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

Psychology of conspiracy theory

It is obvious that the factors that draw people towards conspiratorial thinking are incredibly complex and would be difficult to dissect, but I think we can still get a good grasp. Like religion, I think that the ideas people entertain are largely determined by how much they like the idea in comparison to how plausible the idea is. Obviously, the prioritization of likes and dislikes over anything else is a serious human flaw. Many people may be drawn to conspiracy theories because they like the idea, and seek evidence for an idea they like rather than come to an idea in light of evidence. There are numerous reasons why someone would like conspiratorial thinking. The Us vs. Them tribalistic mentality is enjoyable, especially when the 'them' are responsible for everything in the world the conspiracy theorist doesn't like (NWO-genre theories). Additionally, the Grand Unified theory (also NWO-type stuff) kind of simplifies and stabilizes the world in the minds of people who entertain it, which would actually alleviate numerous anxieties. It is possible that the chaos and instability of the world is far more terrifying than a global conspiracy, and conspiratorial thinking could serve as a defence mechanism. Adding to the idea of a 'simplified' reality, grand unified theories would also allow the theorist to conceptualize the worlds problems in a way intelligible and attractive to them. Hope some of you can help me elucidate this. Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 07:04, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

That's actually quite well spelled out. It's tempting to view conspiracy theorists as "crazy people" (I confess to being guilty of this in the past) but when you really start digging into the psychology it becomes clear that, as you said, there's complex psycho-social factors at play. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 13:11, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

The world is chaotic. Events happen chaotically without much logic behind them. Most of the logic we apply to events is applied to past events which we can "explain" easily - yet when the same logic is attempted on future events it tends to break down.

Human beings don't really like this idea, and so the idea that there is "something" guiding these events - be it god, Bill Gates or the Illuminati - is more reassuring than "stuff just happens". So, yes, there is a link between religion and conspiracy mentality as both give people the illusion that they are not actually subject to a random world.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 14:18, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Plus, you know, there actually being conspiracies in real life that do things. We've had this conversation recently. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 22:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, but there's often a difference between those and the mentalities of people who talk about them. Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 23:06, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Why would you link to a thread where you look like a dense moron? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 23:10, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

When evaluating the mentalities of proponents of conspiracy theories, it’s important to keep in mind that conspiracies are real things that are responsible for various things in the world, so “conspiracy theorists” are sometimes right. How would you act if someone in a position of authority told you that something you know to be true is false, and that you’re crazy for thinking the way you do? Persecution complexes, paranoia, and claims of suppression are typically downstream of perceived hostile action. And hostile actions like that do exist in real life. The question is whether the claims being made are true or not, not whether they involve conspiracies. Have you ever talked with proponents of conspiracy theories?

And if you think I look like a dense moron there, perhaps you could quote a single thing I said in that exchange which is incorrect.192․168․1․42 (talk) 23:37, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not denying that, but proponents almost always fail to understand the reality of the situation. Were the Nazis correct in their belief that Jews were responsible for the rise of the Soviet Union? Were the American theorists who proposed that the Soviet Union had infiltrated US politics and prevented the US military from helping Chiang Kai-shek win the civil war in China after the 'loss' of China to communism correct? Is Donald Trump Jr. correct in his present claims that the Chinese Communist Party has infiltrated the Democratic Party? Ideas like this are circumstantial and evolve as the world and emotions of the theorists evolve. Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 01:25, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

"Have you ever talked with proponents of conspiracy theories?" Yes. I'm also well aware of the psychology behind conspiracy theories, though I don't wander into conversations about said psychology and say "but actually conspiracies actually occur!" like a poorly disguised troll or whatever. There's explaining complex issues and trying to lay out the perspectives of people, and then there's being pointlessly vague and making open ended devil's advocacy. Usually the difference is in framing so people know what the fuck you're doing. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 02:20, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

According to the research on the subject I've read, there are several distinct psychological profiles of conspiracy theorists. Some use conspiracy theories in a framework of motivated reasoning, often oriented around justifying and validating extreme ideological beliefs. Kinda obviously, these conspiracists are only like conspiracies with a certain political slant. Others tend towards seeking a community that validates them, and such conspiracists gladly accept anyone who says they're right. This second profile tends to correspond with feelings of failure in traditional arenas of social acceptance: local communities, family, wealth, or friends. These ones also tend to be the most drawn towards crank magnetism and grand unified conspiracies. The more "secret insight" they have others don't the better they feel.

I've not read any research that supports this, but I wonder how much both groups are exacerbated by grifters who know they're bullshitting but can get rich off selling delusional people what they want to hear. I suspect a lot. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 04:44, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah the 'access to forbidden gnosis' that makes people feel special was an appeal I forgot to mention in the main post. Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 05:48, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

“Usually the difference is in framing so people know what the fuck you're doing.” I’m pointing out something that’s very basic, and which is often missing from these sorts of discussions. Let’s take a tangent that may make this clearer:

What is the psychology of dieting? It’s a topic that attracts a lot of woo, fads, and shysters. Many people have strong feelings about it, and have formed camps that reinforce their own beliefs and oppose other camps. There are numerous reasons why someone would like dieting and these related issues. It presses all sorts of psychological buttons of the sort that have been mentioned above. But why do people care about the topic of dieting at all? Because in observable reality, what people eat has significant influences over their health. Most people in the developed world eat too much, and with a poor nutrient profile, which results in a variety of negative health consequences, which incentivizes interest in the topic. There is an actual substance of importance to the topic of dieting, and despite all the woo and gnashing of teeth, it is something that reasonable, responsible people should take seriously and be informed about.

Conspiracies are much the same. There is a lot of nonsense involved to be sure, but conspiracies are real things that can have serious effects. I would remind you that this is why disputing certain conspiracy theories is illegal in much of the world. This significance is why people care about the topic, and why they direct their attention and neuroses towards it. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 09:49, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Comrade hit the nail on the head. Not everyone who believes in a conspiracy theory is stupid. Conspiracy theories are HEAVILY driven by emotions, which can affect anyone regardless of their IQ score. Funny thing is that conspiracy theorists often pull the "You just don't want to believe it" card all the time, even though it can literally be used right back at them. Aaronmichael5 21:58, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I've read a fair bit on this subject from a non-clinical-psych POV. Evolutionarily, there is a balance to be had between accurate assessments, but there will always be Type I errors (thinking that the duck in the reeds is a lion) and Type II errors (thinking that the lion in the reeds is a duck). Excess in either error isn't good for people as a species: a tendency to over-ascribe malice to the environment can help protect against lions, but if you think everything is a lion, you won't get anything done, much less catch and eat that duck. Obviously, thinking lions are ducks would kill humanity rather quickly. In general, there is less lost by wrongly ascribing malice, in an evolutionary setting where our ancestors lived in small groups and didn't tend to last past 30 anyway. So there will always be people with a tendency to see malicious patterns where there are none. The tradeoff must have been fine enough for our population with the conditions under which we evolved in African, but dealing with conspiracies in an environment with constant media, state and non-state propagandists, poor education, etc., with the same brain and genetics makes it much tougher. The internet has made it possible for the one lion-fearer from every small band and troop of human apes to get together in echo chambers where everyone thinks every duck is a lion. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 21:12, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

That's actually really elaborate, nice one. Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 02:11, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Glad you found it interesting. Another thing a lot of literature mentions is how belief in conspiracy theory tracks inversely to faith in government and institutions. A classic if old work is Richard Hofstader's "The Paranoid Style in American Politics." CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 20:47, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

"Paranoid writing begins with certain broad defensible judgments. There was something to be said for the anti-Masons. After all, a secret society composed of influential men bound by special obligations could conceivable pose some kind of threat to the civil order in which they were suspended. There was also something to be said for the Protestant principles of individuality and freedom, as well as for the nativist desire to develop in North America a homogeneous civilization. Again, in our time an actual laxity in security allowed some Communists to find a place in governmental circles, and innumerable decisions of World War II and the Cold War could be faulted."

It is foolish, of course, to have faith that people with power will not abuse it if given the opportunity. That's a major impetus behind the democratic form of government, and the various checks and balances that underlie much of the structure of various governments. The idea is that there is publicly-accountable oversight in place, and if corruption is found, it can be peacefully removed. This is a rather important function of various institutions, and though it's never worked perfectly, there is a big difference between making an honest attempt and not trying at all, as seen in much of the world. Because, if given the opportunity, people will often conspire to mutual benefit at the expense of others. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 12:18, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Morality/ethics question

Hello RationalWiki, my name is Alyssa and I am a student at the University of Florida. I am doing a research project for my philosophy class, and I am trying to get input from people of various worldviews. I've come here to get a representation of the rationalist worldview, but people of other worldviews are welcome to participate. I would greatly appreciate if some contributors to this wiki could answer the questions below. Thank you in advance, and I look forward to reading your answers.

• What are your religious beliefs?
• How do you define life? What do you think makes humans human?
• Do you think animals should be granted basic rights like humans?
• What do you know about artificial intelligence? Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of artificial intelligence? Please elaborate.
• In your opinion, should artificially intelligent devices have rights like real animals and humans?
• In your opinion, is it okay to cause or allow artificially intelligent beings, including video game characters, personal assistants like Siri or Alexa, and complex systems like IBM's Watson, to suffer? Are there some cases in which it is okay others in which it is not? Why or why not?
• In your opinion, is it okay to cause or allow animals, including domestic pets, farm animals, wild mammals, birds, fish, and insects, to suffer? Are there some cases in which it is okay others in which it is not? Why or why not?
• In your opinion, is it ever okay to cause humans to suffer? Why or why not?

Again, thank you in advance. AlyssaD (talk) 23:28, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

On the subject of AI we firstly need to establish that Non-Player Characters are ultimately hollow simulacra. No matter how detailed they are, they lack the ability to make any actual decisions. They're just puppets with scripts. As for Siri and Alexa, they're just glorified search engines. Really, that's what they are past the fancy paintjob. The only actual AI listed as an example is Watson, and even that isn't very impressive once the novelty factor wears off. Again, it lacks automy and self awareness, which makes it at best nothing more than a well trained artificial dog. Finally, as to "should these or should these not suffer?" the answer is that they can't suffer in the same way humans can. Literally, they lack pain receptors and the self awareness needed for emotional trauma. Now, if a theoretical AI had those features, it would of course be unethical and immoral to cause them suffering. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 23:50, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

• Atheist.
• This is a difficult question to answer. I think it is impossible to point to a single factor without thereby excluding some people from being human, which I think would be objectionable. I'll posit that it is a combination of various factors, without trying to pick out specifics.
• Animals should be granted some moral standing, but not as much as humans, and not the same for all animals. Not all animals have equal capacities to suffer. Humans can suffer from physical pain, emotional pain, anxieties about the future, etc. Some animals may share some (perhaps even all) these capacities, at least to a degree. A sponge, or a jellyfish, however, shares few of them, and so has fewer interests. Deliberately torturing an animal is always going to be wrong, but it might cause more total suffering to allow the mosquito to keep sucking your dog's blood than to just kill it; the mosquito has no goals or interests in the future, and so cannot suffer by the permanent loss of the potential to achieve such goals.
• I don't know a whole lot about AI. I am neutral toward artificial intelligence in itself; at this stage, the ethical burden of AI still falls wholly on its creators. They are responsible for what it does. AI has great potential to achieve good and bad things, but as of yet it is essentially a tool.
• As it currently stands, AI devices have no capacity to act as moral agents and have no capacity to suffer. They cannot plan for the future or have goals or interests. Currently, AI devices should have no rights. If an AI with greater capacities were developed, it should be granted rights. Creating an AI that has the capacity to suffer seems like it would be ethically dubious in itself, though.
• I do not think that NPCs, Siri, Alexa, or Watson have the capacity to suffer. If an AI with the capacity to suffer were created, this capacity would be ethically relevant in making decisions. However, I question the ethics of developing an AI that has a capacity to suffer in the first place. Suffering is suffering, no matter who or what is experiencing it.
• Deliberately causing animals to suffer is prima facie unethical. I do not believe we have any obligation to reduce the suffering of animals in the wild below the natural level. Causing suffering of domestic animals may be justified all-things-considered. For instance, vaccinating a dog might cause the dog pain in the moment, but there is an overriding justification that outweighs that suffering. Allowing a domestic animal to suffer, when this suffering can be alleviated or prevented, is unethical. I'll note here that I do not believe that the capacity to suffer alone is an adequate grounding for moral status. I think it is sufficient to grant moral status, but not necessary.
• Deliberately causing humans to suffer is prima facie unethical, and thus requires an overriding consideration to justify it. Vaccination is again a good example. I also believe in ethical fixed points that restrain the permissible utilitarian strategies to maximize total utility. Even if it turned out to be true that enslaving some people would have such enormous benefits that total global utility increased, I still think it would be wrong to enslave people. Utility maximization in-itself is not necessarily a sufficient justification to cause suffering to some.

Good luck on your project! 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 00:31, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

For the last question, if someone hurt my family you can be sure that I would cause the attacker harm. --Agimi i Apokalipsit (talk) 00:44, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

If you were able to take a scientific poll of RationalWiki users, you would probably find a fairly diverse range of opinions for those questions. You can find the results of an attempt at a community-wide survey here: Forum:2017 Community Survey Results. Bongolian (talk) 05:53, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

• Atheist. I've never heard a convincing argument for a god and even if I were to take the assumption that a god exists, the fact that there is suffering in this world would mean two things. Either that god is an asshole and willingly lets humans suffer, or that god is impotent and incapable of doing anything. Either one means we should not worship it.
• A complicated question. I don't have a straight answer for either. I can give the biological answer in that life is what someone or something experiences from birth until their death (and what happens after that is not something we'll know). As to what makes someone human, this is hard to define as well. I'd personally have to say it's our adaptability. We're a resilient species, having changed relatively very little in how we spread across the world, which is rather impressive. One fertile human on any place on the planet can have offspring with any other fertile human on the planet; there are no different subspecies like there are with most other animal species that had to survive in different environments.
• No. Animals are fundamentally different from human beings. While I wouldn't mind some improvements like making domestic animal abuse an offense, saying that an animal should have the exact same basic rights as humans is not something I would agree with, mostly because of how different we are.
• AI; I have a rather mixed view on this. I personally classify AI under "hard AI" and "soft AI" (defined per the chinese room experiment). Hard AI would be real intelligence, capable of thinking and making decisions on it's own and understanding it's input and being able to learn from that. Soft AI is "fake" intelligence; it's not capable of learning on it's own, you need to supply it information and tell it how to understand it before it becomes useful. As for my opinions on AI: I believe that if we can invent a "Hard AI" (which I for now believe to be impossible but let's run on the hypothetical), we have managed to basically construct a God. Computers have exceeded our own processing speed years ago, so if we constructed a Hard AI, it would have to logically end up processing beyond our understanding extremely quickly. Insofar as I have opinions on it: I don't feel like I can have opinions on it. It would be so far beyond my understanding that it is unlikely it would matter or change anything. Soft AI meanwhile I have a wide range of opinions on. I think it's an interesting thing to develop and research, but I have major problems with the application of said AI at the moment (being used for mostly Big Brother-esque shenanigans and being used to basically provide a distance from human decisions). Other "soft" AI are far less harmful; landing computers in airplanes and the like technically would count as an AI, but they have helped society. A very mixed bag and I believe that we are going to need legislation surrounding soft AIs very soon.
• Hard AI; yes (although what we define as human rights in this case wouldn't likely have to apply to it, again see the "construct a God" part). Soft AIs; no.
• Most of those wouldn't clear the barrier of AI to the point where ethics of suffering enter this discussion. For me to deem this as an ethical problem, it would mean that your actions would cause irreversible damage to an AIs understanding of the world for an extended period of time. In practice, videogame NPCs forget what you're doing the moment you close the game or make a new save file. They're all scripted, so any understanding they have of harm you do to them is programmed into them by the developers. Siri and Alexa are much the same; they have a limited amount of knowledge about who you are (typically not much beyond name and gender), but otherwise are scripted. The reason they seem a lot more "human" compared to NPCs is because they have a fancy voice recognition program and a TTS program that gives them a "close enough to real" constructed voice. Watson would be the closest to an AI that could clear this, but even there the AI just isn't really thinking about suffering; it's more thinking about the best way it can respond to you. Therefore, it would not logically be able to suffer.
• A complicated question. A straight "no" would enter the discussion of "don't you eat meat" territory and quickly risks going to places like PETA-esque stances. The reality of it is that I object to causing prolonged suffering to animals. I don't object to eating meat (and enjoy a good burger myself): after all we're omnivores and that's part of our diet and what we can safely eat. Similarly, domesticated animals I don't have issue with as long as they're properly taken care of.
• What would be suffering here? The problem with a lot of questions about suffering is that it's hard to explain what it is really supposed to be. With this being the most direct question with no distances to it, I suppose I can give you my view on what suffering is. This comes with the addition that I believe that suffering should be reduced as much as possible. Specifically, I define suffering as inflicting needless pain on someone that will affect how they look at the world. Of course, I can't say that I think no human should ever suffer. There are definite cases where I believe that suffering is the more humane thing to do (after all, theoretically speaking the death penalty causes less long-term suffering than lifetime in prison, but there are many other moral factors as to why the death penalty is a bad idea), but on a general basis, I do object to inflicting needless pain on someone.

Good luck with your research project and I hope that these answers would be useful. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 09:24, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

What are your religious beliefs? I am a skeptic. I do not believe there is sufficient evidence for gods, faeries or Bigfoot.

How do you define life? What do you think makes humans human? These are two very different questions and I'n not sure why you have classed them together. Definitions of life are very difficult and don't easily fit in one line. Human DNA makes humans human.

Do you think animals should be granted basic rights like humans? It depends on the animal. I would give rights to primates which I wouldn't give to houseflies.

What do you know about artificial intelligence? Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of artificial intelligence? Please elaborate. I know something about it. It can be very useful.

In your opinion, should artificially intelligent devices have rights like real animals and humans? No, certainly not at present.

In your opinion, is it okay to cause or allow artificially intelligent beings, including video game characters, personal assistants like Siri or Alexa, and complex systems like IBM's Watson, to suffer? Are there some cases in which it is okay others in which it is not? Why or why not? There is no reason to believe such things are capable of "suffering", so no.

In your opinion, is it okay to cause or allow animals, including domestic pets, farm animals, wild mammals, birds, fish, and insects, to suffer? Are there some cases in which it is okay others in which it is not? Why or why not? Wild animals suffer all the time whether I "allow" it or not. I would not wish to cause any animal to suffer.

In your opinion, is it ever okay to cause humans to suffer? Why or why not? Sure. Putting them in prison, for example, makes them suffer.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 11:17, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

• Some religious beliefs are slightly toxic, most of it is irredeemable human damage. I'll begin to take any supernatural claims seriously after seeing one shred of evidence that withstands the most elementary scrutiny. I respect the right of the religious to believe in whatever stupidity they hold onto but I will do everything I can to stop them from imposing their nonsense on everyone else.
• To be human is to have DNA within certain parameters and not have permanent cessation of brain activity. You almost certainly though not absolutely certainly have a range of common characteristics. There are too many of those to name.
• Animals should be granted the basic rights that we humans have once we can work out a way to comprehensively implement them. Until then I am weary of those who get rabid over the consumption of free range eggs but call an exterminator when they have a roach infestation.
• It is probably a mistake to allow AI to develop to the point that they have sufficient agency and feelings, desires, suffer that they would need such rights. I don't trust any human for a second to build sufficient safeguards to avoid catastrophe and you are ridiculously naive if you think it could be done
• Why would we construct anything that could suffer?
• No I don't think its reasonable to allow animals to "pointlessly" suffer. What is "pointless" is another question I cannot answer in one paragraph.
• I don't think it is ever okay to be the cause of a person (or anything) to pointlessly suffer. My doctor had to set my leg after I had a complex fracture with bones sticking out of my skin. It was worse than all the pain I have ever suffered since all put together times a gazillion. Imagine the feeling of the entire universe trying to hurt you all at once. But him not doing that would have meant I would lose my foot. That's one example of non-pointless suffering. So yeah...its a complex question that requires more than a paragraph to answer. ShabiDOO 13:48, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

---

• Protestant Christian
• Life is a chemical process that allows discrete organisms to consume resources and rweproduce more similar organisms. The defining human adaptation appears to be language use.
• Absolutely not. Nature does not grant them any rights, and animals kept by humans want to be there. Animal rights is moreover a toxic cult of moralistic bullies.
• Probably not as much as I should, so I don't have strong opinions on it, but it seems an interesting toy.
• Absolutely not. Any AI created by humans is a tool, entirely at the disposal of its owner.
• They are computer programs, I don't understand what it would mean for them to suffer.
• I don't think we should make them suffer more than they would in the wild. But this gives us a fairly wide scope of action. Any duty we have to prevent animal suffering is not a duty owed to an animal, but rahter a duty to our higher selves.
• In some ways, yes; institutions like prisons are designed to make humans suffer. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 14:04, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

---

(edit, making more clear for your project)

Depends on the animal. Most animals are not capable of self-awareness, certainly anything that fails the mirror test lacks enough self awareness to be considered sentient. "Consciousness" is a nebulous concept, but if you aren't conscious, well, your life has less value. It's unclear if an AI would ever be conscious and aware of its own existence even if it was capable of decision-making and other behaviors demonstrating intelligence. But if a machine was ever built that was conscious, I'd oppose its mistreatment.

Most people are in fact perfectly capable of seeing a robot as a "fellow being", as evidenced by Scooby Doo. The military had given a packbot to one of their squads, so they named it Scooby Doo. Scooby was a member of the squad, disposing of over a dozen IEDs and saving fellow squadmates. Eventually though, it succumbed to an IED. The soldiers rushed Scooby back to the repair yard and broke down in tears, and no, a replacement robot wouldn't be enough, because it wasn't their squadmate. And stories like that are not unique...CorSock (talk) 14:40, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

• Vaguely Jewish
• Life is basically anything that grows and replicates itself. Human life, I'd define by our minds. A person with severe brain damage to the point of no longer being capable of conscious thought is effectively dead, even if they aren't vegetative. As for what rights that person has, that's more for what makes us feel comfortable rather than what inherent rights the now-braindead person has. I don't think going into a hospital and shooting someone in a permanent coma is "murder", but I do think someone who does such a thing is a menace to society and would have no problem convicting that person of murder.
• I don't think rights are inherent to the universe; they are a social construct and are thus whatever we say they are, so the question isn't quite sensical. Personally, I only believe rights can exist if they can be reciprocated; if you don't respect the right to life of others, it's not a violation to kill you to save the life of someone else. Animals, as far as we are aware, don't seem to believe any other animals have rights, so, no, they don't get the same rights. That said, there are certain basics; we should ban torture of animals, for example, though less so for the sake of the animal and more because I don't feel comfortable living in a neighborhood with someone who derives pleasure from torturing animals to death.
• I work a bit with computers and in a field related to "machine learning". I have yet to see actual artificial intelligence. But I am somewhat in favor of artificial intelligence, and don't think it's an inherently bad thing.
• If AI ever does become a thing, and the intelligence is able to prove it is aware of itself, then there should be some basic rights. You can't create intelligence only to destroy it, at least not unless there really is a good purpose, e.g., we are sending a robot on a 1-way journey to another star system to explore.
• Video game characters are not intelligent. In the event that AI's exist, video game characters would be proxies of the character and not the AI itself. If I'm playing chess against the AI, if I play against the AI and kill a few pawns, I didn't kill the AI, any more than meatspace chess involves me murdering my opponent when I get 'mate, at least not unless I'm playing some really screwed up game of chess. In the event that the video game characters are somehow actual AI's that get created and deleted instead of a proxy of an AI system, then yeah, that'd be uncomfortable. Don't see what the purpose of that would be though.
• In terms of animal suffering, we should work to minimizing suffering in general, but less because of the animal and more for us. Animals in crowded unsanitary conditions are the source of so many of our diseases, including possibly this one we are dealing with right now. Poor sanitation has consequences for us. And people who are mean to animals are mean to humans. As for which animals have rights and whatnot, I also see certain "friend" animals differently. Horses and dogs fight alongside humans in war, and you don't eat your fellow soldier, so horse and dog should not be on the menu. Cows may have also been used to pull carts and work and such, but didn't fight alongside us in any significance, so they don't get the same respect.
• Depends what you mean by suffering. Smacking a hand and causing pain is suffering, but can be useful to teach not to do something that'd create even more suffering. Really, suffering should only be allowed to prevent more suffering. If all you are doing is creating more suffering, well, no, that's not good. There's also the question of reducing suffering, but that's a long topic. CorruptUser 03:30, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

---

• Satanist
• Life simply is the ability for an organism to go through a basic cycle consuming some sort of sustenance and convert it into energy. Humanity is defined by sentience, morality and complex society.
• I believe that humans should begin to explicitly move away from using animals for energy skins. This will not be a quick process, but current conditions for animals threaten humans both in their production of planet warming gasses and increasing the risk that pathogens develop. I also would like to see laws put in place that specifically protect wildlife from poaching and consumption, and designate which animals can actually be domesticated. However animals lack the complex society, so they don't have "humanity".
• I am in favor of AI developed and deployed in an equitable and anti-racist fashion. AI needs to be limited, so that it doesn't actually make any decisions, only provides information for humans to make decisions.
• No.
• Suffering is a trait limited to things that can feel pain, both physical and emotionally. AI should be designed without those characteristics
• The debate here centers around the cause of the suffering. Are humans the cause of the suffering? Then it should be limited as much as possible. If other animals/insects are the cause of the suffering, what are the circumstances? Humans have a responsibility to protect animals, especially wildlife and domesticated animals, when they are threatened by other animals. Circumstances have made humans responsible for putting the threatened animal under threat. But we have no responsibility to alleviate the suffering of wildlife interacting with each other, where no human actions created the interaction.(i.e. lions hunting gazelles)
• This is not a simple question. In the macro, the answer is yes. Human suffering is the only constant. Should suffering be limited? Certainly. There is so much preventable suffering across the globe, that is an indictment on humanity in general. But as an individual you can also bring about your own suffering, from your own actions or thoughts. Satanism in this instance addresses suffering in the most appropriate way. You should go through life treating people with dignity and respect. But when they do not reciprocate, you are free to destroy them. As a human being, you should be comfortable and safe within your mind and body. And those that threaten that, must be dealt with.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 17:42, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

---

• Agnostic Catholic
• I define it as an outcome of sexual reproduction that only becomes philosophical from the mind. When I think of what makes someone human, I think of Animal Collective's Spirit They're Gone, Spirit They've Vanished. It was essentially a coming-of-age album with the theme of how difficult it is to "let go" of our childhoods. I feel like yearning for those years again is what makes us Human.
• Animals have always been based on a food chain system, always hunting, killing, and eating the "little guy". I think the way we treat animals is the result of asserting ourselves in the animal kingdom. I do feel like we have exceeded those expectations quite a bit, so I do believe that we should treat them a little bit more fairly than we are right now.
• As a programmer, AI to me is a series of code that can be adapted from the data it learns and how it does. I think AI is very useful in the fields of science because it gives experimentations less margin of human error, plus I find it interesting of what you can do with it to create artwork.
• I think that's a moot question because AI to me is just a series of code that runs another series of code. If we boil it down to the basics of computer science, it's like asking is it ethical to use the buttons on a 4-function calculator.
• See the above
• Animals already cause other animals to suffer, but we need to set limits to ourselves since we are smart enough to do so.
• It's the unfortunate truth that the greatest teacher to humanity is suffering. Punishments to an extent are a form of suffering, like paying a large fine for serious criminal cases and taking away a kid's toy if they draw on the wall. It's only effective if the sufferer is knowingly doing something wrong, being raped, tortured, kidnapped, trafficked, and abused makes you a victim, not the sufferer.

I'd be interested to see the data when you finish your project. Rockford the Roe ^{boop my snoot}_{praise Oscar Wilde} 17:48, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

---

• Practicing Catholic
• I think that human is essentially a supernatural entity; both body and soul, and the preservation of life through all stages, from the uterus to the battlefield to the grave.
• Don't think so, animals are not capable of rational thought and logic.
• I have a favorable view of AI, I think it's fairly safe, since again, any intelligence an AI has is rudimentary at best, so we needn't worry about an Age of Ultron.
• No, they're mere constructs; extensions of human innovation.
• It's absolutely OK, see above.
• We have the right to use animal products, but the animals should be humanely killed.
• There are some circumstances in which suffering is beneficial, but it's shaky ground and I don't really have a full answer.

Hope it helps! Roman Sionis ^{tends to be inactive during summer} 18:46, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

If you want something vaguely resembling a consensus of RW opinion on these topics, you can look at the relevant RW pages:

1. Forum:2017 Community Survey Results#Religion
2. Life, Human
3. Animal rights
4. Artificial intelligence
5. Singularity, Roko's basilisk
6. Human rights

There are probably people on RW who disagree with things on these pages. Also, RW is not the only rationalist community. LessWrong, for example, has a rather different view of artificial intelligence and Roko's basilisk. Bongolian (talk) 19:58, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

That is possibly the best answer here.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 12:52, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Religious beliefs are one of my favorite subjects. Even atheists have them. They are ideas we have that we cannot possibly justify, yet, all the same, we have them.

1. I define my religious beliefs as anything I believe not involving existential judgments. In this way, even atheists can hold religious beliefs. It is a very personal sort of religion unrelated to established religion. I do not mean to disrespect atheists by saying their beliefs can be religious. It is actually a disrespect of religious people, whose beliefs are no better than those of atheists.
2. Human life is special to humans. I flee the tiger as the mouse flees from me. In order to say human life is like something else, it would first be necessary for something else to be like human life. I don't think that something exists.
3. Can't be done because animals wouldn't recognize one another's rights. One cannot give what is not within ones gift to give.
4. Artificial intelligence is a dubious concept. Luddites can be resentful of automation. A.I will not be more than an application for automated devices, for a very long time. It might be possible to build a nurse who could comfort one while one lies dying, at the end of ones life. It seems unnecessary to me given that they cannot possibly mean it.
5. Yes, if they were artificial humans, with operating systems that could mimick human systems reasonably well. Maybe in ten thousand years? An A.I. that mimicked polar bears, no.
6. I would want a person who created a servo-mechanism capable of suffering to be sanctioned. It simply should not be allowed to exist with such an extension. And it probably never will exist.
7. If you are unaware that indifference to the suffering of animals is probably the most serious symptom of pernicious psychopathy, then let me inform you that it is so.
8. Physical suffering? No. Never. Humans are slightly more complicated than dogs and cats. Humans can turn into riff-raff if their norms are transgressed. Many people, including many religious people, might wish harm upon you for possibly innocuous transgressions. It really makes me sick sometimes. Some people will claim to suffer at the drop of a hat.

UncleKrampus (talk) 02:39, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for all of the responses, you all have been very helpful and this is very interesting to read. Feel free to keep more coming. AlyssaD (talk) 13:55, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

---

• Atheist. I was born and raised without a religion in my household as well (unless you think in my past, funeral rituals based on Chinese folk religion count), though my parents have practiced in religion.
• I guess sometimes, the distinction between life and nonlife can be blurred, particularly with viruses and other microscopic entities. But I think life is anything that fulfills criteria outlined by scientists including homeostasis and whatnot. I think what makes humans human is ultimately going to be an arbitrary species distinction, as the species definition itself is far from solid. That being said, I think what distinguishes humans from others is primarily ability to communicate as humans evolved as social animals, but I feel a lot of emotions we experience is not wholly unique to humans as emotions is just a really primal part of our brains. We are first and foremost, emotional animals not thinking. Heck I'm not even sure if the concept of morality is specific to humans either but humans generally have those concepts more complex and can organize in society, but the concepts themselves are not unique to them.
• I believe distinction between humans and other animals are increasingly vanishing over time so I think the discussion of meat eating is only going to get more and more ethically contentious. People are noting, pigs are sweet animals. Chickens are affectionate too. I'm not 100% sure about cows but I wouldn't be surprised if they can love their owners too. I don't believe all the animal kingdom are entitled to rights because that's a hairy ethical puzzle, but I believe other animals relatively close to humans, pets and many life stock, be given a set of protections. Pets in general are widely mistreated and they seem to be an obvious step toward protection. Perhaps the protections should be different for the kinds of pets you own, but in general, pets should have access to healthcare, there should be laws applied for mistreatment of pets, and there probably should be some sort of pet registration similar to car registration or how we keep people in records. Pets I do have in mind include cats, dogs, parrots, which are three of the pets that absolutely need them but I think others like lizards, turtles, fish, and snakes should get protections too. If you cannot treat your pet well, you just should not be allowed to take care of one. I feel we have more laws on keeping cars on top shape compared to pets and that's just a weird thing to think about.
• I have a favorable view of artificial intelligence and I think it's a tool that has a lot of potential for good. I have no idea how the thing works and there have been leaps and bounds in development for them. They're just a tool in the end and I don't really believe in robot overlords but I do have concerns over how the technology is wielded. Google is already creepy enough with their algorithms. Advertisements will do anything to bother and disturb you. But this requires adjusting the laws and keeping those up to date, and that's difficult because capitalism and lobbying as well as general complacency how the technology is handled.
• No I don't believe artificial intelligence has capacity to suffer. I don't think there's a system that allows for suffering to be registered nor are there benefits for programmers to even induce something that can even register as suffering. Like, what even is suffering? A program is just a script and ultimately a bunch of 0s and 1s. I don't think that even goes a smidge to how pain and perception of pain works for organisms.
• Uhhhh I get a lot of enjoyment from killing AI such as making whatever is controlling Wario's assets achieve a defined lose state in Mario Party.
• I admit double standard on particular animals. I have little concern about mosquitoes or cockroaches or spiders, but I admit, seeing cockroaches suffer from mind-control parasites is not an easy thing to watch; same goes for spiders having wasp eggs that eat them inside out. I am slowly coming to terms with the horrors and complacency of meat eating (and meat processing/packing) across a painful bunch of the animal kingdom though, all the way to crabs and lobsters, and I'm trying my best to limit my consumption but I don't know how to get around without being sanctimonious. I don't know if I can fully rid of meat on my diet even if it's perfectly possible, but I encourage limiting meat consumption for everyone. On the other hand, I note the total hypocrisy of cat/dog lovers that try to rally to get eating meat of those animals banned but it really calls to the attention of just how horrible eating meat in general is I think. Consuming dairy and eggs also require exploiting animals, especially mass-produced eggs that require male chick culling, but I think there's a way to probably consume those products without suffering, such as people keeping pet chickens to eat eggs every once in a while.
• Most suffering I can wish on a person is of inconvenience and discomfort or over-the-top unrealistic scenarios such as "catapulting to the sun". I cannot wish death, violence, or disease on anyone even to reviled political figures. You cannot make me do lethal injections. I'll get nightmares and nausea, and it's clear the death penalty takes a heavy toll on the workers that administer so, so I cannot mean harm to anyone. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 16:59, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

---

• For me "religious" and "belief" are entirely two separate silos. One's an attribute of culture, one is what I think to be true. I don't expressly disbelieve religion, but it doesn't form the basis of why I think anything to be true.
• Kind of reductively, life is determined by meeting most of the seven biological criteria of life. A bacteria is alive. Persons(rather than humans) are any sentient creature capable of empathy, inductive reasoning, meta-cognition, and enlightened self interest. A robot, a dog, an alien, whatever. As long as they have those qualities I'll treat them like I treat people.
• See above answer. But also as humans we have some responsibility to treat creatures not capable of that with a modicum of decency. Not full human rights though.
• I'm fairly competent with machine learning as a technology, though I'm still stuck in the bygone age of neural nets like it's 2018 or something, transformers are baffling magic. Regardless, we're still decades away from something that combines empathy, inductive reasoning, meta-cognition, and enlightened self-interest.
• Again see point two.
• Suffering as we know it is an artifact of evolution trying to push us to avoid negative outcomes. There may eventually be an analogue to that, but the closest modern AI comes to that, at a technical level, is adjusting tuning parameters. Which is not the same at all.
• "Allow" is doing some heavy lifting here. If my dog chases a snake and gets bitten, have I allowed him to suffer, since I know the consequences better than he? Certainly causing unnecessary suffering in any creature speaks badly to your sense of empathy, and thus your quality as a person, but trying to construct a deontological law about "allowing" it seems foolhardy.
• A just society does not unnecessarily enable hurting people. But people hurt each other for a variety of sensible and senseless reasons, and often the only avenues to prevent that also hurt people. Constructing ethical boundaries around this are an ongoing challenge. Certainly we could do better than what the US does. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:44, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

---

• Athiest. Brought up Evangelical Christian.
• Life? Dunno, not a biologist. My guess would be MRS GREN. As for what makes us human? Being a member of the species homo sapiens. Duh.
• No. See below.
• Little knowledge about AI. Hopefully it's well-regulated and the benefits will be shared throughout all society.
• AI is a tool; it is not alive; it is not sentient. AI does not have the capacity for emotion or suffering, and thus does not need any rights.
• In their current state, it is perfectly ethical to treat "artificially intelligent characters" like shit, as per above. If it were somehow possible in the future, I would think it is immoral to create a sentient AI.
• Regarding wild animals, I would suggest they should be treated as outside our domain. We don't have any responsibility to prevent suffering. Our responsibility to them lies in preserving nature in its purest form, as much as practicable. (This would allow for, for example, pest control.) Regarding domestic animals, where practicable, we have a responsibility to minimize total suffering shared between all animals, including humans. Not all suffering is equal; it might be assessed by an organism's capacity for intelligence, emotion, life, love.
• Answer as per domestic animals, though human life is worth a lot more than that of an animal. I'm similarly unconvinced all human life is necessarily of equal value. For example, consider a young child and an elderly person; or an altruistic entrepreneur and a violent criminal. Kauri0.o (talk) 05:59, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Squirrel in a woodchipper

Would a piranha eat whatever comes out of sticking a squirrel in a woodchipper? I was just wondering. Revenant Raven (talk) 14:30, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

When piranhas eat squirrels they prefer them frappéd in a blender (fur removed before hand) with a dollop of yoghurt and low-fat soy milk added. ShabiDOO 17:02, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

In point of fact piranhas have an undeserved reputation for ferocity. They don't automatically strip anything living to the bone. I have, in fact, tested this by swimming the Amazon when there were piranhas nearby. Our local guide was happy to do the same.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 17:49, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Depends on the species, but the great majority really don't want anything to do with humans. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:54, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

what the hell kind of question is this Princess Mononoke^{radio contact} 07:04, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

I have a better question. Why are you bent on chipping squirrels? Kencolt (talk) 01:27, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

... why would a piranha eat anything that comes out of a woodchipper to begin with? TheJakeHolmesVersion (talk) 13:24, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

They are scavengers, though if hungry they will attack an injured animal. Their bite may be extremely powerful, but it's slow and not meant for catching anything that can fight back. So if there's squirrel chunks, they'd eat it. CorSock (talk) 13:56, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Site Stats

In case anybody is interested. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 01:45, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 09:15, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Interesting how constant the total monthly edits from accounts with less than 300 edits seems to be, having “total months” as the x axis on a graph spanning multiple years without anything to indicate year is a bit weird. Christopher (talk) 19:06, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

@Christopher Yeah, I know the x-axis is not great, but it was the fastest thing to do; I'll upload a better version with years and months marked instead. I also noticed the constancy of that edit rate. I made a separate graph of it, but didn't post it; I might do that when I get a better x-axis. Another interesting thing I noticed is that the cumulative edits according to edit count are lower than the number from special:statistics, by about 100,000. I think the difference is maybe in edits to deleted pages, but it still seems like a lot (about 6% of all edits). Another thing I noticed is that there seems to be a different overall trajectory for total monthly accounts and for monthly accounts with multiple edits, which is a bit odd. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 23:22, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 00:05, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

My sleepy thoughts on North Korea

Invade it before haircut boy gets too many nukes. He's going to launch someday or the other; right now NATO missile shields might *just* block all his nuclear warheads if we take him by surprise, but if he builds up to some 100+ warheads and then launches later on, some cities in Korea and Japan will be no more. Best to launch a surprise invasion and finish him off. Meow^Purr 07:45, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

There is no chance that Kim Jong-un would launch nukes at another major nuclear state, or any state for that matter. Such an act would ensure his death and the destruction of his state. The advantage he has from nukes is from possessing them - not using them. However, if "someone" were to invade NK then the chances of a nuclear response from NK would be very high, because Kim Jong-un would then personally have very little left to lose. Your suggestion would produce the very situation you wish to avoid.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 08:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

the whole point of nukes for nk is any attack on them would devastation for neighbours - south korea, and depending on their tech, japan. the us are unlikely to be troubled, but even without working missles, just detonating a nuke on the border with the south the death toll would be horrific. they are super paranoid about the us invading since forever, and china has become less reliable a safeguard against american aggression than it once was for them. states like north korea have no defence against us, nuke or no nuke. if china looked the other way, the state nk is in, it would not last long. much is made of n korean paranoia, but with warnings of imminent destruction from mouths of us presidents, and, you know, iraq, the already paranoid must have been amped up for most the century thus far. it would have been messy before but now? its not the us in the firing the line. it would cost its allies dearly for american bravado.

missles tests in n korea and claims of an ability to strike the us directly are not convincing. tests are not a warning to the us, they are kim asking to have a chat. they say while everyone knows the us is safe from direct harm, military action - invasions or drone strikes, is now out. they say we know testing makes the us public anxious demanding action that risks escalation, but cant be ignored. what to do. our economy is tanking says kim. lets make a deal. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:49, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

All leaders, be they the sweetest huggable democratic leaders or the most brutal dictators...do 95%+ of what they do in order to stay in power (and/or assist their party's long term prospects and/or further their life long interests). You should view 95% of political decision making through this lens. When it comes to foreign policy I would say 100% of their decisions is motivated by this. Any action that will threaten their hold on power is avoided at all costs (unless not doing it costs more). As Bob_M points out well above...sending out a nuke unprovoked = the end of Kim staying in power. Thus there is virtually no chance he, or anyone in their government will do it. Not even a long-shot rival trying to take power would try it, or encourage it because it would mean their demise as well. I would say in terms of all international relations at the moment, one of the safest bets you could possibly make is Kim not sending off one of his nukes short of being invaded. ShabiDOO 20:04, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Small question: are you okay with having millions of deaths on your hands? ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:49, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Kim Jong Un isn't going to launch nukes. Period. He wants them so he can force other countries to the bargaining table internationally and to strengthen his image as a strong leader domestically. There is no realistic scenario where he actually uses the damned things. US policy towards North Korea should remain as it is, polite indifference/mild condemnation. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 15:58, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

The politest response I have here is that this is an idiotic idea. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 22:50, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

@DuceMoosolini Maybe it was idiotic - I was just dropping my unfiltered thoughts. The main thing was that if all sorts of petty dictators here and there started getting nukes, one of them (at least some, as a rule, go bonkers sometimes) would end up pressing the button - eg. Pol Pot was idiotic enough to try invading Vietnam. Meow^Purr 15:36, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

thats probably a reason why as a rule the international community is generally against the idea of nuclear proliferation. north korea is the only regime in recent years that has acquired a nuke, with questionable. reliability. they didnt pick it up down the market either, they've been working on it since the 1980. materials, tech and know are tightly controlled. iran is the only nation who both feel the need for a nuke and has the ability to produce one sanctions are place to hamper there efforts. a new nuclear is required to halt it completely. there isnt anyone else who who have ability or inclination to build a bomb. there are few who could probably afford to especially when they hit with sanctions. and potentially decades long commitment to bear fruit, if at all. wont do no good in a border dispute. nor in a civil war. there are no crazy tyrants running rogue states who is going to surprise the world with a nuclear arsenal. if there is an equivalent of pol pot today, theres no chance in hell of gaining nuclear weapon unless they found it down the back of sofa.

you stop petty dictators from nuking everyone by making sure they cannot get hold of the things in first place. because once they have been acquired you've missed the boat for military intervention. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:36, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

North Korea

North Korea is a weak agrarian economy under severe trade sanctions that has limited allies. They can try to remedy this situation in several ways. A), they can try to leverage military might (won't work, too small and too dicey even if it wasn't). B), they can try to leverage trade goods (won't work, they mostly just have rice). C), they can try to leverage intelligence assets (won't work, they don't have any internationally), D), they can try to leverage general international influence (won't work, they don't have the clout or IOUs). Or E), they can try to leverage nuclear weapons capabilities. The last one is their best bet since it also works to keep the population loyal domestically while forcing foreign leaders to take them seriously and open negotiations. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 16:24, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Plus, Iraq and Libya and many others show what happens when US-unfriendly dictatorships don’t have nukes. Bush and his idiot warmonger supporters from both parties inadvertently made the best possible case in favor of Third World proliferation. Yee-haw! Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 22:49, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

The flip side to that, of course, is small to medium-sized states hoping to initiate a nuclear weapons programme know they're opening themselves up to a whole world of economic / diplomatic pain unless they somehow manage to swerve the repercussions until they've developed viable warheads and the ICBMs to deliver them them. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 00:09, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

If I remember correctly that is what happened to both India and Pakistan. They developed their nuclear weapons, withstood the economic heat for a decade or so, and then were accepted back into the international community when other more pressing issues arose.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 06:50, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

All true, but it's not like Kim sees much of a choice in the matter. He wants to stay in power and build up North Korea as a regional power. This is his best bet to achieve those goals. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 01:10, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

So this struck my mind about black holes

Based on these premises:

• no outside observer can ever see anything cross the event horizon due to extreme time dilation
• black holes decay via Hawking radiation

...how can anything fall into a black hole? To an outside observer, nothing will ever cross the horizon, even if they wait an infinite amount of time. Thus, if they simply wait long enough, whatever they anticipate will eventually fall into the hole simply won't because the black hole will evaporate before an endless amount of time passes by. Perhaps there are reasons to doubt the theory of relativity? Hydronium hydroxide (talk) 02:29, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

From what I know about Black Holes (not a lot, you should talk to an expert or watch a science video), after passing the event horizon the laws of physics become radically different. Keep in mind that Black Holes are extremely mysterious still. --Agimi i Apokalipsit (talk) 02:46, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, but to an outside observer, nothing will cross an event horizon ever because the entire black hole will evaporate before an infinite amount of time passes. My point is regarding the horizon of a black hole and not what's beneath it. Hydronium hydroxide (talk) 02:52, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

An outside observer will never see an infalling object cross the event horizon. However, from the object's perspective, it will pass the event horizon in a finite amount of time. This is a consequence of relativistic time dilation. Here's an intuitive way to think about it. The light reflecting off the object is also affected by the gravity of the black hole. As the object approaches the event horizon, the time needed for the light coming off it to escape the gravity well increases, so it appears to slow down from the outside. EyeSky (talk) 03:14, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

This is also my understanding.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 08:38, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

You might not see it CROSS the event horizon because you can't see whatever is going on on the other side of that event horizon - so it would "simply" appear to disintegrate and/or disappear AT the event horizon. Aloysius the Gaul 04:13, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Rose McGowan says Democrats are in a deep cult

• Rose McGowan says Democrats are in a deep cult

If Democrats are in a cult, what is the best way to deprogram them? Falkner (talk) 04:40, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Cool Story, bro. Revolverman (talk) 11:47, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

As someone who registered as Independent when I reached the age of majority, and yet consistently votes Democrat in elections, and always in national elections, maybe the best way would be to stop considering it an "us versus them" and be able to think critically about the people in power, rather than just froth at the mouth. It's not black and white, Hillary Clinton, as secretary of state, had to be stopped on the Keystone pipeline, she actually committed a crime by telling TransCanada they could go ahead and start construction, no fucking weird child trafficking or lesbian political deals, people are such maniacs. I still voted for her, because Donald Trump also needed to be stopped on the Keystone pipeline. At the highest level of politics in America, we are voting for liars and grifters. Since it is my personal responsibility to vote, I would vote for any liar or grifter by default, but they would have to have some level of responsibility. I assume that's where my vote is going. To assume that Democrat voters are in a deep cult, and to use a Fox News clip as a reference really bums me out. McGowan never endorsed the right, but was careful when she almost compared Republicans to Democrats. That's how dogwhistling works. Populism put Trump in office, but the weird thing is it's not because everyone who voted for him is insane, it's that the Republicans that expected Trump to do Republican things voted for him anyway. And he became a Republican that increased the national debt by 8 trillion. That's not how Republicans traditionally spend. So, Donald Trump, fake Republican, also not performing his responsibilities to his voters, and they somehow don't care. That's cultish. I don't interact with a lot of actual factual democrats, so I wouldn't see the cult end of that side, but yeah, I'll vote blue as long as the GOP continues to collect dollars from people and uses them to specifically protect institutions that already collect dollars from people. I understand there is a business class that can get hurt by not having cheap labor. I also understand that there is a business class that requires a cheap labor force. I think it's pretty nonsensical to assume the business class cares what happens to any single member of the labor force once they reach a level of financial stability that would make their labor expensive to purchase. I see it, personally, as impractical and naive to vote on party lines. Oversimplified: I just vote against the worse liar. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 09:29, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

That was painful bullshit to listen to. Calling the democrats or republicans a "cult" is ridiculous hyperbole. I wouldn't even call some far left or far right European parties "cults". The democratic party isn't even proposing remotely radical political changes by the standards of the rest of the Western world and the fact that even elected Democrats or Republicans and some of the heads of the parties are married to people who belong to the other party is pretty much proof this isn't the case. The solution isn't deprogramming anyone but America over coming its toxic two party system (so toxic that a party even making moderate changes is seen as the machinations of evil). ShabiDOO 14:01, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

@Shabidoo I'd definitely call a few far-left parties cults, but the two that immediately come to mind are in the US. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 14:47, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Politics in the US is increasingly cultlike. It's easiest to see in the opposing side of course. The Republican party is addled with the apocalyptic nonsense of the evangelical sects. Many people on the left have so sacralized their politics that they can't bear to hear their beliefs contradicted, and they reach instinctively for the boycott and shunning tactics of wounded piety. Failure to follow doctrine on either side makes you an unregenerate sinner. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 15:36, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

And here is George Bush saying Republicans "want to be extinct". Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 15:16, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Bullshit. The totes not transparently burner accounts of a banned user is stretching the definition of "cult" well beyond its breaking point. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 16:26, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Also, our national deficit is fine. Our national debt is a bit bloated due to unsound fiscal policies (Bush jr, Trump, Reagan), but that's mostly been balanced out (Bush sr, Clinton, Obama, Biden). Ok? Ok. And people wonder why I don't want to listen to Ken... ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 16:43, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

This is all so extremely exaggerated. All ideological organisations can share a small degree of some qualities of a cult. That doesn't make them cults. Cult leaders are rarely disposable while in Western politics they have a very fast turnover. The average democrat doesn't pledge their life long endless loyalty to the democrat leader or their cause nor a substantial amount of their personal resources. They don't wall themselves off in gated communities and dedicate most of their time and resources to the furthering of the narrow interests of the organisation's leaders. The party isn't a monolith group that will try to destroy a party member who leaves the organisation. Some zealots may take that personally but you can find that in any group. I mean people on a bowling team can take a member leaving them so personally they won't talk to them for a while. That doesn't make them a cult. Senators and Representatives frequently vote against their party's line in congress and don't get expelled from the party (which they might do in countries with a parliamentary system like Canada). I wouldn't even call Spain's Vox party or Belgium's communist party a cult. There can be a small number of extremists who act like that but you can easily be a member of that party while having most of your friends and family members disagree with you, you don't pledge your life to the organisation and you can easily leave without losing that much. Elected Vox members are married to or have children who support other parties. Your typical contribution to be a member is €10. You can go to functions and parties without even being a member (just a friend of someone). You can openly disagree with the party policies at meetings and congresses. Rose is extremely hyper-mega-exaggerating. Neither the democrats or republicans are remotely a cult. ShabiDOO 18:00, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

The party isn't in a cult, but some of the members are. Some of them are even worse than the European football hooligans. CorruptUser 19:30, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Meh. My guess is that the largest political cult in the United States is probably QAnon. Even in this case we're only talking about a small percentage of Republican voters, and even then QAnon does not have some of the most dangerous characteristics of some of the worst cults. I actually cannot think of any US liberal political cult equivalents. I certainly can think of cults popular with some Hollywood star types (from Scientology to NXIVM) but none of those are political. There is no need to really respond further as the OP was most likely a well known, sock-banned-many-times shit stirring troll. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 20:13, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I like how conservatives claim to hate Hollywood and the media, yet they elected a reality TV star as president and are now apparently trumpeting the opinion of some has-been actress. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 20:17, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that Dems are necessarily in a cult, the problem is that the Left is being shifted toward radicalism. Roman Sionis ^{tends to be inactive during summer} 15:50, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

This is stupid click-bait bullshit by someone who doesn't understand what cults are. Also considering one political party is convinced the other stole an election and is running a global cannibalistic pedophilia ring, in addition to attacking the seat of government, maybe chill with the cult comparisons.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 16:24, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Progressive politics are so not shifting towards radicalism in the United States. Proposals that are labelled "radical" in the US by reactionaries...are absolute uncontroversial status quo for both progressives and conservatives in almost every other developed democracy. You're letting conservative reactionaries dictate the narrative and labels of things by making what should be entirely reasonable, economically efficient, crime reducing, misery reducing, equality facilitating, prosperity and happiness inducing policies...seem like radical machinations of evil. Stop letting this happen and stop playing their game. ShabiDOO 17:53, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments like that amuse me to no end. "Yeah sure the right is literally preventing so called undesirables from voting in states where they have control but the left wants universal healthcare. Two sides of the same coin, really."-Flandres (talk) 18:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

The surge of COVID cases in India goes to show how ineffective their "traditional medicine" is.........

https://news.yahoo.com/india-coronavirus-record-deaths-virus-090019035.html

Maybe if India issued lockdowns, went with evidence based medicine and wore masks then this would not be an issue. I do find it funny how conspiracy theorists cite the supposed declining number of COVID infections without masks in Texas.

This shows why evidence based medicine is absolutely imperative for treating disease. --Agimi i Apokalipsit (talk) 21:24, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Imagine having so little self-awareness that you register a sock to blame Indians here for being “irresponsible” despite most of the West, especially the US, being absolutely horrible right now because no one here gives a fuck about anyone else and everybody has a toddler-like rejection of anybody asking them to help others. Conservatives and anti-science idiots are why the West is dying. You have to be fucking retarded. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 22:47, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Uh is this directed at Rationalzombie? --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 22:52, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

No, the rando who you reverted. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 22:58, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Oh, well, don't respond to them, and try not using the r-word. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 23:03, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

ec. the current surge in india has similar reasons, more or less, as every other country that has had problems in managing the pandemic has had at some point - not locking down soon enough or lifting restrictions too early and severe shortages essential medical supplies as hospitals are overwhelmed. india had until recently handled things very well, better than most. well enough to get complacent and be taken by surprise from this new wave and new variant. i dare say that owes alot to economic and political pressure to things back to 'normal'. thats the same story as much of the rest of the world, to varying degrees.

i had been very surprised/impressed even, that india, until this new surge, managed things so well during their first wave. i thought just the sheer mass of humanity in india would make lockdowns a challenge, and self isolating just impossible within poorer densely populated urban slums. an assumption from my own ignorance. im pleased i was wrong there. it makes this second wave seem all the more tragic, but i guess really just more of the same tragedy this pandemic has brought the world.

i feel the original post to be a little mean spirited over this surge, a little too much gloating over rising death rates. it would still have been insensitive if it had anything to do with a reliance on traditional medicines, but it really hasnt. thats just wrong. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:11, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Okay I was a bit rude. I won't deny it but one former Indian government official (https://news.yahoo.com/india-covid-19-fact-checking-235501214.html) has suggested using lemons as a means for raising oxygen levels. Some doctors in India have urged people to use dubious treatments as well. I can forgive the general population but not medical professionals who should know better (that might be mean too, sorry). --Agimi i Apokalipsit (talk) 23:25, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

There were other, additional human-caused circumstances making the Indian resurgence much worse than it could have been:

• Field hospitals were dismantled nationwide following the first wave for no apparent reason other than BJP bravado. There was apparently a widespread belief among the BJP politicians that India had reached herd immunity; this was despite only a 2% current vaccination rate.
• Large political rallies were allowed by the election commission preceding and during the second wave, including large BJP rallies.
• The massive Kumbh Mela religious gathering (9 million people) was allowed to proceed.
• India probably does have sufficient oxygen production capacity if it is sufficiently coordinated. Instead, there were reports of private households hoarding gas cylinders, thus hindering oxygen production where it was needed.

Indian journalist Barkha Dutt has been doing some excellent reportage on the pandemic. Her interview by BBC News last week was amazing. Bongolian (talk) 23:31, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I've seen in several European countries and I have found in some cities (Madrid or Brussels) people being very responsible with masks and relatively responsible with social distancing and isolation while in other cities (Amsterdam and London) people being ridiculously reckless and not giving a shit about masks except maybe in shops and on the underground (maybe) and less of a shit about social distancing and isolation. Having previously spent a few months in India doing development projects and seeing the enormous cultural differences from one state to another...I have little doubt they are more careful and the government is more strict in a state like Maharashtra and are a lot more reckless in a state like Bihar. I am sure there are places in India which are equally as responsible and reckless as in Europe (or say comparing Florida (very bad) with California (a lot better). ShabiDOO 23:38, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Oh, California sucks too. All of America does. We’re a dying, decaying society and COVID is just letting us see the signs. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 00:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Connecticut looks relatively sane from here. I mean, far from perfect, but way ahead of most of the country; New England in general is leading the charge for vaccines. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:21, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Maybe they’ll be lucky enough to survive the 476 our Roman Empire is rapidly approaching. I doubt it though. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 02:40, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

This is a somewhat unfair representation of the consequences of a somewhat poor nation with extremely dense population not being able to keep an outbreak of a highly contagious disease contained indefinitely. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 02:16, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes and no. India's government was known for under-counting in the past, so past "success stories" Modi liked to tout were possibly a bit "tainted" to begin with. In the past, India's government was known for pushing bullshit herbalism in the past, something that has been a strong part of Modi's "Hindu nationalism". I think a little of that has fueled part of the current crisis. Granted, I don't think Modi's been as bad as Trump or Bolsonaro at mismanaging the pandemic, and there are limits of what one can do in a developing economy like India. But it seems like from what I can tell, the root cause of this recent wave is that India's government, who took the first wave in 2020 seriously, failed to take it seriously this year, a and started holding massive gatherings like Kumbh Mela or political rallies without proper social distancing. The pandemic isn't over yet, as Modi is finding out. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 12:10, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Oh, no, right wing governments have shit the bed everywhere, and I don't mean to excuse their handling of covid as sound or good compared to what standards have been set in other countries with similar conditions(i.e. China makes the most sense as a direct comparison to India). Just that it's a little unfair to blame india having a uniquely bad traditional medical system, when public health and treating individual diseases are not the same thing. By way of comparison, China has one of the most culturally ingrained and insane traditional medical systems in the world and did comparatively well because they implemented solid public health controls. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:14, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Hope and Drowning Rats

https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-best-examples-of-having-hope/answer/Deb-Paul-26

A pretty horrifying study to say the least suggesting that hope means people can push more than they ever thought possible. But how can that be when hope is a human concept and isn't hope belief in something good without evidence? For that matter these are rats not humans and hope doesn't mean you'll be able to do something if you don't have the baseline ability to even try it.Machina (talk) 03:03, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I’m a lower class American, so I think I might be able to hope for a non-agonizing death. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 03:14, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Rich people

They exist, they have money, they donate to numerous PACs, and they are still getting wealthier. All while many people are still going on welfare.— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 12:20, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Pretty sure the amount of money donated to PAC's in the last election cycle could eliminate child poverty, but you know freedom or something.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 16:25, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Eliminate? Maybe not quite. Elimination is tricky. Address it temporarily for several months, for sure. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:59, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I think those PACs get a grand total of $300m/year. A lot of money, but then again, not a whole lot. If given to only the bottom 10% (amount below Fed poverty line), they would only receive an extra $10/yr, which wouldn't exactly end poverty.

If we were really serious about ending poverty, we'd get rid of the poverty traps in our welfare system. Seriously, the rich will bitch endlessly about how a marginal income tax of 40% prevents them from working harder, but are silent on how the phase-out of welfare benefits results in effective marginal tax rates that are nearly 100%. CorSock (talk) 18:10, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Nah, 2020 alone was close to 15 billion in on-the-table PAC spending. Under-the-table super-pacs are harder to measure, but at least a few billion more. I think the 300 million number you're talking about was the official candidate campaign spending(both sides spent about that much). ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 19:57, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

BUT, how do we get them to feel good about contributing their capital? There is the assumption that branding local is going to inject money into small business, but that's led to gentrification. American Libertarians say things like "I love grandmas, everyone is going to pay for everyone's grandma, we can't trust the government to keep our grandmas alive" and pretend like their excess money will altruistically go to nursing homes. But it doesn't work like that. People pay out the ass to keep their grandmas alive. I don't get why it's so painful to pay into the system that lets you get so wealthy. Like, OK, somehow scrappin and scrapin by, cutting coupons, you're only making 390,000 a year. And a lot of that is tied up in property, so that 390K is going to two house payments, an RV, a boat and college funds and at least HALF of those are gambles! The 145K you're just subsisting on can't be fucked with, it's the money you might have to spend to maintain your shit if your income suddenly disappeared. I get it, I have to really try hard to keep some excess rent money on hand. Just in case, you know, I need a minute to sort out my living situation. Why even fight for a pay raise in Biden's America when it would up your bracket in such a disgusting thieving manner? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:55, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

They shouldn't need an argument to feel good. Everyone should contribute based on their wealth, not income annually. Additionally, my taxes goes mostly to forever wars, and corn subsidies when I would prefer it goes to schools and healthcare, but that is what Congress has decided.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 17:52, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I mean, I agree completely, but these are people who think everybody probably has $10K set aside. I have always thought campaign money should be spent on public works. I had a friend that worked for a local gubernatorial runoff, and I suggested "Take that money, work with some construction crews, fix a few roads and put up signs saying 'road fixed by' or something to that extent." He looked me in the eye and said "You really think an election is going to be won by going out and, pat patting some potholes?" in a way that made me feel so small and wrong. And I said "Yes. I mean, at least if you lose, you can say something got done." and he just laughed and blew me off completely. But I still think there should be at least an effort by politicians to spend campaign donations on public works, it would benefit them to inform potential voters as to what their priorities are and show they are able to use some money to make things happen. And I have a good retrospective joke for that, "Today the potholes, TOMORROW THE WORLD" like I get it, but they lost, and things aren't getting done, so what did all that money go to? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 01:40, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I have a question for anyone who might know

Last week I was walking in the park (like I usually do) and I went to walk past a car (this is relevant to my question). A fat old guy gets in my way so I turn in another direction. Then the guy walks towards me so I continue on a slightly different direction. I goes to the one portion of the park to hit a Pokestop (PokemonGO). After I put my phone back in my pocket this dude drives up beside me and starts yelling loudly. I took my earbud out of my ear and he was making claims about me sneaking around his car when I was walking past it (no different from moving through cars in a parking lot). He did not let me explain my side of the story at all. Every other word from his mouth was vulgar. After a heated exchange the guy drives off and I could hear him yell still.

Is it weird that initially I laughed it off but now I am very paranoid? --Agimi i Apokalipsit (talk) 01:38, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

No. I think laughing it off is a natural reaction to a situation I'd consider pretty tense and stressful. I've had instances where I laughed but I got stressed just thinking about it later. I guess the guy is just having a very bad day, got paranoid for whatever reason, and is taking it out on you. I feel rationalizing what happened that way can at least make you feel more at peace. But whenever you see hostility like that, yeah, just avoid him and let him go away as soon as you can. I'm not sure if you responded to him within your description of "a heated exchange", it didn't seem like you did since he didn't let you explain, but I guess just apologize and give him distance and move on? --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 01:42, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Lots of bitter old cunts on the streets these days. Don’t take it personally. Instead, pity the poor hospice workers who will at some point have to take their shit all the time.Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 14:27, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I play PoGo and also Ingress (which for those who don't know also involves you walking around holding your phone). A while ago a guy somewhat aggressively asked me why I was taking photographs of all the parked cars. I tried to explain things and I think he understood. But people assume weird things when they see you looking intently at your phone while it it pointed vaguely near them or their property.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 18:02, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Wouldn't the presence of conspiracy theorists on the internet actually disprove said conspiracies?

One of the most striking things to me about conspiracy theorists is the fact that they claim to have all this wonderful "secret information" that "THEY" don't want you to know. Only problem with that; how are they getting away with "exposing" said conspiracy? YouTube full of literally thousands if not millions of YouTube videos all "exposing" the New World Order/Illumaniti/etc, and YouTube (owned by Google) is frequently cited as being in kahoots with the alleged "powers that be".

So this got me thinking; wouldn't the very actual presence of conspiracy theorists in itself actually serve as disproof of such theories? And for obvious reasons, I am ignoring the "Of course not, because that's what they WANT you to think!" escape hatches. Aaronmichael5 02:46, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, it depends. Is it more likely that there will be many conspiracy theorists for a conspiracy that doesn't exist or for one that does exist? Even if 99% of false conspiracy theories have many believers, the fact that there are many believers would still be evidence that the conspiracy is real if, on those rare occasions when the conspiracy is real, it was more than 99% likely to have many believers. The presence of believers would only be evidence against the truth of the theory if people are more likely to believe in false conspiracies than real ones, and it isn't clear that this is actually the case. Note that while the ratio of true to false conspiracy theories does matter in deciding whether a given conspiracy is true, it does not matter in determining whether the existence of believers is evidence for or against.

The kind of thinking you are putting forward actually verges on the conspiratorial. If nobody believes a conspiracy theory, this would not seem to be evidence that it is true (in fact, it would seem to be evidence that it is false: come up with any random conspiracy you can think of: nobody else has thought of it, so nobody else believes it, and it is almost certainly false). But if a lack of belief is not evidence for, the presence of belief cannot be evidence against, or else our reasoning is very similar to "a lack of evidence is evidence of (a conspiracy)." 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 03:34, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

@Serene I think he's just pondering how conspiracy nuts rationalize their consiracies to themselves. For instance, do famous comspiracy psuhers like Alex Jones or David Icke ever wonder why they haven't been 'disappeared' by the Illuminati for exposing them yet? If your answer is 'that would backfire because them being disappeared who convince more people the conspiracies are true' than think about why the Illuminati ever allowed them to grow to popularity in the first place. Aaron is just acknowleding that the Illuminati is strangely okay with being exposed and consiracy theorists don't seem to find that odd. Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 05:12, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

surely shape shifting lizards could disappear icke and just replace him with a shape shifting lizard that can do convincing enough icke no one would know hes gone? then lizard icke can set about ruin his reputation so no one cares when lizard icke stage his death and returns to base. or maybe they those reptilians engineered all over conspiracy theories and have agents creating more and spreading them till icke is just another crazy conspiracist among millions of others conspiracists so everyone is too distracted look close enough into ickes claims and see hes right they are all reptiles. i bet the reptilians are always coming down to laugh in his face that no one will ever believe him, then vanish just before they discovered by someone else. 'they were just here,why dont you believe me?' sure david, they were just there like they were last week and the week before that. shape shifting reptilians is patently ridiculous. its the mole men in the hollow earth running the show. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:12, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

If we're considering what the conspiracy theorists think, I think we have to consider the escape hatches. Off the top of my head, I would say "the conspirators deliberately release information about themselves and let people report on it freely. That way, when nothing happens to the people releasing the truth, it discredits the theory, and allows the conspirators to continue conspiring." The thing is, to believe in a conspiracy theory in the first place, you have to already have some pretty absurd evaluations of the evidence; what's one more? 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 12:36, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

You think they use their grey cells? They'd probably come up with something like "look, this is the way the establishment deludes people into a sense of security, so WAKE UP SHEEPLE" etc. Meow^Purr 15:40, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Some of the more reasonable conspiracy theorists (relatively speaking) believe the government spread ridiculous “the queen is a shapeshifting lizard” ideas fo distract from and discredit the real stuff. I wouldn’t be surprised that this tactic has been employed in reality, a common believable example is that “UFOs are aliens” is a cover story for what they often actually are — highly advanced prototype drones/aircraft that various militaries want kept a secret. Christopher (talk) 15:47, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

And mind you the classification of conspiracy theory is wide enough to include ideas like "The US government helped orchestrate a coup in Chile to ouster Allende" which at worst is a Hanlon's razor situation and doesn't include much counter-factual or horrendous leaps of logic, nor some need by the nominal conspirators to suppress all evidence or dissent. Which, in my opinion, separates a third tier of conspiracy theory, beyond "insane" and "comparatively reasonable", where there's a preponderance of easily verified evidence, but no certainty. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:20, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

the shape shifting lizard people as a government spread distraction doesnt seem work to me. the ufos as a cover story for people spotting secret test aircraft there is something people are seeing that the government doesnt want people talking about. the lizard people doesnt cover anything up. what would we be discussing if the queen was not a shape shifter? everything else icke has said is new age pap and all the same conspiracy theories as everyone else, only with shape shifting reptilians as the shadowy one world government. its no different to far right conspiracy theories except it jews that say are behind everything. alot of ickes stuff is just rehashed theories from the same antisemetic sources which is why icke is accused being an antisemite and say reptilian is a code for jew, as do the far right agree and reference icke's lizard people when they mean jews. i dont get why people give ickes nonsense any kind of thought at all. he was laughing stock who claimed to be the son of god, now he says shape shifting lizard creatures run the show. clearly he was off his nut before, but shape shifting lizards make perfect sense. now hes speaker at antilockdown rallys with 5g causes covid bullshit cheered by a crowd of dumbfucks who think the shape shifting lizard guy gives their cause credibility.

how did a lunatic laughing stock go to being a perennial and respected presence in conspiracy theory circles when he should have gone from a lunatic to still a lunatic at the first mention of shape shifters? AMassiveGay (talk) 23:36, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

There is no question in Icke's case that the shape shifting lizard people is a ridiculous front to try and "cover" (badly) the usual anti-Semitic tropes. Just because one mishmashes the typical "lizard people" conspiracies with the New Age (but more optimistic) poppycock like the Pleiadians, and adds it to the blood libel / Illuminati crap, does not make it less so. My "surface impression" is as a result of the New Age influence, he is a little less noxious then a typical conspiracy theorist (there's a lot of "spirit" and "love" drops and other surface-level "optimism" in his rhetoric), and thus his "popularity" might be due to attracting a bit of a "horseshoe" crowd from the left and others who wouldn't necessarily dig the toxic behavior of the alt-right. I never know with any of these conspiracy guys just how sincere they are, or whether they are trend-jumping and only in it for the money. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 02:51, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

You are right that the existence of a vast number of videos revealing the "secret truth" that the Earth is flat or that we never went to the Moon should logically make people wonder how "secret" this truth is. But conspiracy theorists are not well-known for their critical thinking skills. The question which most conspiracy theories fail at is "who benefits?" What is the benefit of hiding the fact the Earth is flat? Only today I had the misfortune to meet someone who told me that the whole Covid 19 pandemic is a lie. When asked "Why does the global conspiracy exist?" he had no coherent answer. Joined-up thinking is not a sign of the conspiracy minded.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 19:47, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

May the 4th be with you all

Obligatory Star Wars day post. Next year the first film will be 45, which is pretty wild to me, someone who wasn't even alive when it came out. Anyway, what's your favorite piece of EU media? I always liked the Rebels series. ^{— Unsigned, by: TheJakeHolmesVersion / talk / contribs}

The 1985 Ewoks cartoon. Spud (talk) 14:32, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

KOTOR. The very first proper video game I ever played. It was old then, and didn't have the shiny new graphics of the latest COD installment that all my friends were playing, but I didn't care. IveBeenFrank (talk) 14:51, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

it was my birthday yesterday. born 1977. i am the same age as star wars, (it premiered 25th of may, but close enough) return of the jedi was the first film i ever saw at the cinema. had plenty of the toys, subscribed to marvel star wars comic until that ended. super pumped for when prequels came out. then i saw the first. something died that day.

i am the same age as star wars and there is no joy left in the world.

have a lovely day everyoneAMassiveGay (talk) 14:52, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

The Wraith Squadron novels. Allston's style has been a major influence in my writing because of those. 108.86.12.38 (talk) 14:57, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

... and today is revenge of the Fifth Aloysius the Gaul 22:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I never really caught the Star Wars love bug. I was too young to know why 4-6 were mind-blowing for filmmaking and then too old to actually care about 1-3. I can tell you Super Star Wars on the SNES was a load of horseshit, first level is fine, second level is pointless but fine, but do you know how long I spent trying to platform into the fucking Sandcrawler? The level was timed, my time on the Super Nintendo was timed, there are no save files or continues, and it's designed specifically to cheap assedly put you all the way on the ground so you have to platform the whole thing again. Which would be fine, if you could survive the inside of the Sandcrawler and beat some hot sand boss, which I did, like, once or twice, with either no lives left or my turn at the SNES being over. Grim Fandango is one of my "This game is perfect" formative games, though. Monkey Island 4 was also very good, I actually used note cards to find prosthetics and navigate and chart out Monkey combat, I was stoked when the originals came out on the 360 arcade to see where it started. LucasArts seems like a very polished studio. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:04, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Underrated comment. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:44, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

"Modern Diseases" or "Diseases of Civilization" narratives

I've been trying to do some skeptical analysis on a recent trend of quacks (video I've been dissecting is by eye doctor Chris Knobbe) making out non-animal fats to be the cause of all our problems, centering around polyunsaturated fats, particularly the factoid that they are more vulnerable to the free radical process. As far as I can tell, this is true in the absence of vitamins and fiber, but only in that absence. The effects of eating potato chips and french fries are thus blamed on stir-fried vegetables via equivocation.

Anyway, the lecture uses a narrative that I suspect shows up in a lot of other cure-all: heart disease literally didn't exist until 1912, and it grew exponentially since then. I immediately recognized it as another form of the vaccine/autism fallacy--take any diagnosis that wasn't well understood until a certain time, and associate the rise in recorded cases with the rise in something else (vaccines, canned food, immigration, etc). He does the same thing for type 2 diabetes and macular degeneration.

It turns out that some other things that increased over the years are sedentary lifestyles, CT scans, and efficiency of academic publishing.

I want to write an article covering so-called "Diseases of Civilization," explaining for each one the advances that allowed society to understand and diagnose various conditions. Heart catheterization for heart disease, blood tests for diabetes, etc. I would like to know if there's prior art on the wiki that I can build on, a category it should go into, etc.

I'm also trying to find anything I can that shows dairy industry ties to the polyunsaturated fat scaremongering, as the people involved seem to converge on recommending milk and butter as staples. Only Elmer McCollum, whom Knobbe cites in his talk, has a glaringly obvious connection. Knobbe was also an associate professor at UT Dallas for a while, which may have had a lot of cattle industry people around, but I haven't found anything definitive of late. Just remembered Newsweek or Time magazine had a cover story hawking butter, I'll have to find it and look through the names there. Stinkypete (talk) 19:25, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

So while we now can look at, say, an Egyptian mummy and discover evidence of atherosclerosis, or the research around angina in the 19th century, knowing that fact at the time in the past was difficult. At bottom, you need to have a society-wide view that going into bodies after they're dead is neither taboo nor perverse nor evil. On top of that you need to be able to actually physically analyze the corpse, which means you need an organized system for transport and storage; if you don't have reliable refrigeration as well, you need an incredibly fast response time to get what you need prior to the onset of sufficient decay. The fact that we have the ability to detect signs of circulatory disease does not mean that it did not exist prior to our ability to log, track and quantify it. You are not crazy, the lecture is fallacious. Semipenultimate (talk) 21:01, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I think you might best be served by splitting into two articles: one on the technical approaches or historical efforts to identify what the ever-loving-fuck was happening when people just clutched their chests and fell over dead, and one on spin by people with something to sell (Maybe enhance the Food Woo article?). Good luck! Semipenultimate (talk) 21:01, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm more familiar with a variation on a broader theme than the specific version you've looked at, Stinkypete. Proponents of paleo, LCHF, ketogenic, and carnivore diets, in part make claims like those you mention. (Of relevance may be the pages Weston Price and Weston A. Price Foundation, given popularity with such authors.) Modern food is usually said to be worse than all before it. However, ancient Egypt is sometimes used as an example of historical civilizations that also did it wrong. In such narratives, the pre-agricultural hunter-gatherers were the best. To summarize from memory, because the Egyptians so strongly went away from the low-carb high-fat approach and basically did what modern civilization does (eating lots of carbs, grain, etc.), that's why they also had some of the diseases and problems we do. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 14:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I have a feeling that things will heat up in the West Bank

https://www.newsweek.com/hamas-leader-sends-final-warning-israel-not-evict-palestinians-east-jerusalem-homes-1588910

Considering that last week the Israeli settlers chanting "death to Arabs", violently attacking Palestinians and people against the occupation along with Israel's refusal to leave occupied territory- violence will likely happen.

I am aware that the Palestinians will be labeled terrorists if they fight back. Funny how when Israel kicks people off their land it is called "settling" yet when people fight back it is "terrorism". Double standards are a feature of far right authoritarianism though. --Agimi i Apokalipsit (talk) 20:47, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

double standards are a feature of all humans - it is always different when "they" do it compared to when "we" do it. Pretty naïve of you (or biased?) to say it's only far right authoritarians who have them! Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 21:26, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Chill. It is true that humans have double standards but it seems to be more common among authoritarians. Probably should have used different wording. --Agimi i Apokalipsit (talk) 21:31, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

But maybe Lapid can form a government. Kevs ^Ping! 05:58, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

is anyone else LITERALLY SHAKING

What are "EVE trolls"? Kevs ^Ping! 05:46, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm assuming that this refers to Eve Online, a space based MMORPG. I had no idea they were a notable troll community either. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 12:13, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I mean, the trolls in that game were multi-year long con games that'd end with someone getting to the spot where they can arbitrarily disband the biggest player faction in the game. Revolverman (talk) 12:22, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. They usually put the effort in. EVE has ruined me for most forms of online trolling. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 16:50, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I have a mild case of Covid-19 vaccine hesitancy

I have a mild case of Covid-19 hesitancy. I am scheduled for the second dose of the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine.

There is an organization called Doctors For Covid Ethics, which has around 100 members including professors of immunology and microbiology. The organization is a Covid-19 vaccine skeptic group. The organization seems well-intentioned and made up of non-quacks.

I may have partially debunked one of the main complaints about the Pfizer/Moderna mRNA vaccine, but not to my complete satisfaction.

I am not a reader of this particular website and I found this article via a link on another website: New Report Sheds Light on Vaccine Doomsday Cult.

My partial debunking of the article may come from this excerpt from the Salk Institute for Biological Studies website: "Scientists have known for a while that SARS-CoV-2’s distinctive "spike" proteins help the virus infect its host by latching on to healthy cells. Now, a major new study shows that the virus spike proteins (which behave very differently than those safely encoded by vaccines) also play a key role in the disease itself."[3] The key portion of this excerpt is "which behave very differently than those safely encoded by vaccines".

The organization Doctors For Covid Ethics published:

• COVID Vaccines: Necessity, Efficacy and Safety

• Rebuttal letter to European Medicines Agency from Doctors for Covid Ethics, April 1, 2021

The excerpt of the first Doctors For Covid Ethics article that I am investigating is:

"Just as smoking could be and was predicted to cause lung cancer based on first principles, all gene-based vaccines can be expected to cause blood clotting and bleeding disorders [33], based on their molecular mechanisms of action. Consistent with this, diseases of this kind have been observed across age groups, leading to temporary vaccine suspensions around the world: The vaccines are not safe... Due to immunological priming, risks of clotting, bleeding and other adverse events can be expected to increase with each re-vaccination and each intervening coronavirus exposure. Over time, whether months or years [35], this renders both vaccination and coronaviruses dangerous to young and healthy age groups, for whom without vaccination COVID-19 poses no substantive risk. Since vaccine roll-out, COVID-19 incidence has risen in numerous areas with high vaccination rates [36–38]. Furthermore, multiple series of COVID-19 fatalities have occurred shortly after the onset vaccinations in senior homes [39,40]. These cases may have been due not only to antibody-dependent enhancement but also to a general immunosuppressive effect of the vaccines, which is suggested by the increased occurrence of Herpes zoster in certain patients [41]. Immunosuppression may have caused a previously asymptomatic infection to become clinically manifest. Regardless of the exact mechanism responsible for these reported deaths, we must expect that the vaccines will increase rather than decrease lethality of COVID-19 — the vaccines are not safe."[4]

Root concern causing mild Covid-19 vaccine hesitancy: The root concern I have is that the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine may create "spikes" which damage a person's blood vessels. My hesitancy in using any product comes from my ignorance of the product. After I take the time to do due diligence, I either move forward or I remain skeptical until I discover new evidence which changes my mind.

New research suggests that the first dose of the Pfizer vaccine is better protection than initially thought: Pfizer coronavirus vaccine provides significant immunity after one dose, doesn’t need ultracold temperatures, new research finds

So I am weighing the pros/cons of getting the second dose of the Pfizer vaccine. I am leaning in favor of getting the second dose.

In a perfect world, I would take a Covid-19 vaccine after it went through many months/years of Phase IV vaccine clinical research, but we don't live in a perfect world. So I have to weigh the pros/cons and do some due diligence.

Any input from RationalWiki editors would be appreciated. AndreS (talk) 16:25, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Had both Pfizer labs Jan and March. No effect noticed at all. Not even from the needle. Get it done! Scream!! (talk) 16:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate your encouragement, but one person's experience doesn't tip the balance much.

My family is very pro-vaccine. And I am an honest person who will not lie about getting the second dose. If I don't get the vaccine, my family is not going to disown me, but some elderly members of my family might not like it if I don't get the second dose of the Pfizer vaccine. And I don't want to create any unnecessary family friction. I also want to do some international travel this year or early next year. And it may be easier to travel internationally if you have some proof of vaccination. AndreS (talk) 17:00, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I had a quick look at Doctors for Covid Ethics and I'm not very impressed. I had a look at just two of the doctors listed. The first is this chap who seems to be in charge and who WP seems to have a somewhat dim view of. The second was this guy who is clearly a conspiracy theorist. At first glance I think that the whole organisation probably needs a RW article as purveyors of vaccine misinformation. But that was a really quick validity check on them and others may have different opinions.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 17:33, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

In retrospect, my main concern was sparked by this article: New Report Sheds Light on Vaccine Doomsday Cult.

The root concern I have is that the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine may create "spikes" which damage a person's blood vessels.

I am not concerned with any of the purveyors of information. Because a bad website/organization can still make valid claims. I try to get information from the best sources though as that saves time and helps with reliability. Because my appointment to get the second Pfizer shot is within days, I was hoping to get my concern addressed.

I have a brand new general practitioner doctor, but I don't want to be a high-maintenance patient from the beginning part of the patient/doctor relationship. AndreS (talk) 18:01, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Not sure if srs, as it's interesting that you had to use the archive.org version for two of their articles because that post was removed from Medium for violating their TOS. But if not, that should tell you what you need to know. The other links should also tell you a lot as well too. We have articles on a few of the quacks "Doctors For Covid Ethics" links to (Association of American Physicians and Surgeons and Globalresearch) and it would be nice to have articles on a couple of the others like LifeSiteNews. It's a quack site. Anything this site says about the COVID vaccine can be safely ignored. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 18:15, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I had both doses (of the Moderna vaccine) and noticed no effects from it whatsoever, except for the second, evil head who's full of great ideas, so I'm keeping him. In all seriousness, to compare apples and oranges you have to compare any risk from the vaccine from the risk of contracting COVID. Since the latter risk is surely greater, I'd go ahead and get all the recommended doses. Take comfort in the fact that if you've had one shot, any harm's already been done. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 18:21, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I took a Logic 101 course at a college. I know you cannot logically dismiss a claim purely due to its source.

So I come back to the issue of whether or not the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine may create "spikes" which damage a person's blood vessels.

I wish the governments of the world did a better job in reducing vaccine hesitancy through providing more comprehensive information. People have less trust in societal institutions so governments cannot rely on people trusting the experts. Lack of trust in experts/governments, vaccine hesitancy, people's laziness, and the politicization of the pandemic, could drag this pandemic out way further out than it needs to be. AndreS (talk) 18:50, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that the sources and authorities you use are dubious. Nobody here (that I am aware of) is a doctor. So it is naturall to fall back on the credibility of the source when evaluating the claim. For example here is an article on Michael Yeadon who seems to be one of the prime movers of the site you originally quoted. You said of this organisation " The organization seems well-intentioned and made up of non-quacks." - but this guy is now as quack as they come. Is it really necessary to go through outlandish claims one after another once the scource has already been thoroughly discredited? Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 19:37, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

(EC)Well, the CDC tries.

For technical information, it is well known that even the "reliable" sources will simplify things. The story of the COVID-19 spike protein damaging blood vessels appeared in this Reuters article, for instance. However, fortunately, they link to the technical paper, which goes in more detail: "SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein Impairs Endothelial Function via Downregulation of ACE 2" By ACE2, they are meaning the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2, which is the entry point on how the COVID virus does its damage: it binds to this enzyme, the cell absorbs the viral code, and boom, you have a viral cell that can go forth and replicate viral code. If this protein also "downregulates" (lowers activity) of the "endothelial function" (read: circulation system) when attacking ACE2 (reasonable given ACE2's role in circulation), it is reasonable to surmise that this is where Reuters came up with the term "blood vessel damage".

I would say that you don't have much to worry about, in other words, because a "vaccine" that downregulates ACE2 and acts just like the virus wouldn't be a good vaccine. The goal would be to create a version of the protein that does not attach to ACE2. Some technical details are here and here, but essentially, in the mRNA vaccines, the "spike" protein (one of many) has been "tweaked" so that it no longer can attach itself to the enzymes COVID attaches to (but is still close enough to generate a good antibody). So, in theory, there should be no reason to worry about cell damage. There's always the unknown, granted, because the body is complex. But a lot of the unknowns should be worked out due to the rigorous clinical trials. Between COVID-19's not insignificant mortality rate and the "long COVID" symptoms we are seeing, I think the vaccine is a rout with way much less risk, frankly. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 19:38, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

The vaccine which has got bad press in Europe for causing rare blood-related issues is the non-mRNA AstraZeneca vaccine (it could be very rare allergic reactions or something behaving similarly), while the mRNA vaccines like the Pfizer one seem without such problems, and also cause milder reactions in general. As for blood vessels and the virus, damage seems to be from dysfunctional immune system reactions, not from the virus itself, which makes the idea that the vaccine's imitation of viral particles would cause such damage seem strange, unless it also caused the immune system to go into overdrive. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 19:12, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, many people are sceptical when it comes to mRNA vaccines, because it‘s new. Kevs ^Ping! 19:18, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

You cite 2 sources The Unz Review, and doctors4covidethics via Medium that are dubious. The Unz Review is part of the alt-right, and frequently has antisemitic conspiracy theorists. Medium has a low bar for publication, including actual quality journalism, bloggers, and opinion pieces. Sucharit Bhakdi seems to be the main (or only?) figure behind doctors4covidethics. He has been fact checked and it was found that "Bhakdi's claims, in particular in his YouTube videos and in the book Corona Fehlalarm?, have been extensively fact-checked and found to be variously unsubstantiated, misleading, or false." (Sucharit Bhakdi § Responses to Bhakdi's criticisms).

I just got my second dose of the Pfizer vaccine, and experienced no side-effects other that short-term localized soreness. Bongolian (talk) 20:34, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

When using a new type of medicine, it helps to understand how the medicine works.

Dr. Mobeen Syad explains a key issue about mRNA Covid-19 vaccines: Will the vaccine continue to make spike proteins?.

Dr. Sayad says the amount of spiked proteins produced by the Pfizer vaccine will be a small fraction of what an actual coronavirus infection will cause. That is reassuring to hear.

The sources that PanGalacticGargleBlaster provided seem like they will be useful too and I am reading them now.

I have a questioning nature that sometimes causes me to dig and dig until I better understand things. In life, when you hit foundation bedrock, often it is better to stop digging and build your house on the bedrock.

Also, I like to strive for excellence and not be satisfied with very suboptimal solutions.

Realistically, the potential risk associated with the Pfizer vaccine second dose seems to be lower than the risk of me getting infected and being hurt by Covid-19.

I do have one last question. What happens to the much smaller amount of spiked proteins that the vaccine produces? How long do they last in a person's system? And are they replicated/replaced by the body? I know cells are replaced in the body 7 to 10 years, but some cells last far longer than others.[5] Based on Dr. Syad's video, I would strongly venture to guess that once the mRNA is destroyed in the first 2 days of getting the vaccine, more spiked proteins are not created due to the vaccine. AndreS (talk) 20:42, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I had a hunch that staying hydrated before/after the second dose of the Pfizer vaccine and engaging in non-strenuous exercise like walking will reduce the odds of side effects. According to medical experts/experiments, my intuition was correct.[6][7][8] Water and increasing your circulation helps lower the intensity/duration of second dose Covid-19 vaccinations. AndreS (talk) 21:15, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I looked at the Unz Review article comments. There are a lot of people who are way out on the deep end of public discourse when it comes to the coronavirus pandemic and its vaccines. We're talking about a Bizzaro comic strip level of surrealness. AndreS (talk) 22:12, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

The spike proteins are not persistent. Spike protein production stops quickly; it cannot continue after the degradation of the vaccine mRNA, and the entire point of the vaccine is to trigger the immune system to develop antigens against the spike proteins in the first place. The conclusions in the medium article you linked to are absurd. The mRNA injected, and the spike proteins produced, are present in the virus. For the claim that people with healthy immune systems are already protected, they link to studies finding that prior infection with other coronaviruses can provide some protection in the form of immune cells sensitive to proteins similar to those presented in COVID-19. The idea that this prevents infection is absurd, as is the notion that we're better off just providing medication to vulnerable people after they're infected: if that were true, then there wouldn't already be so many deaths. The claim that vaccination cannot protect against viruses invading via the respiratory tract is false; this is what the flu vaccine does, too. Vaccination can't protect against virus reaching the lungs, but neither can anything else. The point of vaccination is that if virus does make it into the body, the immune system is already primed to deal with it quickly, and lung tissue is not insulated from the immune system. It is true that the vaccine presents risks, but these risks are incredibly small, and treating them as comparable to the risk of infection is incompetent at best, dishonest at worst. The J&J vaccine program was halted in the US briefly when blood clots presented as a rare side effect (roughly a 1 in a million risk). There is, therefore, a risk of blood clots, but the risk of clots from the J&J vaccine is far smaller than the risk of death from COVID-19 infection. Also, not that the J&J and AstraZeneca vaccines, which have been linked (again, in rare cases) to blood clots, use the traditional method of vaccination; they do not use mRNA like Pfizer and Moderna, which have not been associated with clotting.

To address your concern about "spikes which damage a person's blood vessels". In the context of the vaccine, spike refers to spike proteins, which are the proteins on the surface of the virus. These proteins cannot directly damage tissue; "spike" refers to their shape. What they can do is interact with receptors on the surface membranes of cells, causing the cells to take up the virus. The mRNA vaccines contain mRNA which codes for the viral spike proteins. When body cells take up the vaccine mRNA, they begin to produce these spike proteins, which can then be recognized by the immune system, which begins producing antigens. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 23:51, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

As far as the spike proteins that are produced, how long do those spiked proteins last in a person's body typically? AndreS (talk) 23:59, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I found another video by Dr. Sobeen Syad: Will Vaccine Generated Spike Proteins Bind To Our Cells?. I believe this will mop up my remaining questions about the Pfizer Covid vaccine. If it doesn't, he created the video Pfizer Vaccine Associated Adverse Effects From Israel which should address any lingering questions. AndreS (talk) 00:12, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Knowing Mars will likely be colonized in the future I thought of this

Walmart should build a branch on Mars. How do we not know if a colonist wouldn't want a pack of smokes or a snack cake. They should get in on the ground floor.

My brother suggested (as a joke) to start a conspiracy theory in which Walmart really owns SpaceX in order to build a Walmart on Mars. --Agimi i Apokalipsit (talk) 01:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Mars will not likely be colonized.[9][10][11]

Ocean exploration has a much better return on investment (ROI) than Mars colonization.[12][13] AndreS (talk) 03:33, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I think that life on Mars would be more of a possibility than life spent under thousands of pounds of cold, crushing water. And anyway, the idea, like nuking hurricanes, just sounds awesome. Roman Sionis ^{tends to be inactive during summer} 12:19, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Just because you explore the ocean or harness it in different ways, doesn't mean you have to live beneath the ocean waves.

How many people can the world support?

"Debate about the actual human carrying capacity of Earth dates back hundreds of years. The range of estimates is enormous, fluctuating from 500 million people to more than one trillion. Scientists disagree not only on the final number, but more importantly about the best and most accurate way of determining that number—hence the huge variability." - science.org.au[14] AndreS (talk) 13:15, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Goomba revolution theory

Have any of you seen this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0bFjlPgukE

If you pay attention, you'll see a Dry Bone at several parts in the video. He's probably spying on behalf of Bowser???? LEVEL UP needs to upload Episode 2 soon!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Unclescrooge (talk) 03:58, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I know you're trying really hard to have fun and get my attention but you're still not endearing. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 04:17, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

@Unclescrooge The revolution could've been thwarted if Bowser only used the Shell Spin move from SSB4. Also, I appreciate you integrating into the community, and I understand your frustration at the state of RW, but in the future, please don't try to troll to prove your point. But good post though! Roman Sionis ^{tends to be inactive during summer} 12:17, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

What is the "state of RW"?

What needs to be fixed or improved? AndreS (talk) 14:17, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I killed a turtle by accident

I ran it over on the highway when I wasn’t paying attention. I went the long way around to check on it and the sight was more than I could take. I don’t know what to do or how to feel. I feel so torn that I ran over one of my favorite animals because I was looking at my phone. My head hurts now and I’m not sure if I should move on or if that’s making light of what I did. I feel awful. I always said I make efforts to help animals on the road and here I am feeling like a hypocrite. What do I do?Machina (talk) 15:02, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

It was not intentional. It was an accident. Learn to pay more attention and feel no guilt.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 15:06, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

First, the grim imperative for driving is actually to run it over if other choices are too dangerous (such as swerving or braking suddenly) unless it's a human. Guilt is inevitable so learn how to cope with it. However please don't look at your phone while driving unless it's the gps. I don't think you're a hypocrite but I figure tyhat experience will stay on your head and I hope you'll learn to not use your phone because of this. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 15:07, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I can still see it flying in the rear view mirror though when I close my eyes. I feel like such a monster. I know I have to move on, that carrying this won’t bring it back or undo it. But I...feel like that’s letting me off easy. I feel guilty that I don’t feel worse, that I’m not breaking down or crying for what I did.Machina (talk) 15:14, 7 May 2021 (UTC)