wall of youtube links to "prove" something to us? And they're all like someone sad and in their 30s and very very uncriitically talking over fuzzy photos of triangles saying things like "Did you notice it? No one can deny the Illuminati now. It's clear as day." But for like 5 hours. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 18:40, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Competition: Satirize Alternative Medicine

I'm back and the monthly writing competitions are back baby!

As a general guideline, the satire shouldn't be mistaken as a poe. Make up a detox or testimony or new healing craft or something!

Inspiration:

• Fun:Nina The Naturopath
• Seven alternatives to evidence based medicine

submissions are over has already ended. (refresh)

—ClickerClock_{💾 talk.txt} 11:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Submissions

Essay:Poison is the best Medicine —ClickerClock_{💾 talk.txt} 13:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Fun:Cure for Rabies --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:55, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Essay:This New Weight Loss Pill Will MELT Fat Away!!! —DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 16:06, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Goat

• My satire slogan would be this: "It might heal, hurt, do nothing, or even kill you! The fun in alternate medicine lies in the mystery!" But, that's just a slogan. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 06:37, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
• My slogan would be, "What does not kill me… or makes me weaker… or does nothing, makes me stronger." Bongolian (talk) 18:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

The real satire

Is the corpses we made along the way. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Physical sources

After going through some of the older articles I've noticed that when referencing a physical source they fail to cite either the publication serial number or a pdf version of the document in question. This means someone double-checking the sources is hindered by hours of tedious research when easier alternatives exist. I bring this up to ask users to use serials numbers and/or pdf copies when citing physical copies now and in the future. Thank you. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 15:31, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Not always possible. I'd be happy to try and resolve these when I find them. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:57, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I use the MLA citation format, which, in addition to the author(s) and title, gives the publisher, the edition (if not the first), and the year of publication. I think that should be sufficient. I don't give page numbers because that could change with the presentation. Nerd (talk) 17:03, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

The crazy thing is an ISBN or DOI is so much more powerful, than the standards that were created to make it easy to find things 50 years ago. It's definitely sufficient as you say, but not necessarily best. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 17:08, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Good point! Nerd (talk) 17:11, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

All of that being said, if we can make sources easier to access we should in my opinion. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 17:13, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Can we improve the Help:References or Help:Manual of style pages? Bongolian (talk) 19:02, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

@BongolianCan we improve them? Yes. Should we improve them? I would say yes to that as well. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:11, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

OMG we should because it's not useful at all in its current state. It's so annoying that I tell people to format the sources they input, but I have no reliable RationalWiki page to fall to for easy reference. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 23:28, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie @Ikanreed @Bongolian and @LeftyGreenMario, I have added the ISBNs of the books I have been using as sources. (Please see my edits.) The newer ones work as they do on Wikipedia; the whole thing automatically becomes a link that you can use to search for those precise books yourself. I will take the time to update our guidelines for references soon. Nerd (talk) 19:54, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, that's great, and awesome. I've also updated all of my zero book sources, similarly. Can't promise I've added dois to the journal articles, though. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 20:16, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Actually, @GrammarCommie @Ikanreed @Bongolian and @LeftyGreenMario, they all work! For some strange reasons, I made a systematic error of leaving out the last hyphen and digit. Now that the error is rectified, you can now find the book yourself on Google Books or Amazon; you will even be able to see the cover of the books, in addition to the information provided in the citation. Amazing! Nerd (talk) 02:14, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

@Nerd Perfect! And thank you! ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 02:29, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Deport Neo Nazis first. Illegal immigrants can wait.

While immigration laws are necessary, illegal immigrants seem less of a threat compared to Neo Nazis. But immigration laws should be straight forward and not based on a bureaucratic nightmare. I say this after seeing the totally rational and intelligent posts Rationaldriver made recently. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:02, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Believe it or not, neo-Nazis have rights (as do undocumented immigrants). Go ask the ACLU if you don't believe me. Bongolian (talk) 00:20, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I am 100% aware of that. Just making fun of Neo Nazis. The supreme court case Village of Skokie vs. The National Socialist White People's Party cemented that. Nothing wrong with telling a Neo Nazi to shut up. Plus, it is good to beat racism with education. Education is the worst enemy of racism. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:33, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I had a friend who became radicalized by far right propoganda. I always tried to be a good friend to him since I knew he was lonely because of how much of an ass he was to people. He had a very abusive father, so I figured that was the cause. Thing is, no amount of information I gave him could overcome his own insane confirmation biases. He could always write it off as 'jewish meddling of data'. Education isn't enough when people choose to ignore it. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 15:42, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

On the other hand, and I want you to consider this one carefully, nazis belong in holes in the ground. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 03:00, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Deport them to where? It's like trying to deport a Cuban; the U.S. doesn't have diplomatic relations and their granted automatic asylum on arrival. There's nowhere to deport them to even after convicted of a crime. nobs ^{piss in my ear} 07:15, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

You can always go the Holocaust route, except this time it's in reverse. — Ɖøn Ĵuan ^Harass 10:34, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Necromancy? 2A02:C7D:1635:5C00:9E2:3B47:D026:B241 (talk) 14:06, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

@Rationalzombie94 "illegal immigrants seem less of a threat compared to Neo Nazis." This kind of claims have no meaning if you do not specify what kind of threat are you considering (acts of violence? Number of homicides? Government overthrow? ...) and what data support your claim. Thinker^(unlicensed) 15:52, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

"illegal immigrants seem less of a threat compared to Neo Nazis." Implies that illegal immigrant ARE a threat. You might mean to say something RationalZombie, but you certainly seem unable to write it. Resulting in a phrase that is certainly bordering on weasel words. We shall put it in better context, all the way from popular culture in 1982, Jello Biafra in fine fettle as he calmly issues the immortal refrain, Nazi Punks, Fuck Off!!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTs_Q4hEqmA

have you ever had a word or a phrase that is just fun to say

recently I've been saying "El-ahrairah" (the name of the rabbit god from "Watership Down") bc it's a rly fun name to say and has an interesting vocal pattern and makes me happy and giggle and flap my hands

anyway does anyone else have fun words or phrases to say or, for that matter, notice and get excited over how certain words sound when you say them? Transbeeism (talk) 01:50, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I used to do the same with "Meester Pigvig." And now I'll probably be doing it again for the next couple weeks. --Mabian (talk) 02:20, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Mine has always been 'Fuck Everything'. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 12:58, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

'shenanigans' is my favourite word.--RWRW (talk) 13:15, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

_______________________

< Fuck Everything >

-----------------------
     \                _
      \              (_)
       \   ^__^       / \
        \  (oo)\_____/_\ \
           (__)\       ) /
               ||----w ((
               ||     ||>>

— Dysk (contribs) 13:24, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

"Fuck morality!" "For Fuck's sake!" "Oh my gods and Goddesses fucking anally and orally above and below!" (That last one is the full version of "Oh my gods" for me.) ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 14:43, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

"Mushroom Kingdom". I also like the word "klaxxon". I also make up some nonsense like "zübédübeka", "cedoolie", "foof", "poogue" and "derfs". --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:15, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

you are the universe?

Not sure what they mean by that. I mean sure your body is made of the same stuff as other things in the universe. But it's a stretch to say that you are the universe, you are the body and a bit of a vast collection. Or to bull from buddhist analogies you are the wave not the ocean (a reverse of that). Not sure what makes people believe such things. I was also fed a line about how you are not alive, from which I guess is based on the "you are the universe" bit. But that seems like nonsense and based on what you define alive. By some metrics you could argue the universe is "alive'. ^{— Unsigned, by: Machina / talk / contribs}

More fundamental questions are "who is 'they'?" and "where did you hear 'them' say that?". Carl Sagan meant a very different thing with his "you are the universe trying to understand itself" from a new age guru saying "we are all one universe, one mind" ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 20:39, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I've heard the idea of life being the universe's way to experience itself, that may be what it means. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 21:49, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

That sounds like nonsense considering it requires the universe to have intent.131.91.7.132 (talk) 15:15, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

You have intent, and are part of the universe. Unless you're one of those dirty dualists, who I've recently been reminded I destest. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:21, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

But you are not the universe's way of experiencing itself. You have awareness and that's about it. This implies the universe is some "body".Machina (talk) 02:20, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Thoughts on Thomas Nagel's Mind and Cosmos?

Title is kinda self-explanatory. KoiDevelopment™ (thanks, Love!) 21:34, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Until I went to the amazon page and saw the subtitle, I had hopes there was something to this. But "why the materialist neodarwinian conception of nature is almost certainly false" is a pretty high-tier bullshit thesis. Rather than give money to some fundie, I'll see if I can't find some excerpts to analyze...(okay you're just going to have to imagine that there's a break here where I actually did this)

I believe the defenders of intelligent design deserve our gratitude for challenging a scientific world view that owes some of the passion displayed by its adherents precisely to the fact that it is thought to liberate us from religion

We are off to a thrilling start, courtesy of goodreads. Just look at this shit. Intelligent design as a good example of taking it to the materialists, instead of terrible, badly done materialism with a deity injected for no reason.

I am drawn to a fourth alternative, natural teleology, or teleological bias, as an account of the existence of the biological possibilities on which natural selection can operate. I believe that teleology is a naturalistic alternative that is distinct from all three of the other candidate explanations: chance, creationism, and directionless physical law. To avoid the mistake that White finds in the hypothesis of nonintentional bias, teleology would have to be restrictive in what it makes likely, but without depending on intentions or motives. This would probably have to involve some conception of an increase in value through the expanded possibilities provided by the higher forms of organization toward which nature tends: not just any outcome could qualify as a telos. That would make value an explanatory end, but not one that is realized through the purposes or intentions of an agent. Teleology means that in addition to physical law of the familiar kind, there are other laws of nature that are "biased toward the marvelous".

And yep, they're a fundie creationist who wants to not be called a creationist. This is philosophobabble. "Not just any outcome could qualify as Telos" Let's not take time to identify some falsifiable definition of our valid subset of outcomes we assign purpose to. Just be certain, dear reader, that you are in a universe that meets that criteria, and some different one, different in a very nonspecific way, wouldn't have Telos and could be deemed natural. Don't worry about it. It's okay. Just an intelligent designer with unspecified purpose, that we're inferring is present through my genius intuition.

It's intelligent design. Again. The exact same watchmaker bullshit, but this one does it with pseudophilosophy instead of pseudoscience. Whoop de fucking do. On to another quote.

In every area of thought we must rely ultimately on our judgments, tested by reflection, subject to correction by the counterarguments of others, modified by the imagination and by comparison with alternatives.

But whatever you do, definitely don't use any kind of observational evidence or empirical methodology. You might decide that duplicating nucleic acids are affected by random copy errors that suggest a source of informational entropy could be selected for without Jesus. Or that cosmological background radiation is consistent with a hot quark soup, or that stars and planets form in predictable patterns according to some "laws" of "physics".

Humans are addicted to the hope for a final reckoning, but intellectual humility requires that we resist the temptation to assume that tools of the kind we now have are in principle sufficient to understand the universe as a whole.

Science has been wrong before the book!

My target is a comprehensive, speculative world picture that is reached by extrapolation from some of the discoveries of biology, chemistry, and physics--a particular naturalistic Weltanschauung that postulates a hierarchical relation among the subjects of those sciences, and the completeness in principle of an explanation of everything in the universe through their unification. Such a world view is not a necessary condition of the practice of any of those sciences, and its acceptance or nonacceptance would have no effect on most scientific research.

Don't ask me to show an example of a process not moderated by the laws of physics though. The universality of their applicability so far shouldn't cause you to assume a worldview where that's true. God what a crazy idea, not finding a single exception to a rule after a century of trying, then thinking it might be almost entirely right. Crazy.

The place at which the contrast between forms of intelligibility is most vividly presented is in the understanding of ourselves.

Allow me to refer to my favorite paper for this one sentence.

It would be an advance if the secular theoretical establishment, and the contemporary enlightened culture which it dominates, could wean itself of the materialism and Darwinism of the gaps

Buddy you could have just said "I don't know what darwinism means"

Alright, I'm tired of playing right now, but plenty more quotes of similar quality here. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 22:04, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I worry that you fall prey to the genetic fallacy often. Anyway, I'd hardly call something published by OUP the work of a fundie. But thanks for your thoughts. KoiDevelopment™ (thanks, Love!) 22:47, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

You're the one explicitly making the argument that the publisher of a work defines its quality while simultaneously suggesting I fall prey to the genetic fallacy. I don't really know how to respond to that. Do you know what the genetic fallacy is? Do you really??? Because arguing it's fundie bullshit because its opening position celebrates fundie bullshit is... uh... not that. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 05:51, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

While I believe in intelligent design to some degree (not going to argue about it), evolution has rock solid evidence that cannot be ignored. Questioning a theory is perfectly fine, but the brain dead creationists twist questioning a theory to fit their anti-science agenda. I am not the type of guy to push intelligent design into schools. It would result in the strict teaching of Christian creationism and outright ignore evolution. Keep religion out of school --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:40, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

What surprises me the most about this thread is that we appear to have no idea who Thomas Nagel is or what this book is actually about. Koidevelopment (talk) 01:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Fuck off. Don't ask me to try give an opinion about something, and when I look into it, find it has problems, declare me to "not know anything". ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 05:51, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I looked at the quotes ikanreed put out and it reads to me like New Age babble. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 05:57, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

He's a philosopher, so sure. It is my opinion though that on these questions, philosophy has kind of reached a dead end, whereas the neurosciences are discovering more and more every day. We still don't know a lot about the brain, but we are learning -- at this point, I think we know enough IMHO that a 100% rejection of a neurochemical view of mind and consciousness doesn't make sense, either. ("Materialism" seems like a simpler concept than neuroscience per the Wiki on it so maybe a push back on that particular area makes sense). I will also add that genetic / evolutionary algorithms are an interesting (if more experimental) area of artificial intelligence, and IMHO in some cases are a pretty clear demonstration how something "intelligent" can emerge from mere evolutionary processes (a process I'll add that, even in the narrow genetic algorithm scope, sometimes leaves programmers baffled to exactly how the solution works) Soundwave106 (talk) 15:40, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, does it confound abiogenesis with evolution, claims "evolutionism" is a pseudoscience rejected by most scientists, and spews out the same PRATTs about complex organics being impossible to form (argument of probability)?. Panzerfaust (talk) 14:28, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

THE FUCKING WATCHERMAKER ARGUMENT AGAIN?!?!?!?! THESE STUPIDASS PRATTS DRIVE ME FURTHER AND FURTHER INTO ANTI-THEISM!!! RATHER ADDRESS CRITICISM THESE DISINGENUOUS TWATWAFFLES REPEAT THE SAME TIRED TALKING POINTS AD NASEUM, TO THE POINT THE IT MAKES ME PHYSICALLY ILL TO HEAR THEM. COME UP WITH SOMETHING NEW AND BETTER YOU STUPID LITTLE SHITS, AND MAYBE, JUST MAYBE, WE'LL RECONSIDER YOUR POSITION. UNTIL THEN SHUT THE FUCK UP, YOU HAVE NOTHING WORTH HEARING!!! Ok, rant over, I feel better now. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 16:03, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

To be fair, the watchmaker argument isn't actually central to the book, just done as a throwaway justification to other, more subtly bad ideas. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

In order, no, no, yes. At least in the introduction he pointedly avoids the first two things but does the third under the pretenses that intelligent design's jaqqing off revealed real problems. This is not a claim he actually substantiates anywhere. Oh no, he just pretends Behe had good points about "irreducible complexity" hidden under the mistake of being religious.

One more quote from goodreads for me to hate

If we continue to assume that we are parts of the physical world and that the evolutionary process that brought us into existence is part of its history, then something must be added to the physical conception of the natural order that allows us to explain how it can give rise to organisms that are more than physical. The resources of physical science are not adequate for this purpose, because those resources were developed to account for data of a completely different kind

This is just nitpicking difference his stupid dualistic worldview has with reams of evidence and declaring the evidence wrong. He's a creationist, but only for qualia. It's dumb. Guys like this are why dualism delenda est. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ikanreed Kill me now, death is a mercy compared to this Creationist magnum opis. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 16:39, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

(reset) The real universe exists, and there are explanations that make sense (for now) that explain much of it (and explanations for other bits will be developed). Evolution exists (at least on Earth) and there are explanations for significant parts of it (with at least some of 'the issues' involving how certain aspects start off), especially if one accepts that "there are many, many generations involved and the law of unexpected consequences and the 'law of information later considered essential not being recorded' apply)" and all the rest of it.

However there is 'the sense of being a person/having an identity - and that other persons and at least some animals possess the same (and there is no accounting for other people's bad taste/lack of judgement)' and the idea possessed by many diverse cultures that 'deity or deities exist' (and do more than just provide an explanation for the way the world behaves and crops fail etc); and the senses of wonder and humour, and that 'there is more to Heaven and Earth than in a purely scientific philosophy.'

There are those who feel that their religious-ethical-philosophical beliefs add to the way in which they observe and operate in the world, encourages them to make the right decision, improve things and also others, and are willing to engage with other viewpoints (and walk in each other's shoes), and then there are those who stick to the worldview imposed on them and wish to inflict it upon others whether wanted or not, who are the problem (and who are often the subjects of RW articles). Anna Livia (talk) 15:05, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Sure. There is value in subjective observation and interpretation for navigating a human life. But that's clearly not the case he's making. He's positioning that methodological empiricism comes to false or wrong conclusions about the things its the best equipped method to interpret, simply on virtue of conflicting with his intuitions. It's nuts. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:34, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Terrorism in Popular Culture

We all know world events have massive influence in popular culture. The idea here is to discussfree speech.

Now in the two part South Park episode "Cartoon Wars", Islamic extremists threaten the producers of Family Guy due to them showing Muhammad uncensored. The racist character Eric Cartman basically takes advantage of the situation to get rid of Family Guy because he basically wants to suppress free speech. Eric Cartman uses terrorist tactics himself to get rid of Family Guy.

I know what I mean but I am not sure how to word this. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:42, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Incitement has long been illegal and out of bounds for free speech. Incitement is when a reasonable person would discern a call to commit illegal acts. We have, as a country, extrajudicially drone bombed american citizens for calling people to commit terrorism on the internet. Any boundary of free speech needs to understand that existing boundary almost everyone seems to tacitly approve of. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 19:16, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

It's been a while since I've seen that particular episode, but by my vague recollection Cartman isn't trying to shut down Family Guy to suppress free speech, but for the purpose of getting rid of something he doesn't like (I want to say it is that he feels that Family Guy is effectively stealing his humor, but I might be remembering that wrong). Cartman seems to be presenting what Stone/Parker perceive as a logical conclusion and psychoanalysis of people using "it offends [insert culture here]" to shut down something: these people would go to any extreme to get what they want, and what they really care about is getting rid of stuff they just don't like, rather than actually caring about [insert culture here].

As ikanreed said, there's been a generally recognized line that can be crossed where free speech is no longer protected, but where to place that line has shifted. Within the US context, sedition or anything that carried the whiff of sedition was not protected until roughly halfway through the 20th century. The line has generally moved to be more permissive, and for the most part the standard is incitement to violence and (theoretically) libel. Though even then you have people who disagree about whether specific actions constitute incitement or libel. An interesting case that is rarely brought up (but is still technically precedent) is Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, which stated that saying something that causes a reasonable person to attack you is causing disorderly conduct, and thus you can be held liable for that. You don't see it brought up a whole lot, though, but within the context of the debate over protecting free speech versus potentially inviting a terrorist attack, that would be the most pertinent area of jurisprudence.

As a bit of a digression, a question that doesn't get discussed a whole lot is the validity of non-physical/economic harms. If I say something that causes another person to punch you in the face, that would ostensibly be incitement, and therefore not protected. If I say something that I know to be false that causes you to lose your reputation or job, that would be libel. If I say something that harms you in some other way, such as by causing you to become depressed and/or suicidal, or might cause or exacerbate some illness, or anything of those lines, does that cross the line like incitement/libel does (assume, for the sake of argument, that the statement is false)? A case like Snyder v. Phelps (dealing with a protest by the Westboro Baptist Church) raises that question, though the decision of the Court was that the WBC is ultimately protected. There are plenty of other cases that sit on these kinds of fences. --Mabian (talk) 20:31, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Sixteen Tons

Sadly still relevant to this day. — Ɖøn Ĵuan ^Harass 20:16, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

The Federal government currently has 3 different lawsuits against it by federal workers who are not being paid, including 1 lawsuit by workers forced to work without pay that cites the Thirteenth Amendment ("involuntary servitude"), the anti-slavery amendment. So much for "dignity of the paycheck" Republicans". Bongolian (talk) 00:08, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Meanwhile the fucks in the White House and Congress get six digit salaries while the backbone of the federal government are left to rot in debt. — Ɖøn Ĵuan ^Harass 14:55, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Anti-vaxxers now a top threat to global health

That's how bad this shit has gotten. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 14:23, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

To be honest, I thought we'd turned the corner on anti-vax, but that report says 2018 was a record year for refusal and hesitancy. So all that has happened is I'm not personally being exposed to the nutters anymore. Fuck. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:45, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

This whole thing is why I believe we need to take some sort of legitimate action. If you don't vaccinate your kids, even for religious reasons, they should be taken away. You are refusing them medical care, putting them and others in danger. It's really textbook child abuse.An ordinary human man (talk) 16:59, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Allowing your children to come to harm through failure to act is textbook neglect, not abuse. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 17:01, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

To what extent is the problem - there comes a point at which many people have not come across persons who have been seriously/negatively affected by 'the once usual childhood diseases? Anna Livia (talk) 17:33, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Jennymccarthybodycount stopped updating in 2015, sadly. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 18:05, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Shaving

Gillette decided to lecture their customers about "toxic masculinity" Thinker^(unlicensed) 17:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Video not particularly noteworthy; corporations asserting conventional moral positions for the time as a way of creating a false sense of respect has been incredibly common for decades now. Everyone angry about it is somehow simultaneous with eachother the dumbest fucker possible. Yes I mean you. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 17:26, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

You are a moron. Everyone who is losing their crap over this commercial is a fucking moron. This whole "controversy" is as stupid and overhyped as the time Starbucks used plain red cups. This is a fucking non-issue. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 17:31, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Of course right-wing fundies will take message such as "bullying and rape are bad" as an attack on masculinity. Oh, and toxic masculinity doesn't mean "males are toxic". Diacelium, but without an account 82.66.175.16 (talk) 17:39, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

At this point I wonder if these kinds of misunderstandings are them being that dumb, or whether they purposefully choose not to understand what very modestly left ideas mean. I put it on Fun:Predictions as a joke but maybe I should take it more seriously as a prediction, "By the year 2168(2169 at the latest), the English language will have split, not on physical boundaries but ideology, and no one will understand anything said by people they disagree with." ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 18:02, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Best moments:

• A tv show with a white man grabbing the bottom of a black housekeeper and making fun of her in front of a laughing audience, because that's a real thing.
• A man boss mansplaining to a woman employee and a close-up of her suffering, because bosses notoriously don't have the last word in a meeting.
• Two dads not caring about their children fighting in the garden, because overprotective parents are not something from these days.
• Ana Kasparian!
• Random middle east man saving poor girl from fat white man telling her "smile, sweetie!"
• Random black man stopping a white man to commit what probably would be a daylight street rape.
• The most tenacious bullies ever.
• Black guy making peace between young black boy without hood and young black boys with hoods.

LOL Thinker^(unlicensed) 19:18, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Best non-violent way to stop Trump

This is a fun thought experiment. How would you stop Trump best in a non-violent way? Guffer (talk) 17:16, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

You don't just treat symptoms, especially when the illness is this close to terminal. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 17:23, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

This is stupid. How do you disagree with any politician? DON'T VOTE FOR THEM!!! There, done. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 17:26, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Say he's already President, how do you keep him from making any stupid decisions without using force, per se? Guffer (talk)

Are you such an ignorant dunkolf that you can't figure this out on your own? Read the news, see all those people that oppose Trump without using violence? Yeah them, do that. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 17:36, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Innovative/constructive use of no-platforming and similar? Anna Livia (talk) 18:37, 17 January 2019 (UTC)