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

I regret to inform you the Canadian government is at it again

Canada's Top Court Ruled That Oral Sex with Animals Is Legal. ^{— Unsigned, by: 2001:8003:DDB1:C600:2940:8C79:F1A2:AFEB / talk / contribs}

It shouldn't be a controversial decision, Supreme courts should be extremely careful with broadening legislation (as the article says). While it is outrageous what the father did, and that there isn't a law covering animal oral sex, the court ruling is not. Westminster parliament systems should have a lot more private member bills to allow what should be non-contentious straight forward stuff to get passed. ShabiDOO 22:49, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I regret clicking that link. This isn't a story about having sex with animals. This is a story about a man forcing his stepdaughter to have sex with animals. And while the bestiality charge was dropped the man is still guilty of a slew of other charges. I'll admit I'm curious about the mind of the lawyers that elected to appeal his case. Unless Canada is more generous about assigning public defenders than we are (does the term public defender even apply here?), or this man is very rich?-Hastur! (talk) 02:15, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Pretty disgusting facts there, but the court is right, any criminal law should be construed narrowly and all the breaks go to the accused for any ambiguity. Forcing animal sex on your stepdaughter is one thing, but if it's just you and your goat I can't imagine why anyone would care. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 02:25, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

This is what Conservatives were worried about when they talk about Canada. Freedom on sex shouldn't include this. 10:20, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I know you're a slow learner, Ken, so I'll give you a tip. Creating an account and going straight to the saloon makes your case pretty weak, even if you pretend to be moderate. GeeJayK (talk) 13:27, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

@Hastur, I have pointedly not clicked on that link, but I regret letting @Shabidoo trick me into reading the phrase "private member" within a post about oral sex with animals . . . --Bertrc (talk) 22:41, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

WTF? It wasn't even me who posted the link...I just commented on it. Zheesh ShabiDOO 22:52, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

It is clear at this point that Shabidoo considers themselves to be some sort of edgy irreverent prankster intent on "owning the libs" and combating "PC culture"-Hastur! (talk) 23:38, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Maybe one day you two extremely useful and constructive members of this community will let me in on this joke. ShabiDOO 10:12, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

This is sooooooo gross and goes beyond what I think is the limits of "free love." Animals can't give informed consent, and don't entire understand the action they are performing. Plus, Canada's age of consent law is 16 years, and unless it was a really old dog I don't think it was above 16. The fact that it was considered not to be legal should be setting off alarm bells. Jake Holmes^{yell at me} 18:44, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

It appears that, despite Vice thoughtfully displaying a banner saying that "This story is more than 5 years old!", people don't check to see if, er, there have been any updates to a 2016 story. The problem in this case was that Canada's legal definition at the time was, er, kind of short. In particular, it didn't take the time to define what bestiality is. As in some reference books online (not all, but the Oxford definition Google helpfully displays for you is this way) the definition of bestiality is "sexual intercourse" (eg penetration and nothing else) between a human and an animal, this left open a loophole in the law. Hence the judge's ruling of no penetration=not bestiality.

Of course, this ruling absolutely set off alarm bells. So in 2019, Canada updated their bestiality law. Now it looks like this, including a definition where bestiality means "any contact, for a sexual purpose, with an animal", and additional text prohibiting an offender from being around animals for a period. Thus, the loophole got addressed. Problem solved. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 19:01, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

My horrible boss told me I'll go to hell...

...for not believing in her Chinese folk gods and having the audacity to say they don't exist. Spud (talk) 11:50, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I think you may have mentioned your horrible boss before. To be honest, I didn't know there was a Chinese version of Hell. It's fortunate that threats of Hell are equably meaningless independent of the source. EDIT .. Well, that's a "surprise" Diyu - it's just as barbarically improbable as the Christian one. Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 17:15, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

When a coworker brings up God(s) or politics, I immediately change the topic to something embarrassingly personal and/or TMI, like my parents' deaths or my own recent medical issues. I then continue to discuss that topic, monologuing if they continue on the prior topic. Just steamroll the fuck out of them while staying polite. Most seem to now understand I have no desire to discuss these topics in the workplace. Good public speaking and a fearless glibness help here. Also, since this is your direct supervisor, pulling out your phone and politely ask them to repeat what they just said into you recording app may curtail further input on their end. Semipenultimate (talk) 17:50, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

If that hell was real, we we all keep you company there. <3 LongStylus (talk) 20:08, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

(speaking as someone who did burn stuff and incense for my grandpa as a Chinese folk ritual) She better stock up on joss paper if she wants to be proven correct. And maybe she'll leave some dumplings and apples behind, you know, if she's really a good person unlike you. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:58, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Spud you’re going to hell because you won’t join the Support Chat with the rest of the Board members so we can schedule a new meeting! Save your soul, Spud! Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 23:28, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

@DuceMoosolini Thanks for giving me a much needed boot up the arse there. Hallelujah! I'm saved! I am now back on Discord (under my real name, which you might remember). Spud (talk) 06:11, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

What about the belief in reincarnation?

Given how many deities there are (including those of Doggerland and other ancient populations) there must be many different hells (and the Vikings would regard the 'all constantly singing the praises of the Christian god as some version of hell).

'My belief systems encourages me to be polite about other people's faiths and to be courteous and helpful in general to all.' will cover many situations. Anna Livia (talk) 09:24, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Chinese (Buddhist) Hell can be fun… at least for visitors.[1] Bongolian (talk) 21:04, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

@Spud I don’t envy your position. If you don’t mind my asking: is this the first time you’ve told your boss you’re a nonbeliever? Leucippus^{Salva veritate} 21:37, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

@Leucippus No, Far from it. It's also not the first or even the second time she's told me the gods can see me and I've retorted with, "They don't exist!"

I've never made any secret about my views on religion from my bosses. When I first came to Taiwan to teach at my current school, they asked me if I wanted to go to church on Christmas Day. I said no and I explained why.

One day, I found out that my school had a copy of the book The Great Dinosaur Mystery and the Bible on display. I begged my bosses to take the book intended to fill kids; heads with pseudoscientific and pseudohistorical nonsense off their shelves. In spite of the fact that I'd earlier told them about Young Earth Creationism and they'd laughed at how ridiculous it was, they refused. I offered to buy it from them. They refused. So I stole it, took it home and destroyed it. They never missed it. A few months later, I found out that the book they'd had on display since I came there, Dinosaurs by Design by Duane Gish was not, as I had always assumed, a book about making models. I took that home and destroyed it too.

A few years ago, I was told I might be having one-to-one lessons with a man who was being sent to the West as a Buddhist missionary. I made it clear I would only be teaching him under protest because I didn't want to help with the spreading of any religion. My stupid male boss even made me look online to see if there are any English textbooks specifically designed for Buddhist missionaries. Of course, there aren't. I'm happy to say those lessons never happened.

Long term users may remember the adult woman student who made me wear my wizard costume for our one-to-one lesson on Halloween 2019. We were reading a simplified version of Anne of Green Gables. The word "Sunday school" came up and I had to explain what that meant. She asked if I'd ever been to Sunday school and what my religious beliefs were. At that point, my horrible boss was lurking in the doorway. I said, "I'm a secular humanist. I don't believe in God", my horrible boss laughed at that, "I believe in people. I believe we only have one life and we should try to be good to other people while we're here." My horrible boss was smirking because I have not gone out of my way to be good to her. For her benefit, I added, "But if someone isn't nice to me, I don't have to be nice to them because nothing bad is going to happen to me after I die."

So that's the complete history. It struck me as funny that within a month of certain Christian trolls here telling me that I, and other RationalWiki editors, will go to hell, someone from another religion said the same thing to me in real life. And it really struck me as odd that of all the nasty, personal things she could say to me she chose that. Because none of the other white teachers from Britain, Canada, New Zealand and Australia who've worked at the school and she now thinks are great (although she hated them while they were here) believed in those Chinese folk gods either. And none of her many British friends she supposedly has and keeps going on about would believe in those gods. Does she believe they're going to hell too? Maybe she thinks it's OK to have any theistic religion. I'm probably overanalyzing now. She just wanted to say something nasty and personal to me, like she has done many times before. Spud (talk) 11:12, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

@Spud It’s refreshing to see someone as principled, and empathetic, as you are towards your students’ welfare. You’ve had to make personal sacrifices (stealing those books, risking the scorn and disapproval of your religious colleagues) that have made your job far from easy. Weaker individuals (the majority of us) would’ve crumbled at the prospect of having the courage of their convictions in the face of zealous in-group pressures. I think your boss, quite simply, fears someone who isn’t a pushover, who won’t dance to her tune, and as a consequence she has had to resort to petty, pathetic intimidation-tactics. Furthermore, your boss clearly intends to provoke a pronounced reaction in you, so don’t give her her what she wants. Nevertheless, surely this language could be considered bullying behaviour, I don’t know what the situation with unions is like in Taiwan, but have you considered consulting a teacher’s union? I wish your boss wasn’t such a bigot, and yet, I trust that there are far-more rewarding moments that crowd-out those fleeting skirmishes with your boss; you seem to have been able to endure admirably over the years—organising pockets of resistance. To end on a more humours note: you should accuse your boss of blasphemy, I’m certain the parent-teacher tribunal will push for the Wicker woman … then again, saner heads have prevailed. Leucippus^{Salva veritate} 19:07, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Hell certainly exists Spud and that hell is dealing with people who are convinced that you will go to fictional hell. I'm sorry you have a nightmare boss. Is it that you are in Taiwan specifically for that job and cannot move to another one or are you attached to the kids? ShabiDOO 22:32, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

@Shabidoo Oui. L'enfer c'est les autres.

@Leucippus Yes, on the whole, I still enjoy my job. But I can't stay in it much longer. I really haven't stayed in it out of choice for the last 18 months. Bloody worldwide pandemic! And the reason I'm still in it is because my health insurance is tied to my job and my getting the second dose of the Covid vaccine is tied to my health insurance.

My boss certainly is a bully. She's tried to gaslight me several times. I now call her out on that every time she tries. And yeah, she's constantly trying to make me angry and I really shouldn't allow her to. Just because she's incapable of being professional doesn't me I can't be.

interestingly, my bosses' nephew (a lovely chap) said that his aunt and uncle respected me because I didn't always automatically go along with whatever they said and I was prepared to say no to them. And there's a funny thing. His mother, my horrible boss' sister, is the sweetest person I've ever met. She's just pure love. The exact opposite of her sister. Spud (talk) 12:17, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Joe Rogan has Covid

Oh the irony. https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/tv-radio-web/joe-rogan-podcasting-giant-dismissive-of-vaccination-contracts-covid-1.4663058 Cardinal Chang (talk) 10:24, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

The title of the article is misleading - Joe is not dismissive of the vaccine, he opposes its use for children. The author even notes that on the article. I'm sorry, but this reads like a hit piece. Senioritas (talk) 11:48, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

the article makes no mention of opposing its use for children. it does mention the flak he received from the us and government for undermining the value of vaccination by suggesting young people dont need the vaccine. it seems a fair headline and article to me.

it also says hes got a load of ivermectin along side other stuff that is actually recommended. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:43, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Most of what was reported that he rattled off, like prednisone (sometimes used for severely ill COVID patients to battle inflammatory responses, but not terribly useful in other stages as it tends to depress the immune system) and a "Z-Pak" (aka azithromycin, an antibiotic that is used to treat bacterial infections. Not viruses at this time. There's some preprint / in-vitro stuff on treating COVID, but, like ivermectin, that counts for little) was, given the information we have at this time, bullshit. Monoclonal antibodies is the only treatment he rattled off that actually is approved and is known to work. Rogan being broscience-y and popping everything he could think of (without bothering to do simple Google searches) kind of fits though. I bet Rogan is well known at his local GNC store. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 18:11, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

are there actually doctors in the us who prescribe a suitable medicine that a patient then takes as directed? feel like if i were paying for health insurance, and i assume joe rogan can afford and ha decent insurance, that having access to a dr and getting whatever the dr ordered is the whole point of health insurance. why pay your subs if you just gonna see what people are saying on facebook? AMassiveGay (talk) 20:14, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, there is. I don't know how he is getting these drugs, to be honest.

There are unscrupulous doctors out there, of course, that will prescribe anything to anyone. Famously, George C. Nichopoulos was a "doctor feelgood" that gave Elvis Presley anything he wanted, which ended up killing Elvis. Also known in a broad sense, the opioid epidemic was fueled by "pill mills" that would give prescriptions for opioids to anyone, pretty much no questions asked.

However, I have personally found though that even relatively scrupulous doctors here tend to over-prescribe. Not sure if this is common in the UK, but it is here. You go in, for instance, with a bad sore throat that's lasting a long time and just want to check it's not strep. The doctor examines you and says nope, not strep, just a viral infection. And then prescribes a f'n antibiotic anyways, which anyone with a small amount of knowledge knows won't work for viral infections. According to the Journal of American Medical Association, 30 percent of antibiotics prescribed here are unnecessary. It's annoying. So my guess is it's probably one of those things, maybe Rogan went into his doc babbling about things and the doc sympathetically wrote a bunch of bullshit scrips just to please the patient. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 21:43, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

"Doctors is all swabs." - Long John Silver, Treasure Island by Robert Louise Stevenson. Miseme (talk) 02:27, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

It gets a tad bizarre. When did he contract it, did he stay quiet about it for a few days before announcing to his acolytes. Or could it simply be a case of he never had it but is claiming to be no longer infected, 3 days later https://deadline.com/2021/09/joe-rogan-covid-test-dave-chappelle-tour-vaccinations-1234825866/ Cardinal Chang (talk) 20:33, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

The Open University in the UK

Is using this version of the pride flag for some website pages and email signatures:

ShabiDOO 21:19, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Good idea actually, it is pretty controversial though. Senioritas (talk) 22:02, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes we had quite the debate on the issue a few months ago here in the Saloon. I supported things like the new flag though it seemed, if my memory serves me correct, that I was very much alone in my support on an uber inclusive pride flag. I am not going to say that arguments against it were bad ones, but I still totally stand by extra inclusive transflags and the value of black/brown stripes. ShabiDOO 22:07, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I think the flag is too literal. I think the old LGBT flag was all right with its old 6 colour stripes as the different colours didn't mean anything. Like for example the Canadian flag. The colours and the maple leaf doesn't mean anything, it just represent "Canadianess" if you get what I mean. Also having stripes for different melanins is silly in my opinion. BeardOfZeus (talk) 23:28, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Having stripes for different melanins is indeed silly, but discriminating against people for having different amounts of melanin in their skin is even more ridiculous. LongStylus (talk) 04:32, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't believe for a second it is silly. While I understand the will to stay with this same ole flag with its "colour blindness", it is a completely reasonable stance to take that other colours are added, especially to include black LGBTQ+ people who are famously marginalised within the very marginalised LGBTQ+ community. Turns out that this new design is being used by other institutions and even local governments (which I only just learnt about). ShabiDOO 16:27, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

That flag looks hideous. The old rainbow flag was fine. Don’t fix what ain’t broke. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 19:24, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Both flags are hideous. ShabiDOO 19:38, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I don't personally like the flag for a number of reasons. From a vexiology perspective, the identing arrow makes the flag look really busy with all the extra colors. From an opinion perspective, it just looks ugly. From a meaning perspective, I don't like it because it forces an overlap between two matters that... aren't really that related for the brown stripe? Like, sexuality and gender have nothing to do with race. I get there's an argument to be made that LGBTQ+ racial minorities often get sidelined in these discussions, but I don't think a flag is the right place to put that. Maybe a flag for that subcommunity specifically would be more useful than changing the overall pride flag. As for the trans flag (where I guess I have more standing), my dislike for it is that while it's true that trans people get marginalized pretty badly when it comes to LGBTQ (fuck off TERFs), it's a bit odd to primarize them on the flag like this. I don't mind trans flag incorporation in like, logos, but I find it personally a bit weird to put it on the flag itself like this. To me the original rainbow flag sorta symbolizes this freeing nature that it doesn't really matter where you come from, who you are, who you want to be and who you want to fall in love with, it's all fine, you don't have to belong in a box. Adding these specific "meaning" colors and the like to the flag kinda feels like we're trying to reinvent boxes for people to belong in, which is a thought that scares me. -- Techpriest (talk) 19:56, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, what about intersex people, or asexual people, or genderfluid people? What about those who want to place sex workers on the flag (as some do with a red umbrella)? Why are those specifically on the LGBT flag? In my opinion, this will just clutter the flag up so much in the future. BeardOfZeus (talk) 22:49, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

In My opinion, the Pride flag is already walking on a tightrope. It already is bearing the weight of six colors (try and list other flags with six colors on them that are NOT just inflated by their coat-of-arms) and the new colors just break the camel's back. The Black and Brown stripes never made much sense to me, because they seemed to me to divide people when a flag should unite them. Lastly, Transgendered people already have their own flag that from what I know often gets flown as a sort of sister/brother flag anyway. An Advocate (talk) 22:50, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I can understand some of the arguments made here but I don't for a second buy the "creates division" argument. By that argument, the pride flag itself creates division by representing a sub-group of humans. If "dividing" is to be avoided then the argument should be to scrap the flag itself. In any case, if the flag requires 1,000 different shades and stipes and sections to accommodate the requests of marginalised groups and advocates, I don't see the harm in adding them. If it should be generic then just have a white field with LGBTQ+ on it. It is already a hideous ugly flag that I never voted for or agreed to. ShabiDOO 12:04, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Are Covid boosters needed?

There seems controversy. On one and it seems the Biden administration plans to have some this month. On the other hand, there are scientists who feel it is not nessarry that the vaccine already protects well and that the doses should be saved for people like those in countries that have trouble accessing vaccines. ^{— Unsigned, by: 2607:fb90:a87b:e9fc:66ae:df3f:1873:e05e / talk / contribs}

Signature please. --Get Vaccinated (talk) 22:35, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Fauci: 'Dramatic Data' From Israel Support COVID-19 Boosters.

"Come with me if you want to live. That Covid-19 virus is out there. It can't be reasoned with, it can't be bargained with. It doesn't feel pity of remorse or fear and it absolutely will not stop. Ever. Until you are dead." - Anthony Fauci, Terminator 7 Miseme (talk) 08:06, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, there is scientific, political (and even moral) debate about this question. This is the first time we have lived through something like this with the resources we have, so such debate is far from surprising. In fact, it's to be expected and is welcome.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 18:08, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

if the science says a booster is needed, then a booster is needed. not much more to it than that imho. there is no debate beyond that.

the question of saving doses for countries who cant get hold of the vaccine is answered by by what the science says - if its needed then those countries who can buy/make or already have it will keep it for themselves. think yourself lucky if you live in the developed world. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:00, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Nothing at all is necessary per se. Needs depend on wants, that is, the goals to be achieved. COVID vaccine boosters have certain consequences, and if those consequences are needed to achieve the chosen goals, then sure. Semantics aside, I expect your intention was to ask if vaccine boosters are necessary to end the pandemic or something along those lines. The short version is that the current vaccines are nowhere near effective enough to do that on their own, though it is conceivable that they would be able to help other methods. However, they may actually be counterproductive at this point due to leakiness and the selective pressure that produces.

The long version has to do with the particulars of coronaviruses and their interaction with the human immune system. Coronaviruses in general don't produce a strong, long-lasting immunity like certain other families of viruses do, which is one reason why people can catch the same cold-causing coronavirus multiple times. The other reason is that they mutate rather quickly, particularly when they have a large population in which they are endemic. It looks like vaccine-induced immunity to SARS-CoV-2 is largely gone at around 6-ish months after "full" vaccination, but that boosters can restore this. The number-frequency of boosters required to maintain immunity is an area of ongoing research, but it looks like ongoing boosters every several months is likely. That said, boosters only produce an immune response to strains with matching antigens. That is, they don't offer improved performance against vaccine-resistant strains vs the initial vaccination. With vaccine-resistant strains like Delta being prominent now and likely to become more so due to the selective pressures of vaccinated populations, this means that the protection offered by the current vaccines declines over time even with boosters keeping up their immune response. With the Delta strain, it's at the point where it can spread uncontrollably in 100% vaccinated populations, and there are more-resistant strains out there already.

With ordinary vaccines, this would just return things to the state of affairs of an unvaccinated population, but a major problem with the COVID-19 vaccines is that they are leaky, particularly against the vaccine-resistant strains. That is, they reduce the severity of symptoms while allowing infection and transmission among vaccinated people. Normally, pandemic diseases (e.g. Spanish flu) become less virulent over time due to selective pressures - people with severe symptoms have less social contact and are therefore less likely to infect others. A leaky vaccine changes this, with the selection being for increased viral load and shedding (generally an indicator of virulence). With leaky vaccines preventing or reducing symptoms that would hinder the spread of virulent strains, diseases are incentivized to become more virulent over time rather than less. With widespread use of a leaky but otherwise effective vaccine, this produces something like Marek's disease if given enough time. However, it looks like the current COVID-19 vaccines aren't effective enough to shift the selective pressure away from reduced virulence. Widespread use of leaky vaccines would presumably lower the selective pressure for reduced virulence, and extend the duration of dangerous strains in the population vs the situation without vaccines.

There will presumably be new vaccines developed to address the currently-vaccine-resistant strains, but unless they are extremely effective at producing sterilizing immunity, widespread use will just produce another round of vaccine-resistant strains. If the new vaccines are leaky, they could still be used to some benefit, though. Restricting them to small numbers of high-risk people like the elderly and those with high-risk preconditions would go a long way to reducing fatalities while minimally changing the overall selective pressures faced by the virus. Ending the pandemic medically is not currently an available option, though every person in the world wearing an N95 or better mask (properly) would probably do it. 96.60.168.60 (talk) 00:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I feel like the OP is trolling to a degree, but fleshing out the question in a more interesting way: Is it morally acceptable for the West to give booster shots, when it is still in such demand in Africa, Latin America and South Asia? I will get a booster if it's recommended, but I feel like we're not doing enough to vaccinate the world.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:34, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

What do I do now?

I posted a new essay here: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Essay:The_Venus_Project

Now do I just wait for folks to read it and comment on it? Sorry I'm still kinda new here. Thanks. Hansen128 (talk)

Since there's already a mainspace page on The Venus Project, it might be more productive for you to see if there are things that are missional in your essay that can be added to the mainspace page. Essayspace doesn't often get much traction. Bongolian (talk) 03:41, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Not bad at all for your first essay here. Though you might want to give a very brief one or two second Intro to the Venus project before starting (having read your essay myself and not knowing anything about the Venus project I felt a little confused until I got to the actual Venus project section. You might also want to trim his life experience section a little. Bongolian is right in that if you can improve the actual article it would be swellerific. While it's great that you wrote an essay please don't be shocked if you get minimal response. Some people may read it and simply not have anything to say about it... And some essays get very few readers.ShabiDOO 17:28, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

The thing is, if you really want engagement with an essay it's best to write something which challenges people's views in some way, or which takes an entirely different angle on a well-known issue. (Even then, engagement is far from certain.) If you want to promote general knowledge in the skeptical (or the on-line) community then create, or add to, an article.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 18:04, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@ShabiDOO Added an intro to the essay.

As a new member I didn't want to go and start changing articles without first making sure I was headed in the right direction. I feel like the original author did a pretty good job giving an overview of The Venus Project but then got lost on "how decisions are made" and just assumed that the project was hogwash. At least that's my take. It might be hard to make corrections without re-writing a whole section or more. I'd rather use a surgical knife to make corrections than a maul but I guess for some jobs a maul is more appropriate. I'll see what I can do. Thanks for the feedback. Hansen128 (talk)

In point of fact there is no "original author" on wiki pages. If you click the "fossil record" tab on the article you will be able to see the authors who have contributed to it. If you want to make substantial changes to an article or change the tone or focus it is best to state what you intend to to on the talk page first. If nobody objects in a couple of days then go ahead.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 15:43, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Dealing with IPv6

Community Standards thing. Please read and vote. -- Techpriest (talk) 18:54, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

It's about the future of range blocks due to shifts in IP address standards. As Techpriest described, the current de facto policy is unlikely to work in future. Bongolian (talk) 19:23, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Flat Earth Cosmology: Firmament

We all know the the Earth being in a dome made out of Firmament is a load of shit but anyways, I will state this:

Why doesn't a Flat Earther get in a hot air balloon, fly up to the supposed dome, take samples, analyze them, do scientific research and publish a scientific paper? If the Earth were flat and surrounded by a dome, it would be easy to prove.

I know that I am preaching to the choir but I have to get this thought out. --Get Vaccinated (talk) 22:35, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

The idea is that the firmament is at the upper reaches of the atmosphere, near the commonly-accepted altitude where "space" begins. Too high for balloons to reach, and amateur rockets that can go that high are rare and expensive. The idea is that the Conspiracy has a relatively easy time controlling the small number of groups able to do it, and that the flight plans are not as published, or they impact the dome and are destroyed before reaching space. There are supposedly chunks of glass that have been knocked off the firmament by such impacts. It's a relatively minor point compared to things like stars having two centers of rotation. 96.60.168.60 (talk) 22:53, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I think most FE folk would just tell you there is some conspiracy re: hot air balloon manufacturers/pilots. Probliknaut (talk) 22:54, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Or better yet - go into the International Space Station and see the round Earth! (Though I doubt NASA would appoint them). Andrew5 (talk) 23:04, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

The ISS is in low orbit, so the visual difference between a round and a flat Earth is relatively small at its altitude, particularly over a human's limited field of vision. A keen observer could probably see that something is up, but showing a clear difference would take an instrument like a theodolite. The images taken from low orbit showing a "round" Earth were made using a wide-angle lens, and due to the geometric distortion required for mapping a wide-angle view to a 2D surface for display, such images would show a round-looking Earth even if it were in fact flat. 96.60.168.60 (talk) 23:50, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Guys don't you get it, space itself is PART OF THE CONSPIRACY!!! WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!! BeardOfZeus (talk) 00:08, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who does have a fairly significant wide angle lens for my DSLR, that's some nice high-grade bullshit there. :)

I tend to not be in social circles where flat earthers period, let alone firmament flat earthers, don't really exist. A quick glance at Youtube seems to suggest pro-firmament videos coincides with exactly the sort of videos you'd expect from a bunch of crapola constructed in Genesis, with references to God, End Times, ancient aliens, and other sort of shit that is basically a whine that they don't like change or uncertainty. The more popular Youtube videos are those that make fun of them. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 00:12, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Here is a wide-angle photo of a city. How do you think the horizon would appear to a human in the spot the picture was taken from? 96.60.168.60 (talk) 00:58, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

If you are actually srs (!), the answer is: A) most wide angle lenses are *not* fisheye style, B) for fisheye, anything on the bottom half of the photo would curve "the wrong way" for a flat horizon to look like a globe; C) the Wiki article "List of cameras on the International Space Station" would make any Nikon fanboy envious, and it's pretty clear they have a wide variety of gear, including many lenses. From kinda standard (24-70mm) pro stuff, to a massive $17K 800mm tele. Clearly they are not stuck in space with just a single fisheye lens. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 01:22, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Please read what I have actually written. You seem to be arguing against something that you imagine I meant instead. Perhaps due to an impression that, because the "flat Earth" conclusion is wrong, all the arguments made by supporters of that conclusion must also be wrong. Andrew5 commented above that the curvature of the Earth could be seen from the ISS, presumably from having seen photos taken from the ISS. What sort of lens do you think was used to produce such photos? With a 25mm focal length, the curvature isn't very strong. 96.60.168.60 (talk) 01:49, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

A wide variety, actually, judging from this set of pictures I found. Earth's curvature is pretty visible on a few 50mm shots (aka "standard" lens, not a wide angle lens) in this set. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 02:04, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

There's a reason I chose a photo with 25mm focal length that looks out through a window, with the horizon centered. Again, please read what I've actually written. Do you think that the view through the ISS window shows a strong enough curvature to convince someone whose world view requires them to not see it? 96.60.168.60 (talk) 18:18, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I find it funny that Flat Earthers have never once mentioned as to what the Firmament is made of. --00:27, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I will hereby call it Substance X BeardOfZeus (talk) 00:43, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Easily confused with Chemical X, thus the great Cartoon Network/Flat Earth conspiracy. Probliknaut (talk) 13:55, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

The real conspiracy is hiding that Chemical X is Aku. 96.60.168.60 (talk) 18:18, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

A pair of studies by Ditto et al. and Washburn and Skitka have found that conservatives and liberals are about equally likely to deny scientific conclusions that conflict with their political views.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1745691617746796 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1948550617731500

BeardOfZeus (talk) 23:40, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

"Shocking results suggest that most conservatives and liberals are human!" 96.60.168.60 (talk) 23:54, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

You linked to the same study twice. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 23:57, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@Serene Whoops. Thanks BeardOfZeus (talk) 00:02, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

People are failiable. For example: Anti-Vaxxers. You can find them on all sides of the political spectrum. You got left wing hippies who think vaccines are part of the overreaching government and have toxins; there is also the right wing evangelicals who also claim that vaccines have the Mark of the Beast and have toxins. Plenty of pseudoscience is not limited to one school of political thought. --Get Vaccinated (talk) 00:18, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Mostly it's a measure of commitment. People who are strongly bound to a position will read with more bias than those whose allegiances are looser. Willingness to change your mind is important, as is willingness to understand contrary positions, and these things come hard to humans. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 01:21, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Frankly I have always thought moderates- left or right- are more receptive to discourse. Probliknaut (talk) 01:51, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I must also express my shock at finding that people with strongly-held views are likely to accept evidence which supports their views but reject evidence which contradicts those views. We should give it a name something like confirmation bias.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 13:55, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Any honest person willing to step back from the political realm can see this. Science conveys a lot of social authority with it so saying the science is on your side always sounds good and everyone claims to be pro-science until their views are contradicted by science. A lot of the same tactics are used by both sides to obfuscate the facts(science has been wrong before, what about this "expert" who disagrees with the mainstream, follow the money!) and create doubt. For liberals, the big issues where I see them fail tend to be organic farming, biological sex within humans, and nuclear power. For conservatives its evolution and global warming. Both sides have fringe corners who are hostile to modern medicine, preferring placebos, folk medicines, or other crank theories like all that really matters is nutrition. There are also people who deny the germ theory of disease and think most sickness is caused by the government poisoning us with chemicals. Neo Stalinist (talk) 14:48, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I wonder how these stats compare to those of centrists. It is after all, one of the most interesting blindspots in the study of political views. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 15:13, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

The "center" depends on where you are standing - and nobody is immune of confirmation bias.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 15:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Sri Lanka's anti-science FAIL!

Sri Lanka's president, Gotabaya Rajapaksa, made the strange and disastrous move to ban importing synthetic fertilizers and other agribusiness chemicals with predictably destructive results. At least predictable for anyone with a knowledge of basics science, agronomics, or economics. Synthetic fertilizers, first developed in 18th century Europe, are now responsible for feeding billions of people around the world. The Haber-Bosch process used to make synthetic fertilizers was one of the great leaps forward in 20th century science. Increasing yields per acre, transforming wilderness into farmland, and reducing the need for animal manures. Since then the spread of fertilizers has become a mainstay in farming. Without it, nations that are poor but still food secure would see exactly whats happening in Sri Lanka now. Keep in mind this isn't the first time a developing nation has denied itself relief due to anti-science ignorance. Zambia refused GMOs during a food crisis in 2002.

Like other government manufactured food crises before, the greatest suffering will be felt by those most vulnerable. The government will deny culpability and instead shift blame to anyone but itself. Merchants are already being accused of "hoarding". The solution to a problem generated by bad policy will be worse policy, declaring a state of emergecny and enforcing price controls by the military.

If anything "good" comes from this it will hopefully be that this serves as a kind of natural experiment so the "organic" farming crowd realizes the importance of synthetic fertilizers in maintaining and increasing world food output. We still have a way to go when it comes to convincing them on GMOs, however. Neo Stalinist (talk) 15:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Texas Voting Bill

I have seen several articles, such as this one, in which Texan republicans say that the bill makes voting easier. Has anyone seen anything about what is “easier” about it? I tend to read from left-leaning news outlets so I wonder if they are leaving something out, or if TX is just being a collective dickhead. Probliknaut (talk) 20:17, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Probably the latter. There is more voter suppression in Texas then in Georgia, and Georgia literally just voted for a Democratic president, and has two Democratic senators. Andrew5 (talk) 21:44, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Today's Republican party is all about 'tell, don't show', so you're wasting your time asking them to demonstrate proof for what they're saying. If anyone can link an actual Republican pointing to an actual feature of this law that actually makes voting easier - and not some bad faith bullshit about how 'oh this will restore faith in the process therefore more people will vote' - I'd like very much to see it. Semipenultimate (talk) 00:15, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Here's the bill in question. There are a few things that would qualify:

• Extending early voting hours in some situations
• Stipulating that people waiting in line to vote at the end of normal voting hours may still vote
• Allows people to use expired ID to vote if the expiration is the only reason the ID is invalid for its normal purpose
• Notifies people of problems with early mail-in ballots and allows them to be corrected or canceled (to allow in-person voting instead)

96.60.168.60 (talk) 11:11, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Nice blurb, the bill you linked contradicts it. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 12:55, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I don’t delve into the text behind bills often, but the abstract doesn’t make any mention of making things easier- the focus is pretty blatantly about fraud and “increasing criminal penalties; creating criminal offenses; providing civil penalties”. Section 2.11, I think, discusses how pop up voting locations are now banned. I did see the additional hour for early voting in sec 2.07 so I’ll give you that. Probliknaut (talk) 13:59, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Most of these types of bills are of the "it makes it easier to get the vote results we want" variety.

That said, there are serious problems with the voting system. I do believe there should be ID's to vote, though I also think the registration fees for ID's shouldn't exist for reasons beyond voting; imagine a homeless guy trying to get his life together but not having enough money for a replacement social security card, birth certificate, photo ID, etc etc. I'm also not a fan of automatically mailing ballots to everyone rather than only to those who requested them. On the flip side, every year there's voting centers where the wait was 4+ hours long; there should be rules preventing this travesty, e.g., at least X voting booths per 10,000 registered voters, etc. CorruptUser 13:08, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

The newest biomedical study that Trump supporters will take out of context

Oh great serpent, heal my COVID.

https://news.yahoo.com/snake-venom-may-tool-fight-213806525.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall

A group of biologists in Brazil are studying snake venom from a specific species of snake as a treatment for COVID-19. Obviously this study is being carried out in proper lab conditions and by qualified scientists. These scientists make it perfectly clear that snake venom is NOT a COVID cure but rather a possible treatment. The study is in the animal trial phase; specifically, monkey cell cultures. This study shows that the molecules in the venom slow down COVID-19 virus particle replication by 75%.

Safe to say that this study will be completely misrepresented by Trump supporters and they will use snake venom to cure COVID. They already use medication for farm animals. --Get Vaccinated (talk) 20:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

You probably need to treat the snakes with ivermectin first before consuming their blood, not to mention clapping three times and touching your nose with your pinky. In all seriousness that’s pretty interesting. I wonder who decided to dink around with this specific snakes venom and COVID? Probliknaut (talk) 21:31, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Sometimes I wonder if Trump supporters support these quack cures just to "own the libs". I mean I really doubt that all these Trump's supporters really support using horse dewormer as a possible COVID-19 treatment. BeardOfZeus (talk) 23:06, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Unless that increase in calls to poison centers is also a part of the vast lib-owning conspiracy, I think it fair to judge that Republicans are indeed getting high on their own supply, as it were. Likely it's a split - you've got your usual social terrorists who live to hurt others online, and you've got your true believers who would do anything or buy any dumb bullshit if Trump or his lackeys told them to do so. Semipenultimate (talk) 00:20, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

The people who will selling this quack medicine are literally snake oil salesmen! BeardOfZeus (talk) 00:35, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

The actual article has a bit less sexy of a title: "Non-Toxic Dimeric Peptides Derived from the Bothropstoxin-I Are Potent SARS-CoV-2 and Papain-like Protease Inhibitors". Interesting, but very early. Molecules is an open access journal from a publisher named MDPI, and their reputation is mixed-positive online it seems.

As far as "lib owning" goes for quack bullshit, a certain ex-President is vaccinated and these days is touting the benefits of the vaccines that were created during his administration. Yes, when these guys take their "alternative" medicine, they are owning a "lib" like... Donald Trump. I actually think a fair bit of Trump supporters actually are okay with the vaccine, but there's a significant conspiracy theory whackdoodle crowd on the "conservative" end these days, they are loud and noisy, and it's actually interesting to see them get pissed off at their "God Emperor" saying nice things about the jab. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 01:26, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I would say "let natural selection take its course" but a bunch of idiots might go to Brazil to hunt snakes. --Get Vaccinated (talk) 19:53, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Why is there a vandalism template here on RationalWiki?

Seems a bit pointless. Template:Vandalism BeardOfZeus (talk) 02:10, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

It's unused, so it hardly matters. There's plenty of dross if you look for it. Bongolian (talk) 03:46, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

There's a ton of old stuff left over from our earlier days. We can't be bothered deleting it because as Bongolian says, it doesn't matter. Also, if you try deleting it you will wake the Ancient Ones, and nobody wants that. Avida Dollars^{her again} 11:42, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Wouldn't it break a bunch of pages?Andrew5 (talk) 19:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

It is indeed an historic reminder of days of yore. But this is a pretty bizarre example even from those far-off days. Nevertheless unless it is actually causing a problem somewhere there is probably no reason to mess with it.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 18:10, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Was Trump a wicked person or simply a well meaning misguided person?

Would he have been a better president if he had better guidance? Or was he always going to end badly? 2607:FB90:1367:8EB1:3864:2281:6D36:581 (talk) 03:44, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

What do you think random person asking rather loaded questions? What's your opinion? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 04:02, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Just wondering about how Trump's presidency went wrong. And what kind of person he was inside. If his attitude was deliberate or him not knowing better. I do not trust him to be president again but just wondering what exactly was in his mind when he made the mistakes that caused America to suffer. 2607:FB90:1367:8EB1:3864:2281:6D36:581 (talk) 23:47, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm not really sure that any of those adjectives or descriptions work, so it's a bit of a false dilemma. I think he was a narcissist who started to firmly believe his own lies - and he still does. I'm not entirely sure that he is even "sane" in the sense the we usually use the word.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 11:04, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

As GrammarCommie is inferring, it seems extremely unlikely you are really interested in our opinions but waiting to reveal your own...so what are they? Do you honestly believe that Trump ran for president because he wanted to make a difference? And that his "misguided" actions were truly for the good of the country? ShabiDOO 11:59, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I like to picture Trump as a figure skater. He wears like a white outfit, and he does interpretive ice dances of my life's journey. Buck (talk) 12:11, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

This is an easy question to answer, Trump was and IS a vile piece of shit in every possible way. An individual not fit for any public office, who would and will fuck over anyone and everyone to make a buck including his own children, no matter what it cost. The fact that there exist idiots who will defend the creep from any criticism just highlights the cult mentality that surrounds the prick. But, since US politics has been swaying towards hagiographic worship of such people since the second world war, possibly earlier, it doesn't really bode well for it's future as a peaceful, democratic state. (Granted it can be argued , "was it ever thus?" The history of non whites in the US would clearly say, no. Cardinal Chang (talk) 12:27, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

(ec)Trump is the product of his upbringing: given whatever he wanted as soon as he wanted; never refused anything; never suffered any consequences for any wrong actions and always told that he was right whatever the deed. As ye sow so shall ye reap. We've our own miniTrump this side of the pond: Boris seems to be doing a good imitation. Scream!! (talk) 12:32, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Cardinal Chang What an emotionally loaded diatribe. Trump was nothing more than an incomepetent populist and a wealthy Capitalist. Granted, he has done more downright awful stuff than good stuff (Mostly regarding economics which he clearly is knowledgeable about), including attacking the LGBT, dismissions of concerns regarding extremism in the country, anti-immigration policies, and his mishandling of the covid pandemic, so he is unfit for office, but to call him a vile piece of shit is jumping the line. He did what his voters wanted him to do and I assume he mostly thought it was for the betterment of civil rights like freedom of religion. Imagine clenching your fists against lgbt rights in the name of freedom of religion though LOL... (Profile) - (Spoke!) 13:15, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@TransChicken will you go and shite. The man is a tosser. There's no defending the prick, try all you want, he's a national embarrassment who couldn't give a fuck about anyone but himself. And let's not even get into his relationship with Jeffery "wanna fuck a kid, giz a few quid and you'll be sorted" Epstein. Cardinal Chang (talk) 13:40, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@TransChicken crap; Trump never gave a toss for civil rights or freedom of religion and all he knows about economics is how to stiff his creditors.Scream!! (talk) 13:19, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I mean there is also evidence of his laws pointing toward civil liberties for right-wingers. For example, he lowered taxations, and made sure gun laws were as liberal and permissive as possible which is what his Republican voters wanted.

> or freedom of religion WHEEEEZE, are you living under a rock? Trump is a jew and an evangelical. Why would he pretend to push religious rhetoric, most particularly to attack the LGBT with?

Finally, I'll also add that I said "...thought for the betterment of...". I did not say that anything he did actually benefitted civil rights and the cons outweight the pros anyways. Perhaps, learn to read. (Profile) - (Spoke!) 13:35, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

As soon as you learn to write. Scream!! (talk) 13:40, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Epic comeback. Next time, don't butt in just to act like a dickhead. Yes, you don't like Trump, but you're just proving Neocons right that we are so easily offended by some fat cat who managed to get himself elected via extensive usage of his money, charisma and populism when you seethe over different views from your own. (Profile) - (Spoke!) 14:08, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Trump did some things I agree with. He started the process of withdrawal from Afghanistan that Biden is getting berated for following through on. His secretary of education did us the favor of restoring due process and getting rid of kangaroo courts on college campuses. But these are easily outweighed by all of the bad things he did, but most of those things were done with the collusion of Mitch McConnell and the rest of the Republican Party. I had hoped that by choosing a New Yorker who obviously knew fuck-all about the Bible might help bring the Republicans back to their senses. It did not happen so. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 14:02, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Cardinal Chang If you think there is no redeeming quality with Trump, you are equally as cult-ish as Trump's own fanbase who claims Hillary Clinton is literally Hitler and Bernie Sanders is a tankie. Trump is over all a scumbag, although he did a few things people liked, but withdrawing that fact just because he is Trump is intellectually dishonest. (Profile) - (Spoke!) 14:15, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

"Trump is over all a scumbag," so you agree with me then, even though you seem to be wanting to cause an argument. I tell you what, please tell me something positive that Trump has done that redeems him? There's a reason he's fucking despised over here in Clare, and it's nothing to do with being "cult-ish" Cardinal Chang (talk) 14:19, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

No, I do not. At least, I do not agree with the notion that he is a vile irredeemable piece of shit, which is exactly what you stated earlier. Trump did two things that did favor some people including lowering taxation and made gun laws more permissive, though I don't know if that matters to you. More generally, Smerdis also noted his involvement with Afghanistan which is a positive and he had a few meet-ups with North Korea's and Russia's leader that mostly ended on a positive note. For example, Trump signed a peace treaty with Kim Jong-Un. (Profile) - (Spoke!) 14:25, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

(ec)At a guess TC you're a teenager at most. Everything Trump touched turned to shit, without exception. (Peace treaty with kim Jong-Un! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! ) Scream!! (talk) 14:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

You should know better, adults don't resort to ad hominems in debate that's immature and impolite. (Profile) - (Spoke!) 14:35, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Debate? you're not debating, you're spouting right wing crap that you've acquired from too much Fox news. (and he is a vile irredeemable piece of shit)Scream!! (talk) 14:44, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I hate Fox news, but thanks for asking, I watch CNN. Acting like you do right now will really not be doing you any favor outside of RationalWiki. (Profile) - (Spoke!) 14:49, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

"made gun laws more permissive" is a good thing? Really? And lowering taxes? (might want to read up on what taxes he lowered there.) Clearly, you're an idiot, fuck's sake. Cardinal Chang (talk) 14:34, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

One, you missed over half of my comment. Two, I am not the one making outlandish claims that he is the worst thing to ever be born on this planet since Adolf Hitler. (Profile) - (Spoke!) 14:36, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Did I mention Hitler? Nope. That would be yourself. A question was asked, I gave an answer, you then piped in with whatever shite you seem fine with spewing, with emetic glee. Cardinal Chang (talk) 14:45, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

You said he was an irredeemable piece of shit right? That was my point, most people think of Hitler or Stalin when they think of the "worst man ever born". (Profile) - (Spoke!) 14:49, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

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

" most people think of Hitler or Stalin when they think of the "worst man ever born" Do they? I think of Thatcher. And again, I never said "worst man ever born" You seem to be reading into something that isn't there. So, I'll make it simple. Trump is a vile piece of shit (Do note the words actually used. Cardinal Chang (talk) 15:04, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Being this invective about a fat cat is lamentable. Whatever cult you're both in, you would be better off leaving it. (Profile) - (Spoke!) 14:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Saying that Thatcher (and indeed, any leader from a democratic country) is worse than two totalitarians that are responsible for deaths on the more than ten million each is fucking idiotic and migraine-inducing, even as an ironic opinion. Perhaps even more stupid as an ironic opinion. To say the least. GeeJayK (talk) 18:26, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Did I say she was worse than Hitler or Stalin? No, I didn't, but due to cultural reference points, and witnessing the results of a certain number of her policies and beliefs, make her, to me and those in similar backgrounds easily "The worst man ever born.", in a very unironic, and certainly skewed viewpoint. But definitely not moronic. Hitler and Stalin were beyond vile. Coupled with Pol Pot, Pinochet and Churchill (India famine) there's a gathering of vile cunts if ever there were any needed to be pointed out in a thread about Trump. Christ on a bike. Cardinal Chang (talk) 20:26, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Cardinal Chang Well, you said she's what you think about when people mention "worst man ever born", so I thought you considered her worse than Hitler and Stalin. That being said, Churchill is not guilty of the Great Bengal Famine of 1943. I'm not aware of a single academic that blames him for the famine (though I can mention many scholars that said Churchill prevented an even worse famine). The morons that say he's guilty of the famine use Amartya Sen as a source, but Sen himself came into defense of Churchill. Even on Wikipedia (probably the most unbiased source) they deleted the accusations of genocide because there aren't any sources besides The Guardian clickbait article. It's a fringe idea that tankies and nazis love, so Hiter and Stalin don't look so bad. Ah, Hindutvas love to blame him too. I don't which of these groups is the worse... GeeJayK (talk) 20:58, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I see your point in relation to Churchill and India, it has been years since I read up on it, and if memory serves it was most likely spurred from a discussion on medialens, before it turned into a cesspit of deranged conspiracies and pot-fueled narratives. I didn't realise A Sen had defended Churchill, my bad. And this offers a much needed revision on my part. Thanks. Cardinal Chang (talk) 21:08, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

He was always going to end badly. He doesn’t take advice as a rule and even if he did there’s no set of advisors who would be both competent and deferential enough to his easily bruised ego, so he’s willingly and perpetually surrounded by yes men and hucksters (incidentally the only folks willing to say you can go back the way things were, which I imagine speaks to the anima of Trump’s voters). He’s the poor man’s conception of being wealthy, the flat-footed’s totem of success. By the time he announced his candidacy he was an older, slower version of the guy who started with every advantage and went bankrupt multiple times in a truly epic fashion. Leaving aside that hostility to knowledge and the world with its eternal assaults on the self, he’s still a bad guy: spiteful, petty, greedy. He regularly took time out of his busy schedule of cable news to feud with celebrities, which you should hope was beneath a guy with command of a nuclear arsenal but wasn’t. Artificius (talk) 14:54, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

If those lackeys ever said anything negative, Trump or his voters would shut them down. Trump does not like criticism and neither do his voters funnily enough. Too bad Trump's childish behavior was his own downfall. (Profile) - (Spoke!) 14:57, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Is transchicken another stopper-by bent on making a few edits, Briefly telling us how to do things on the site and show everyone how stupid and wrong they are or will this be a long term issue? ShabiDOO 15:02, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

No: just an idiot! Scream!! (talk) 15:03, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Scream, fix your conniption fits. (Profile) - (Spoke!) 15:05, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Shabidoo Are you still seething from the time I stated that Machina should be mocked for spouting homophobic rhetoric out of incel anger? ^{— Unsigned, by: TransChicken / talk / contribs}

So much ink wasted over such little substance... ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 15:15, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I personally don't judge the figurehead as much as the trash that made the figurehead possible. Globally, there has been a wave of dumb tribalism-oriented masochistic authoritarian-wannabe leaders in positions of power of late. Donald Trump was one of them. The only reason that he got power is because in 2016 he stood out from 15 other milquetoast Republicans by stating that he wanted to ban Muslims and "rapist" Mexicans instead of doing the usual dog whistle thing. Trump also is a dumb bully asshole type, and all caps tweets was actually attractive to the alt-right troll crowd instead of being an embarrassment. But there are many others like him around the globe, and the end result could have been worse (see what's happening in present day Brazil with Jair Bolsonaro for instance), so in some ways over-focusing on Trump is wrongheaded. Trump proved to be overall a poor leader. His administration certainly did some things I agree with (such as starting the withdrawal of Afghanistan and kick-starting COVID vaccines). But I think his presidency will be remembered chiefly for his use of racist rhetoric and boosting of white nationalism (to the point of inciting a riot of chucklefuck Y'all Qaeda wannabes at the Capitol), his chaotic and scandal prone administration that didn't accomplish a whole lot, his mishandling of COVID-19, and whatever the result is of the authoritarian drift of the Republican Party that he definitely helped accelerate (but really began with Newt Gingrich if I was honest). None of these are positives. But some of these issues involve far more players than him alone. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 15:05, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Newt Gingrich is my bookmark in the American story for where the GOP embraced the dark side of political nihilism as well. I remember a gloating interview in the immediate aftermath of Trump’s 2016 victory in which when asked about the phantom nature of the issues Trump voters were concerned about, he replied “It’s about what [those voters] feel is going on in this country.” So he seemingly knew these people were acting from misguided angst and zero better angels and just did not give a fuck. Artificius (talk) 15:30, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, in a sense, all of this has been building up since the southern strategy.-Flandres (talk) 16:14, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

The southern strategy was when the GOP started getting a daily Big Gulp because it seemed cheap and easy, Newt Gingrich’s arrival on the scene was when they developed type 2 diabetes, their point of no return. Like any diabetic, when denied insulin/sugar/political power they get cranky. Artificius (talk) 20:49, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

It's Spud's 10^th RationalWiki anniversary

I'm celebrating 10 years on RationalWiki. I created my account on 10^th September 2011. And I've made as near as damn it at least one edit on average every single day since then.

Now let's see if any of the real Old Guard come out of the woodwork to say they've been here since 2007. Spud (talk) 12:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Well done, have some cake. I don't exist here, and have been not existing here since the site was founded, and will probably continue to not exist here for a while at least. Cardinal Chang (talk) 12:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Under one or two names since 01:46, 13 July 2007 me and my sis. Scream!! (talk) 12:45, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Congratulations on ten years! (And yes, I've been around since the very beginning too.)Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 14:04, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Ten cheers for Spuddy!!!ShabiDOO 15:02, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I have been here since 2013. --Get Vaccinated (talk) 17:21, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Celebration! BeardOfZeus (talk) 23:36, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Working From Home

Maybe this is as exciting as talking about the weather, but are you folks still working from home, if you ever transitioned to do so? Do you like it? Why or why not? My wife and I have been since March 2020, and I love it. I don’t waste gas to and from, can dig around in the fridge when I want and get to stay the hell away from folks who want to lean on my cubicle and chat. On a more serious note I feel much safer at home than work, COVID wise and physically; I mean, I haven’t had a cold, even, since we started working at home. I would describe myself as an introvert, so I know that a lot of folk are more antsy and eager to get to see people’s faces, though, and power to them. Probliknaut (talk) 16:14, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Working from home and fucking loving it. Might wear off after a few more months, but will enjoy it while I can. Waking up 5 minutes before work is a HUGE plus. ShabiDOO 16:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

But the worry that is easily ignored is, there's nothing to stop your company hiring someone in a different country to do your job for less pay. Cardinal Chang (talk) 18:13, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I guess it depends on the job. I have no concern for that with my particular role. @Shabidoo man and not wearing pants? Icing on the cake. Probliknaut (talk) 18:58, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm in New Zealand. Had 6 weeks WFH last year, and another 6 weeks so far this year - but this year's effort is only 3 weeks due Covid outside of Auckland which is stil in lockdown, the rest (before and ongoing now) is because my office building was "suddenly" found to not meet earthquake standards and everyone had to leave! As a bit of a loner - don't mind at all. As has been mentioned - saving on gas and train fares, and takeaway lunches! :) Can play a couple of War Thunder games at lunchtime, am not spending a couple of hours travelling - more game time! Local bakery does a great range of Danishes and various other sweets and pies.... all in all very happy! :D Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 22:56, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Imma flamethrower the Reddit article.

C'mon over to the talkpage and give me a hand, aight? Chat to youse later. - Rairyu75 (Talk) 19:47, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

There are no more Jewish people in Afghanistan (No this is not an anti-semitic post)

https://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/news/nation-world/world/article254073493.html

With the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan, the Jewish population either fled or were killed. Wonder how long before more non-Islamic groups are driven out of Afghanistan due to threats of their safety?

I feel sympathy for these people driven out of their homes. --Get Vaccinated (talk) 23:40, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I remember somewhere watching that there was only like 1 Jewish person in all of Afghanistan BeardOfZeus (talk) 23:45, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

...Right? Not going to say it is or ever was exactly zero, but the presence of the religion and its people in Afghanistan was probably pretty close until Jewish servicemembers of the various imperial powers rolled in and approached zero as those powers rolled were chased out ever since the Babylonian exile and later the diaspora following the second temple's destruction, the late Kaifeng Jewish population and whatever route they took to China notwithstanding.Artificius (talk) 00:47, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Or killed? No, there was only one. He fled. Andrew5 (talk) 00:49, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Al-Jazzera article on Jews in Afghanistan - salient points - first recorded as exiles by the Assyrians 2700 years ago, influx in early 19thC from Persian oppression - maybe 36,000, then slowly decreasing, 3300 left in 1936. Many left for Israel, and more from 1979 with start of civil war. Descendants of Afghan Jews still visit to "reconnect with their roots" Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 01:25, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

At this point I'm concerned about that synagogue. Islamists love to turn churches and synagogues into mosques as a form of dominance, to remind all infidels that eventually, everything they ever had will be the property of Islam. CorruptUser 14:29, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I had a Pakistani buddy/classmate who told a story about that: he and his family were Christian in the old country (converts from Sikhism about fifty to a hundred years ago), some podunk moron of the local flavor tried to steal their church by performing the magical ritual/spell that irreversibly transforms an otherwise unremarkable pile of rocks and lumber into a mosque in the shadow of night, so they beat the living fuggin’ tar out of him and he ran off. I always picture this unwashed, toothless git who has nothing going for him but his faith, yet somewhere in the back of his head he thinks "at least I’m better than those people." Then he proved himself wrong. Artificius (talk) 17:13, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

And then that toothless git then ran around telling stories about how he got beaten up by Christians because he was practicing his Islamic faith, and then a lynch mob formed in front of the church. CorruptUser 18:03, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

That's what I would have figured, but... said buddy didn't actually elaborate and I never thought to ask (he was weird about Pakistan. Seemed to hate Muslims but was fiercely nationalistic). I'll text him and see if there's such an ending to the story or if that nobody was so wretched that nobody else gave a shit when he was "beaten up by a Christian mob" (I'm picturing Cricket from "Always Sunny"). It's also very possible that their neighbors were just cool with them as long as they kept to themselves and didn't start handing out bibles and such. Fundamentalism and xenophobia can be a bit like the weather. Artificius (talk) 19:03, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Islamist suffer crushing defeat in Morocco

Maybe the Taliban played a role of voting out Islamists. Monet ^Ye 05:50, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

UK Taxes

I have recently moved to the UK. I've been working here for a couple months, getting used to a very different pace of work and office environment. Unemployment is relatively high in Spain at the moment per COVID and because of Brexit there is a fairly large labour shortage. I got a job in no time. Though I am fairly shocked to see that salaries haven't increased much in 20 years (I worked for a couple years in London 20 years ago). To say the rich keep getting richer here and the middle class barely see an improved standard of living is an understatement. The taxes are a fair bit lower than in continental Europe, so it isn't like I am outraged by a small tax increase. But what does seriously bother me is that the conservative government has raised NI taxes (for all) with a cut off point for the rich, and hasn't touched corporate taxes, capital gains taxes or is yet to make any serious effort to get companies like Amazon, google, facebook etc to pay a remotely fair share of taxes on the profit they earn in the UK. I know this is a fairly common thing for conservative governments to do, get the poorest to take on an absurdly unfair burden and they can go fuck themselves very much if they don't like it, but after nearly two decades of austerity...I still find it surprising (as well as the fairly tepid response to this by other parties). What is going on here? I swear I see far more people rough sleeping in the street than 20 years ago, more visible social problems in general and a decaying of the social net (as well as some empty supermarket shelves sometimes because of Brexit). Is this just a logical end for a conservative ideology? ShabiDOO 13:11, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

There's labor shortage in Canada as well. I'm personally unemployed because I don't want to get COVID, the anti-Asian racism scares me, and I'm dealing with health problems. Not doing online learning either as my apartment is normally loud during the day, so I can't study. I used to live in a decent condo that has a study room, but the increasing rent caused me to move out. Life sucks everywhere. LongStylus (talk) 14:15, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

It's almost as if the British government cares more about retired people and the rich than working people. I wonder who those groups vote for. --Annanoon (talk) 14:37, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I think you're a bit misguided here, Shabi. The best way to combat inequality is not by taxation (although I agree it does play an important role on this matter). The best way to fight inequality is with good public policies. Now, don't get me wrong, I do support progressive taxes, but there's an important tradeoff between them and economic development (see Ireland, they are growing faster than China in part because their taxation is low). lLet's not forget which country has the most progressive taxes in the world.

The social expenditure in UK is slightly higher than the average OECD. As far as I know that's also truth to taxation. That means there’s still more space for more social spending (and, I repeat, more progressive taxation), but that alone will not do it.

Also, I disagree with the 20 years of austerity stuff. Government spending has been in deficit for over 20 years in UK. The deficits in fact started in 2001/2002.

Not sure about the quality of life too. Between 2006 and 2018 the median household income rose from 223 k to 286,6k.

Public police is a complicated subject and there are always tradeoffs. If you want a good paper about how to tax the rich, I suggest this article by Harvard professor Greg Mankiw. GeeJayK (talk) 15:20, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

The best way to combat inequality is to get rid of the fawking foreign "investors". The way it works in California is that multi-billionaires from overseas buy up all the homes and then rent them out, and locals have no choice but to pay the increased rents because there is nowhere else to go. So instead of paying down a mortgage to eventually own a bit of real estate, you pay someone else to make them even richer which they use to buy up even more homes to jack up the rents even further. The MEDIAN home price in Cali is $800,000. If you graduate from medical school with $500k in debt, spend a few years in residency and then finally start making $200k+, you STILL can't afford to live in California.

The easiest way to combat this is to set the tax rate for primary residences at 2% and anything else, whether an apartment building or complex or second home, is 5%. Or better yet, a progressive property tax, e.g., 1% on the first $250k and 4% on anything above $250k. This would massively drive down the value of homes to the point where they are affordable, and always make a plot of land more valuable as a private residence than a rental. If you want a second vacation home in a really good location that's where a local would otherwise be able to walk to work, then you better be willing to pay out the wazoo. CorruptUser 16:42, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

That might be an option, but the shortage of houses is just one type of inequality. Besides, the main reasons why houses are so expensive in California are, as far as I know, far more controversial. This article by the Harvard professor Edward Glaeser blames the building restrictions for the lack of supply, for exemple. I believe this sort of policy might distort the market even more, resulting in even less houses available. You can argue (I'm just guessing here, I've never seen anything that suggests it) that there are already enough houses in California, so it's not a problem of supply, but even if that's the case I'm not sure that your idea is the best solution for a myriad of reasons that I don't have time to elaborate rn. GeeJayK (talk) 17:04, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

California is also on a fault line that gets regular earthquakes, tall construction is both expensive and dangerous. There's routine wildfires, droughts, mudslides, etc, and paving over more of the landscape for homes will only make those issues worse. Granted the drought situation could be blamed entirely on almond farms, but even so. Then there's illegal immigration; regardless of your stance on the matter, once you hit the max building limit, even if an immigrant family of 8 can squish into a 2BR apartment, that's still a 2BR unavailable for anyone else. In the meantime, illegal immigrants working for untaxed low wages is a big part of why rich people's homes are so valuable; if the nanny cost an extra $5k/yr, at 5% interest that would literally would take away $100k from the home's value, to say nothing of the gardeners, mechanics, landscapers, cooks, construction workers, etc. CorruptUser 17:20, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

(EC) Yeah, I don't deny that. It's a very difficult problem with no solution on sight. See, I'd bet that many of these restrictions are stupid, I'm sure many of them are also important. I'd also add that everyone thinks living by the beach is better than living on the desert, while living in the mountains is impossible for most of us. Also, I don't think global warming will make Cali any less uninhabitable... GeeJayK (talk) 17:25, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be a page here?

Found a dead link.

Huh, you learn something every day. Would have figured this for a support group type thing for clergy who’ve lost their faith and livelihood, but "secular clergy" apparently refers to priests who aren’t part of a monastic order like the Jesuits, the Dominicans, the Franciscans, what have you. I could see a need for such a thing. Can also see why this isn’t even a stub on RW. Did it get purged for that reason? Also, you should really sign your edits here. I think not doing so is how you get things deleted/invoke the old gods. Artificius (talk) 16:54, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it's some 2010 fluff that in 2017 got binned for being not even "good enough for Uncyclopedia". Guess whatever page this was found on didn't update accordingly. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 17:36, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Biden

Biden dissaproval rating amongst registered or likely registered voters hits 50%. Andrew5 (talk) 18:30, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

In 2020, Dem candidates kept dropping out for no other reason than to make sure that Biden got the nomination and not Bernie, because the establishment is that powerful. The Republican establishment has nowhere near that much power; if it was up to them, Jeb Bush would've been the 2016 nominee. They have no control over Trump, and you can bet he will run again in 2024. The Republicans have to support him or he will run as a third party the way Teddy Roosevelt did in 1912, and guarantee a Dem victory. As for 2022, I think it's going to come down to more BS regarding mail-in ballots. If the Dems can extend the lockdowns for just 1 more year, the mail in ballots will give them the advantage. If it's a normal midterm, the Republicans win. CorruptUser 18:49, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

This lack of control ironically comes from the GOP being ironically more democratic than the Democratic party (and vice versa) by a lack of superdelegates, right? Are there other factors? Artificius (talk) 18:56, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

September eleven

Who even really cares about 9/11? I mean for real, Isis left a large trail of blood behind them, but so did the KKK and no one talks about the KKK anymore since the 2000's, and I observe the same trend for Isis. I can say with certainty that in several decades, Isis and 9/11 will be forgotten entirely like the KKK.

I'm not even talking about progressive circles or RationalWiki who discuss about them, I'm saying that in general, everyone around me seems to forget about 9/11 and if I ask them about the KKK, they simply think they are fringe alt-righters which makes me so aggravated. They murdered 3 thousand people, they are not the same as those wannabe chauvinist pissants of the alt-right. (Profile) - (Spoke!) 19:00, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I take it you don't live anywhere near New York. Those of us who do (I'm in southwestern CT, on the rare occasions there's no traffic a bit more than an hour drive away) sure haven't forgotten it. An entire family in my hometown at the time was on one of the flights, and my parents knew someone whose brother jumped from the 105th floor. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:06, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

My new gender identity!

My new gender identity is RationalWiki moderator!! Since trans-men are men and trans-women are women, this means that trans-RationalWiki moderators are also RationalWiki moderators!!! If you misgender me from this point then you are a transphobe!!!!!!! Unclescrooge (talk) 19:17, 10 September 2021 (UTC)