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

How did Jesus become so popular? How does he continue to be beloved today?

If he was not a deity, was it because he was a great Jewish teacher? 2607:FB90:A8DE:391C:115:9FAE:E1E4:D1B7 (talk) 01:20, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

He sold his soul to Satan for popularity, duh. Then Satan wrote a bunch of bibles. CorruptUser 01:35, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

People loved hippies back in the 60s. GeeJayK (talk) 01:37, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

From what I know there are two things: the Apostles (who preached the good word) were really good at their jobs, and Constantine the Great, who was the fucking Roman Emperor. An Advocate (talk) 01:43, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I was about to say something similar. Actually existing Christianity owes remarkably little to Jesus.-Flandres (talk) 01:45, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

(EC)That explains the first part, but it's not all. As Richard Pipes once said, the Pope and the Church by that time were basically the only authority uniting Europe. Then, Christianity was also lucky that the two main European powers, Spain and French, were ruled by Catholics. Then the power moved North, to the United Provinces and to England. All Christian countries too. It is up to debate whether or not and to each point Christianity helped the European powers to build their institutions, especially after the Protestant Reformation (I personally disagree with Max Weber's analysis). But there are many too many coincidences. Christians do have more merits than we usually give them credit. GeeJayK (talk) 01:56, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

The (simplified) answer to the second question is simple-the romans had an obvious vested interest in Christianizing Europe as soon as their leadership converted. The later roman emperors often used Christian motifs to legitimize their rule. Enforcing orthodoxy now had political rewards. Furthermore, "barbarian" tribes would have a powerful incentive to convert, as it made relations with Rome easier. By the time roman power receded, Christianity was too interwoven with most of European society to remove.

As for the continuing worldwide reverence of Jesus, owing to the global reach of Christendom...that is owed to colonialism/imperialism and all the associated horrors.-Flandres (talk) 02:17, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

That has always been true. Constantine himself had to supress Paganism in his own time. An Advocate (talk) 02:27, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

And sometimes Paganism/heathenism was good soil to plant on. Mithras, Zoroastrianism, Apollo, and Bald(e)r come to mind. The adoption of pagan customs to make Christianity more palatable and how accepted they are in different schismatic sorts of Christianity is all kinds of fascinating. Kntai (talk) 10:39, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

The Bible has far outsold other books. 3.9 billion copies of the Bible have been sold over the last 50 years. As far as the top 10 read books in the world, the Bible blows away its closest competitors.[1]

Jesus is a central figure of the Bible. CThrash (talk) 02:36, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

That's more of a consequence, not a cause IMO. GeeJayK (talk) 02:41, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

The pen is mightier than the sword. CThrash (talk) 02:47, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Jesus does say some good things. Like turning the other cheek and forgiving people for faults. BeardOfZeus (talk) 02:59, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

(EC) I don't think that explains why the Bible is the best selling book of all time. The Bible became the best selling book of all time because Christianity was successful, not otherwise. GeeJayK (talk) 03:00, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

As the book title goes, "Christ was an Ad Man". Bongolian (talk) 03:03, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

(EC) Yeah I agree with you GeeJayK. BeardOfZeus (talk) 03:04, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Jesus Christ was the most influential figure in history. No one else comes close. The devil, the god of this world, can't even compete with Jesus. CThrash (talk) 03:08, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

You know, I don't think that trying to use book sale estimates as a sign of greatness is the wisest idea, consider that Mao Zedong's "little red book" is #2 on that list. :) PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 03:11, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Also, Harry Potter ahead of The Lord of the Rings?~Come one... GeeJayK (talk) 03:15, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Comparing Harry Potter and the Bible. There is going to be a difference between "bought by individuals" and "bought by groups and given away"- there is also going to difference between "not read and left in a drawer" and "read eagerly from cover to cover".

I'm guessing that the Bible will score highly in the categories: "bought by groups and given away" and "not read and left in a drawer"; while Harry Potter is going to win in "bought by individuals" and "read eagerly from cover to cover".

So if book engagement is the metric: All hail our Lord and Master Harry Potter. Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 08:16, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

You’re not joking: at boot camp in Great Lakes they used to hand out camo-covered copies of the New Testament like they were pamphlets (I wouldn’t be surprised if this has changed). One can take a message from discarded scripture clogging a storm drain regardless of one’s affiliation with its attached religion: this apostate got that the evangelical faiths probably didn’t (and don’t) have a proper reverence and understanding for what they consider "holy." Print enough copies and you’ll have spread the Good News apparently, even if it’s become ridiculously trivial in the process. Numbers, numbers, numbers.

They’d probably counter that printing and distributing so many copies increases the chance that the message will be there for those that need it when they need it, but the pervasiveness of Christianity in the states makes me think it’s just because they covet the #1 spot on the charts and fear its loss, at least the message it would send (Christianity on the decline yet again). Artificius (talk) 17:28, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Jesus, the historical figure, is not beloved. Jesus, the fictional character, is. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 17:37, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean by this? isn't that contradictory? An Advocate (talk) 22:20, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Fictional Jesus is whatever you want him to be, historical Jesus was an unsatisfying stub in an orphaned wiki for a largely illiterate and fractious audience (how far we’ve come) before Constantine and his mother became sysops and filled it out (one can best understand Andrew Schlafly in this context). Artificius (talk) 23:15, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

What seems muddy and contradictory you have made clear as day. An Advocate (talk) 23:19, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

@An Advocate The Bible contains so many fantastical elements that using it as a history book would be amateurish. Independent evidence suggests that there was a real person behind the "Jesus" myth, but we'd have to look outside the Bible to actually learn about that person. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 23:26, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I find it hard to go past how Christianity spread so rapidly in the Roman Empire - so much so that Constantine found it politically expedient to make it the state religion. Basically - if you were a common Joe or Josephine in the Empire your life was shit by todays standards - short, uncomfortable, prone to being stabbed in the guts by a passing bandit or invading barbarian, being turned into a slave, or dying of disease or childbirth, or suffering any one of a gazzilion other fates we would consider quite nasty. Then along comes Christianity - with a promise of Paradise(TM) - WTF is not to like? So the religion spread among those who had essentially hopeless lives - it gave them hope, a reason to be good little citizens (or non-citizens as the case may be), obey the PTB, etc - sure recipe for popularity. The rest, as they say, is colonization, the continuing harshness of ordinary life (by our standards), and then EVENTUALLY the realization by the powerful that this religion is a great way to help keep the masses downtrodden and supporting your own wonderful lifestyle. Now, of course not so much - life isn't quite as short and harsh for many, there are better explanations as to why the rains will or won't come, and it's become just another self perpetuating LGAT and power retaining scam.... Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 04:15, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Male Sexuality and how I view being gay

GAY EMOTIONS conversation ahead may rot your brain!

Machina...your biggotry is transparent for anyone to see no matter how much you disguise it in terrible arguments. Kindly take your biggotry and fuck off. ShabiDOO 17:45, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

* dons Mod Hat * 

Machina, this is a quick and formal warning; your behavior would have gotten any new user blocked. This saloon thread ends here. Until you can stop being a narcissist and consider that other people may experience feelings and emotions different from yours, I would suggest not pursuing this topic further. We cannot help you with doing that; it's clearly been tried in this thread and all that happens here is going in circles now. Consider this a mild letoff instead of the ATIM case this could very well be. -- Techpriest (talk) 20:33, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Do not revert a mod collapsing something. Nobody gives a fucking shit whether you comprehend or agree with what we are saying. What we expect from you is respecting human dignity and for you to knock it the fuck off with your bigotry. If you don't then it will be ATIM with the minimum of topic bans. ShabiDOO 09:12, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I just finished reading this thread and the only thing I have to say is that cis-heteronormativity was a mistake. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:27, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm just gonna conclude this dumb brabble with this quote: Offensive fits some of what he said. "I would say that your love is fake simply because you are a man falling for another man. It simply isn't so." "Takei is a what I would consider a bad example [...] and as mentioned before it isn't real love because it's two men". " Well the thing is that love between two black people is real, but not between two men as I have already said. It isn't the same thing at all." Less offensive, but pretty disruptive: "Be more reasonable with other people and afford them basic human dignity, agency, autonomy, individuality and humanity. Yeah...those are luxuries not rights, there is no basic human dignity, agency, autonomy, or any of that stuff. You've been too conditioned by modernity if you think such privilege actually exists. But that's beside the point." I would call Machina's position homophobic; I don't know that I would call Machina a homophobe or a bigot, though. Machina's thinking seems to me to stem from something distinct from the attitudes with which I associate these terms. (Profile) - (Spoke!) 22:28, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Feedback on my draft article.

Hey guys. I have just finished my draft article on 0.999... Draft:0.999... and would like some feedback. I am new here. Thanks. BeardOfZeus (talk) 01:32, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I'd say, for one, it requires more sourcing and references. Andrew5 (talk) 01:36, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Does the proof needs to have a reference? I don't think so but I might be wrong. BeardOfZeus (talk) 01:40, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

As a former math major, I feel like the proof is so basic that it doesn't really need a reference. It doesn't hurt to add one though. The Wikipedia article on 0.999... seems to have a pretty rigorous reference for the proof. LongStylus (talk) 11:54, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm just wondering what this has to do with the mission:

1. Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement;
2. Documenting the full range of crank ideas;
3. Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism;
4. Analysis and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media.

Is there some special sort of woo or some group of cranks associated with this? Remember - we are not a general encyclopedia.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 12:08, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing. I don't think it belongs in mainspace right now due to its lack of missionality. Spud (talk) 12:52, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree, but maybe it could belong in fun space? Besides, that's where our other number articles are in. @Bob M and @Spud. Andrew5 (talk) 13:35, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned anything could be in fun space.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 13:38, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah. Fun space would be fine. Spud (talk) 13:50, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I think it can be moved by a Sysop into fun space. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 14:21, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

What is missing is a citation for anyone claiming that 1 ≠ 0.999… If claiming that 1 ≠ 0.999… had any consequences, and I don't think it does, then it would at least be missional for pseudomathematics. Bongolian (talk) 17:39, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

@Bongolian I still think a move to funspace is fine, as it doesn't necessarily have to be missional there. However with that being said, I found this source, and this source do claim 0.999 is not 1. I'll add them in, and then we can move to either mainspace or funspace, where other number articles are.Andrew5 (talk) 19:59, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't necessarily disagreeing with that. After all, pi is in funspace, and it contains Biblically knowing pi, which has real-world consequences. Bongolian (talk) 20:08, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I think it should be in the mainspace because there is tons of people out there who think that 1 does not equal 0.999... and there is huge debates over the internet over this fact in places where you wouldn't think they would discuss it like World Of Warcraft. I think having an article in the mainspace will show everyone a simple to understand proof that 1 = 0.999... without need to understand complex maths. BeardOfZeus (talk) 22:50, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Also saying 0.999... doesn't equal 1 is a crank idea. BeardOfZeus (talk) 23:14, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

If that is the justification then the cranks and pseudo-scientists should be the main focus of the article. Wikipedia already has a very complete article on 0.999.... Our objective is not to compete with Wikipedia on this stuff but to give our own angle.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 09:33, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, if you want to compete with Wikipedia, @BeardOfZeus, and do so in a humerous way, go to Uncyclopedia. But be warned, you have to have to make it actually funny, and I don't know how likely it is to be accepted.

If you want advice on Uncyclopedia writing, I would recommend, if you want to stay here for now, go to User talk:Shabidoo or User talk:Celeste as both have powerful Uncyclopedia writing accounts. Andrew5 (talk) 13:07, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

What is big tech?

Can someone help define what big tech is? I hear it so often used in right wing and conspiracy driven circles as a bit of a snarl term akin to big pharma. I was thinking this could also be a new RW article at some point too.SensaurC-137 (talk) 11:18, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Big Tech. You know Google is a thing, right? But, you are right that "big tech conspiracies" might be an article.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 12:43, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Meh, Big Tech is what would happen if your opinion-based cable news company had the ability to change the channel for you. There's valid reasons for wanting them broken up. CorruptUser 13:26, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Big tech is much like big pharma: a core of shady shit with a bunch of conspiracy nonsense surrounding it. An Advocate (talk) 14:16, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I find it mildly peculiar the way 'big' has come to become an all purpose pejorative when attached to an industry. It seems to want to suggest excessive clout or collusion. People still talk about 'Big Tobacco', when in fact anti-smoking has been a civil rights emergency for decades. Anti-smoking killed Eric Garner. It has invented new forms of segregation and pariah-hood, and requiring the makers of tobacco products to vilify their own product on the packaging. (Which would likely be a First Amendment violation in the USA, if anyone chose to press the point.) That does not look to me like a dominant industry with plenty of political clout. As a rhetorical ploy, 'big' in this sense should be automatically suspect. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 15:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Eric Garner was not killed by anti-smoking; he was killed for tax evasion. He'd purchase cartons of cigarettes in NJ where there was minimal tax, then resell on the street for less than half of what the legal cigarette cartons would cost. Framing his death as "racism" (in spite of the sarge involved was Black) was a misdirection; we should really be asking why avoiding a few dollars in cigarette taxes got far more police attention than any of the billionaire tax cheats ever would... CorruptUser 15:24, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't disagree, but why were those taxes so high that this became a workable hustle? Likewise, there may be justification for 'Big Pharma' but Purdue Pharma got a very raw deal. They came up with what looked on paper to be a great idea, in one of the most overregulated industries in the US, and then get sued from here to Sunday for their trouble. The real solution here is OTC opioids. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 15:39, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Because taxation is the art of plucking the most feathers from the geese with the least amount of squawking, and taxes on booze/cigarettes has the best noise/feather ratio. Meanwhile, New Jersey didn't bother raising their taxes, in part because NYC's tax policy ended up increasing NJ's sales anyway.

Honestly though, the whole country should work to make certain "productive" hustles better so that the "loosie" and related hustles aren't worth the bother. The 5 cent recycling deposit effectively creates a hustle to keep many homeless people occupied with digging through trash for far less than we'd have to pay people to sort it manually, we should probably 1) make that national so that ALL the homeless have that option instead of just a few states, and 2) raise the rate to 10 cents already so that the homeless can make more money doing that than panhandling... CorruptUser 16:30, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Part of the reason I think Purdue Pharma got slammed so bad was their overaggressive "pill pushing" marketing. They really weren't the only ones doing this, and also they aren't the only company that got slammed... but they came up with the first formulation, started the first big marketing drive, and "led the way" for other pharma companies to do the same. From my perspective, pharma marketing is one of the very problematic aspects of the industry in the United States that most other countries handle a lot better. So in a way its fine to represent Purdue as "Big Pharma".

Generally speaking, the opioid class of drugs is not terribly suitable for OTC due to abuse potential, and it seems like places which had some opioids OTC are scaling back these days (eg it looks like Australia just ended OTC codeine medication). We have a couple OTC pain meds (aspirin, Tylenol, ibuprofin) already. As far as new OTC pain management goes I'd rather continue working to get marijuana fully legalized instead. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 17:38, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Big tobacco is still a thing: it's just morphing into e-cigarettes/vaping. Same companies, same hustles. They still use the same hustles of 'safer', etc. while hiding their research. Their research on cancer sticks was finally digitized and the massive warehouse of their research, which was used for lawsuits, is now closing.[2] Bongolian (talk) 18:23, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

For right-wingers, big tech is primarily large, politically left-of-center tech companies that: limit free speech (namely, their speech); politically discriminate in their hiring and donate a much higher percentage of their political donations to Democrats and/or left-wing causes.

Texas Instruments is less big tech than Netflix because it gives 20 times a higher percentage of their political donations to Republicans.[3] Texas, right-wing, engineers with Texas Instrument calculators and pocket protectors in their pockets are solid Republicans. Pureflix, a Christian/family friendly streaming service, is too small of a company to be big tech and too politically right-leaning to be big tech. TerraFirma (talk) 19:47, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that "big tech" is also sort of a thing really. It's not a political thing, although many conspiracy nuts, conservatives and other drivel sellers like to harp on about that, but there is no denying the fact that the internet has been heavily homogenized over the years. Most of the internet using audience uses the same 20 sites; a few social media sites, Google and that one place where they have to fill out their taxes. Companies like Cloudflare wield pretty enormous control over the internet, and at this point that's not even passive like their DDOS protection was. Everyone who uses Firefox on the default settings has their traffic pass through Cloudflare's "HTTPS over DNS" service, and you know how few people change that. Add to that with them doing services like providing domain names, and you have a pretty terrifying Oligopoly that has the ability to pretty much hijack the entire internet at the behest of the US government if they wanted. It's rather horrifying to think about that organizations like Cloudflare (they're the biggest one doing this, but Google pretty much does it too) can effectively sidestep all the original protections put in place on the internet to avoid this kind of nonsense. When I grew up in the 2000s to 2010s, you'd not have this sort of thing. The most centralized the internet "got" was through ICANN, the organization controlling the TLDs. The entire internet was pretty much set up like layers; even if say, the controller for the .com TLD got hijacked by a malicious actor, you could use another TLD such as .org, because they were ran by different organizations and ICANNs only role was to act as an international organ providing TLD registrations to interested parties, at first being limited to governments but later expanding to more generalized TLDs. This way, no single organization could hijack the internet, and even if ICANN was compromised, the organization providing IP addresses wasn't and that one was layered too. Basically the internet was set up with the intent of not giving full control over the fundamentals of it to any one individual, and now companies like Cloudflare are attempting to completely circumvent this for the sake of profits.

And that's without delving into the obvious concerns of Google and Facebooks datamining to sell shit to advertisers, which is it's own rabbit hole entirely, but most people know about that one by now. -- Techpriest (talk) 21:42, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

@TerraFirma Re the obvious sock on how right wingers view "big tech". The way right-wing media portrays "big tech" is considered laughable by most leftists. That is to say, the idea that it's some sort of left-wing or left leaning cabal is hilarious. No, it's the inevitable result of ineffective and/or non-existent regulation in a market system, specifically under the current system, capitalism. Unchecked markets inevitably lead to monopolies, no ifs, ands or buts. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 23:10, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Does anyone still use calculators any more? I do share concerns about the reach of tech companies, who control so much territory that it's difficult to compete with them. I did an experiment on Facebook some time ago, where I used the word 'COVID' in a post where it was ultimately an aside, to see if Facebook would blindly and officiously link the post to official information; it did. [4]. This is one reason why I have tried to keep our page on free speech mentioning online content control, as opposed to people who think that free speech can only be violated by a government. This is the perennial problem with marketroid libertarianism, substituting unelected and unaccountable social control for the kind you used to get to vote against. But if there's any specific ideological agenda in Google or Facebook stifling opinions and viewpoints, it seems to boil up from the employees themselves. And they at least aspire to a different tribal affiliation, one that rejects Trumpery as a badge of identity. And I've come to the point where I can at least see the point of 'something must be done about those ignorant savages.' Commitment to free speech means checking these tribal affiliations at the door. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 02:28, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Philip Morris, of Big Tobacco fame, is now show signs of end-stage denialism: They will fix that which they denied that they caused.[5] Bongolian (talk) 18:58, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Would you let your kids be on a little league team if you knew the coaches were Trump voters?

My kids want to be on a team with their friends so bad, but I know who the coaches are and all four of them are Trump supporters. I do not trust Republicans around my children, especially ones who support Donald Trump. What should I do? Catman (talk) 23:05, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Why? Is there a problem with Trump voters? BeardOfZeus (talk) 23:09, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes. 2603:7080:8F03:C3BE:515:6F7E:F895:FA0E (talk) 18:00, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

You should try to not let your politics interfere with your children's lives. ^{— Unsigned, by: 12.23.183.186 / talk / contribs}

If they were ordinary Trump voters I would agree. But not the ones like Ted Cruz, or even worse, Josh Mandel, who believe that the election was stolen from them, and Mandel even supporting the violence that came with it. Earlier today, while driving through Smithaven, I saw a sign saying "TRUMP WON", as I did when driving across I-76 in southern Pennsylvania. These people I'd try to avoid.This is my opinion. ~ Andrew5 (talk) 23:30, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Is there such a thing as "ordinary Trump voters"? Never mind things like YEC, most of them believe in Qanon conspiracy theories and shit, can't imagine any sensible person would be okay with their kids being around that garbage. And I don't know which is worse, the football coaches with their man crush for Trump, or the cheer coaches who are apparently okay with "grab 'em by the pussy" while they influence young girls. Maybe I'm just too sensitive, but I just can't bring myself to be okay with that. Catman (talk) 01:22, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes - people who were upset that Trump lost, but who admitted Biden had won and moved on. A good example is Lindsey Graham. See his statement on the objection of AZ and PA electoral votes.Andrew5 (talk) 01:50, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Oh look, an obvious bait post. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 23:43, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I sense that as well. Later it will be "Those heathens over at RT say children shouldn't be coached by Trump voters. I thought this was supposed to be Rational Wiki!"-RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:52, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, this is suppose to be RATIONALWIKI!!!1!!!1!11!! BumblinBrook (talk) 23:55, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

HowDareU!! BumblinBrook (talk) 23:57, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't want a Trump supporter as my kid's coach, because how the heck is he going to coach sports when we all know Trump supporters ain't got no balls? CorruptUser 05:36, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Politics aficionados, please brace yourselves. I have some news that you might find disconcerting.

Most kids don't care about politics. There is much more to life than politics.

That is all. Carry on. Jasmar (talk) 08:09, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't want a YEC teaching my kids geology or a homeopath teaching them medicine - but I'm not so sure I would be so concerned about the political opinions of an athletics coach.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 09:49, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

If the coaches are Donald Trump supporters, they might emphasize the importance of winning. Jasmar (talk) 11:45, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

100% true. Thats a good thing.--Andrew5 (talk) 12:25, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

It is inappropriate for sports coaches to discuss politics or religion with kids unless that team is explicitly a religious one or is under a political organisation. I would not be worried about who the person voted for but whether they were discussing these topics at all (or making off-hand comments). I believe the only social issues a coach should discuss are the cliche ones of self-confidence, integrity, team-work, doing your best and yada yada. In addition to this, I believe coaches should discuss issues of rape-culture and consent with either all boys or all girls teams if they are in their teens or adults...especially as all boys/men teams are absolute breeding grounds for rape-culture. ShabiDOO 12:30, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Why are you all engaging with obvious baiting and sockpuppetry? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 13:59, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie I suspect these other accounts are Ken. The only reason I made an account was because I was editing from work and the internet doesn't need to know who my employer is. Catman (talk) 14:13, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Would a shit extremist Wiki user actually even consider participating in Little League? According to shit extremist Wiki, among other errors, apparently Little League promotes the homosexual agenda (due to something about girls being icky, it seems). That is all I will say here. :) PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 14:35, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Ken just likes to start shit in the saloon, I don't think the topic at hand really matters to him as long as he finds a way to put his two cents in. Catman (talk) 15:43, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I'd be suspicious of all accounts with redlinked talkpages here. However, this is still a nice discussion for right now, and at most warrants a collapse if they are found to be socks, not removal, due to outside comments.Andrew5 (talk) 18:11, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Grammar Commie is off his mind again it seems. This is what happens when you can't reliably tell whether someone is a troll account. Don't the techies have some sort of way to identify the IP address of Ken and ban that permanently from the wiki? (Profile) - (Spoke!) 18:36, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

No, it's obviously a shit bait post, doesn't matter who it is. Nobody probably gives a damn unless said Trump voter possesses a noxious element that would also be problematic for a Biden voter.

Although -- would these trollbaiters let their kids (assuming, that is, that they aren't one) be on a little league team if you knew the coaches were *gasp* atheist? Now that's a question to pose to Trump voters! PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 18:46, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Your comment perfectly exemplifies Poe's law. (Profile) - (Spoke!) 19:03, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ We don’t have check user here, and consensus is strongly against it. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 19:09, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
47% of the country voted for Trump. Good luck avoiding them all-Hastur! (talk) 02:18, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but regions matter. For instance, just a smidgit under 70% of Wyoming voted for Trump, but in DC it was only 5.4%. In my home state, I know around 37% voted for Trump.Andrew5 (talk) 12:49, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Bet that I will piss off Pro-Russian weirdos with my next YouTube video

My video is going to be called "Annexed: An EAS Scenario" in which Alaska in the US and the Yukon Territory in Canada get illegally annexed by Russia. It was inspired by the Russian Annexation of Crimea. In my video the Russian Federation fuels civil unrest and terrorist activity in Alaska and the Yukon in order for both places to declare independence and join the Russians.

Obviously I will paint Russia in a negative light. How many far right Pro-Russian supporters will I piss off? Then again it would not be the first time I made fun of the far right, Trump supports and pseudoscience promoters. --Get Vaccinated (talk) 23:07, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Considering the Russian military buildup in the arctic, is this an idea you're experimenting with because you believe it's plausible? I mean, that would be the post-Soviet Eurasian bloc encroaching upon the territory of NATO, which is the most apocalyptic military scenario one could imagine. Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 06:58, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Not sure if it is likely but it will be an interesting hypothetical. --Get Vaccinated (talk) 18:19, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

So I recently got a new phone

My old one was slowly showing itself to be a huge chunk of shit. It was pretty much stuck on Android 8.0.0 and it wasn't getting any security updates, plus it already suffered water damage and it wasn't performing the way it needs to be in 2021. Since I'm an Android nuthead, I preordered a Pixel 5a, and my god that thing meet & exceeded my expectations. The battery lasted me two days, the camera is actually really good after it processes photos, it has a headphone jack and stock Android. Probably the only bad thing I can say was that I can't receive SMS texts due to Verizon being shit. I heard the 6 was supposed to be really great with Google finally catching up with other flagships, but I couldn't wait for it any further since my family is transitioning to TMobile soon. Highly recommend it if you need something right now. Rockford the Roe ^{boop my snoot}_{praise Oscar Wilde} 15:40, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

What was the old phone? Was that a Samsung? I'd bet on it. Darkmatter2525 (talk) 16:42, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

A Moto Z Play. It was great for its time. Rockford the Roe ^{boop my snoot}_{praise Oscar Wilde} 15:08, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

From August 2018 into November 2019, I actually had Motorolla. A Moto G6. Now I am stuck with an iPhone8, and I'll probably get a new phone at some point in the near future. Andrew5 (talk) 15:32, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

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)

September

Now that September begins, I have a question. How come people underestimate September temps? September 1 in NYC has an average high of 80F (26.5C) and low of 65F (18C) - which is still 70F (21C) high 55F (13C) low on September 30. Andrew5 (talk) 00:38, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

(Note: I am a weather geek. Andrew5 (talk) 00:38, 1 September 2021 (UTC))

Because people associate September with fall, a lot of things like school going back are often considered the unofficial beginning of fall. Same reason a lot of people look at Memorial Day as the unofficial start of summer, despite being almost the same length of time away as Labor Day is to fall. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:23, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

There are weather seasons and there are astronomical seasons. Here, for instance, spring and fall weather get about a month apiece; the rest is all summer or winter weather. Spring can start around the first of March, with alternating periods of hot and cold making for thunderstorms and rain. Fall generally begins in late September or early October, and by Halloween it's definitely winter already. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 02:29, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Ah, the month of stress has begun. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 03:49, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Quite a few places in Northern Europe and Canada have September clearly enter fall mode with summer temperatures well over. Don't forget that we have users here from the southern hemisphere where September is winter/spring time. ShabiDOO 08:22, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

September is usually quite nice in Spain. Autumn doesn't really start until October - and even then it depends on the area.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 08:58, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

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

I always considered September to be the transition between summer and autumn, as much as I consider late-February, early-March the transition between winter and spring. Senioritas (talk) 10:27, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Going back to your Memorial Day Weekend point, um, here in the Northeast was actually frigid! As you can see, in New York City, it failed to get above 54F (12C), and whatnot, ultimately being around 20° below average and comparable to late March, (with lows of course in the upper 40sF (around 9C.) which this year was far above average and even then across the city, it got to [https://www.ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/weather/2021/04/02/from-cold-to-hot--a-look-back-at-our-weather-in-march-2021 82F (28C) in March. (Of course, the low that day was 50F (10C), so...) Newark, too, got to 81F (27C) with a low of 49F (9.5C).

But that's taking it very off topic. In New York City (using this too avoid revealing my true location), there are average 75/61F (24/16C) in September, 64/50F (18/15.5C) in October and 54/42 F (12/5.5C) in November.

It also depends on what you consider fall and whatnot. Is 70F (21C) summer, is that cutoff 80F (26.5C), blah blah blah. According to this article, it certainly felt like spring on July 3 across NYC, with highs of 66F (19C) and lows of 59F (15C). Of course, as March 26 showed, when it got 32F (18C) above average, you can have heat spurts, and as Memorial Day Weekend showed, which was 20° below average (11C below average), you can have cold spurts. We are seeing a start of fall again, with lows forecast to be 58F (14.5C) here in the city and its metro area in just under 2 days after Ida passes. It's also going to feel colder after a very hot August, which even for me led to it being up to 95F (35C) just on Friday! It's really all relative and perspective kind of thing. It went from being in the 30sF (around -1 to 4C) (as a low, high in the upper 40sF (around 9C), to being 94F (34.5C) in a single month. (Check 2nd point). That can happen in the fall too, as even in last November it got to the 70sF (20sC), after Halloween brushed on freezing. Andrew5 (talk) 12:45, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, being from southwestern CT this was definitely an odd Memorial Day weekend (and the 4th of July was miserable too). New England is known for its very temperamental weather, just because that's the tendency is no guarantee of anything. It's why I like the place, and the same reason lots of people move out when they get old (you couldn't pay me enough to move further south, though). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:40, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Seasons aren't about heat Andrew (With the exception of Summer and Winter). Spring is characterized by plants growing back or re-awakening from winter, Autumn is characterized by the opposite happening, that is, plants going into hibernation, September is the month when that starts happening. You can already see leaves turning yellow or brown on some trees, this characteristic is far more pronounced in October and by November, the trees have almost no leaves remaining, late-November early-December is when winter starts fyi. Flowers enter hibernation a little earlier and I think it's partly due to the Summer's heatwaves, you stop seeing flower by the time you get to August. Also Spring and Autumn are generally at the same temperature over all with Spring getting hotter as Summer closes-in and Autumn getting colder as Winter closes-in. Senioritas (talk) 14:17, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

@Senoritas I generally see the leaves turn in October and November. I don't see the leaves come back until April or May. Also, that's meteorological. Fall is when the days are short and get shorter, while spring is days are long and getting longer. Andrew5 (talk) 14:50, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

You realize the day-night cycle length is what contributes to the temperature which Senioritas responded with that being false in how the season is defined in the first place. I'll also back him up on his claim since yes, Autumn has just begun for both the celtic and meteorological season and the astronomical fall season will start soon in September 23rd. It also directly contradicts your argument because the days were getting shorter ever since August first. Wikipedia adds that most people characterizes Autumn with leaves dying and falling which also starts in September and possibly even sooner than that, I have a tree right next to my window and its leaves are visibly turning yellow or brown (Some are still green though). Just get educated for a moment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autumn

If the trees around your home aren't turning brown, then you must live in a hot climate like Texas or California which will def cause the cold of winter to retard behind and the plants' hibernation won't start until way later like in November or December.

Heck, if you live in very hot climates like Africa it starts even later, as late as February in fact. (Profile) - (Spoke!) 15:34, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Actually the days get shorter after the solstice, but please read it carefully - "Fall is when the days are short and get shorter" - by that I mean under 12 hours. Right now daylight in New York City is still a modest 13 hours and 4 minutes. Also, I think like 2% of the leaves here have turned brown already. Calendarpedia and the Weather Station Advisor note that there are two different falls - one from September 1 to November 30, and one from September 21-24 to December 20-23. This leaves 20-23 days "disputed" on either end. The celtic season is indeed August 1 to October 31, but is rarely used and tbh, I never heard of it before you brought it up. (I think it has to do with when the angle of sunlight is ~65° at the start and ~35° at the end, at least at 41°N. A better description is "within 15° of what it is on the equinox".) Andrew5 (talk) 16:26, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Autumn is still within September which you seem to have a great deal coping with since you've been complaining about that throughout this discourse and my pinky tells me that whole thread is just a massive troll in itself. The dates are not disputed, the meteological autumn starts today and the astronomical one will start on the 23rd which are two different ways scientists study seasons, your calendarpedia (Which I should add, looks dated as hell) uses the astronomical date, most people use the meteological one. Either way, it doesn't matter, I just don't understand why that matters to you so much and why you're been having a conniption fit about that month being the month that starts Autumn. (Profile) - (Spoke!) 17:29, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I know September is within autumn. I am saying this part of September isn’t. There is also the ceremonial summer which ends at Labor Day. Why does it matter to me so much? Well, I don’t like hot weather (I also don’t like super cold weather), so I want it to cool down faster. Though I have learned now that making these posts in the saloon bar is a bad idea. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 20:10, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Excuse me for jumping in and not addressing most of the above, but something dumb: in my part of the country, way too many people underestimate how HOT it is until maybe November. I was going to post a link but really just Google “Arizona news hiker” or “Arizona overheat dies” or some similar combination. Folks going out for a hike in “fall” or “autumn” or whatever without water. Ahem. Carry on! Probliknaut (talk) 14:23, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

That's because the "season stereotype" in the United States is essentially the astronomical seasons of temperate climates, with perhaps a Northeast locale bias (or at least a temperate broadleaf forest bias). This doesn't work for subtropical Florida (where it's still over 80F and humid in November in Miami), this doesn't work for subarctic Alaska (where it's already below freezing in mid-October in Fairbanks), this doesn't work for some of the Pacific coast (in San Diego, your August high of mid 70Fs isn't too much different than your December lows of mid 60Fs), and yes, while there certainly are seasons in the Western desert, it's still an average high of 100 in September and 89 in October in Phoenix. There are no leaves to brown / turn pretty colors / etc. because many of these climates either don't freeze, or have vegetation that handles cold weather without the dormancy cycle that broadleaf trees may have (like boreal forests). I imagine other countries have various "season stereotypes" that match their local climate (if they have seasons at all, that is, the tropics don't, in a temperature sense at least), the United States however is big enough to encompass a lot of very different climate types, and it's no surprise that the stereotype kind of revolved around the familiar and what was first. So Floridians will just to have to laugh anytime "White Christmas" comes on. Unless you are in the panhandle where it does snow once in a blue moon, ain't gonna happen. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 15:01, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Retiring

I want to ignore all the problems in the world today. My mental health sucks and I just want to relax. Therefore, I am going to resign from my position as a sysop in order to focus on my health. I might be back to make an occasional edit, but I have more problems to worry about. I hope that everyone here gets successful. Goodbye, and good luck.— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 11:58, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I think this belongs at RW:ATIM talk page. Andrew5 (talk) 12:47, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

No. He is just a Sysop. It's a friendly message to all. Jeh2ow, enjoy your mental health break and best wishes for a speedy recovery. Highly recommend avoiding the internet in general! It's certainly a pleasure to have you around, but mental health should always come first! ShabiDOO 13:08, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I hope you feel better soon.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 16:56, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Best wishes to you, Jeh2ow. Bongolian (talk) 19:51, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

It understandable. Speaking as a person whose politics is left of center, the amount of disheartening news can be overwhelming. Religious fundamentalists retaking Afghanistan. Joe Biden's job approval numbers are continuing to go down. Texas Republicans just passed the most restrictive abortion law in the country.

If the news is making you sad, stay away from the news for awhile. Coltsfan1 (talk) 06:29, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

All the best Jeh2ow and hope things improve for you soon. Knight Commander^{In Service}_{To Her}^Goatness 06:32, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Question about red link hunting?

I have been removing the red links in main space that were created by the George McGovern deletion. If you guys click here you will see that the remaining ones are in people's user pages, talk pages, archives etc. I'm technically not allowed to edit those right? And it doesn't really matter, since our readers will never stumble upon them. What's the tradition regarding this? Do we just leave them, or should I continue cleaning up? - Rairyu75 (Talk) 23:25, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Tradition says leave the archives, talk pages and user pages alone. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 23:28, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Aye, aye, cap'n! To my slumber I return... - Rairyu75 (Talk) 23:37, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

To be fair it's pretty much all comments from nobs. That said yeah, just leave them alone. -- Techpriest (talk) 17:35, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

How do you spot spin?

Hello, I have been researching "Spin" (as it is called) and have been wondering how to spot and avoid it. Is spin and PR the same thing (Wikipedia tells us no)? How about spoting "Spin"'s main tool: misidrection (what is that? is it the same as a limited hangout)? Can anyone help me of this front? An Advocate (talk) 00:47, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

RW would seem to differ from WP as to whether spin and PR are different. It's easy to spot: essentially all politicians and advertising/marketing (in the broadest sense) use spin. The more difficult question is how much spin is there in a particular instance. I.e., how much truth is there behind the spin? If the politician changes the topic at hand completely, then it's obvious misdirection. Bongolian (talk) 07:09, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I would say our article on PR is mistaken in saying PR and spin are the same the thing. PR is basically managing the information put out by an organisation to the public and present it in a good light. Spin is just one tool that is used for PR. letting the public know about an organisations charity work, or if they have won some kind of award, for example, is PR that is not spin. Spin is taking a specific bit of information, that would ordinarily make an organisation look bad and present it in such a way that it makes them good instead. its not lying, per say, often just stressing some facts over others and wording things such that public's perception of an event and an organisations role in it will be more positive.

in politics its easy spot - if a politician is saying it then its spin. always. the only way to suss whether the spin is broadly true or not is to keep informed, and dont take anything said on face value. always see what the opposing views on something are. try to find neutral sources. often spin from opposing parties, with both claiming the opposite of the other, will be broadly accurate for both, depending on how you views on the issues involved and your own ethics and biases. other times it will be really obvious, like if some politician is sing the praises of something or some event that they would normally be expected to vehemently against.

its also can be the case that you are more likely to believe the spin, or at least give it the benefit of the doubt, if whos doing the spinning is someone who you consider more trustworthy or honest, regardless of if you like their politics. if they often take responsibility for mistakes or concede the point on occasion, its makes them more credible when they when they tell you something is a good thing or a victory for them. if its someone who spins everything, so that every defeat is a victory, they always take the credit for good stuff, always blame others for the bad, you'll doubt whatever they say, no matter how accurate it maybe.

sadly it seems alot of a lot people dont look to closely at whats being said - if their side is saying it then all true. if the other side is saying it then its lies and spin. there is so much disinformation out these theses days and everything is so polarised, deciding where the truth really lies is often more a question of faith. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:50, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Quarantine at Liberty University

https://www.wsls.com/news/local/2021/09/01/liberty-university-now-reports-488-total-active-cases-of-covid-19/

There are so many freaking COVID cases just in one small area. Can bet that most of them refused to get vaccinated. How bad can this get? --Get Vaccinated (talk) 00:55, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I too am betting that their vaccination rate is low. They say "It's the same as last year" - but last year they didn't have Delta. So it will interesting to see how this goes.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 10:15, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Progressives are the Target of The Economist

Frequently I find myself in my head, trying to determine how radical of a liberal I actually am. Because I am an American, I am limited in the parties and policies I can support, because although my goals may align with the Democratic party, I find myself more voting against the racist and nativist policies that now define the Republican party. This week, The Economist main articles focus on the illiberal left[6]. In general, I tend to find that those that use that language either fail to understand the difference between progressive and liberal, or they are attempting to paint anything left of center of Communism. But Classical Liberalism is indeed at the base of The Economist founding, so I dived into their analysis. The main piece[7], (which I think I've made this link available for the paywall) does a good job identifying the primary threat of the right-wing, but does I think provide a good critique of how the far poles on the left are growing in influence and how that could be negative. I don't agree entirely, but I do find that debate is central to understanding and dealing with societies ills, and there have been many cases of the left shunning debate on topics where more debate can only improve future decisions. But this article[8],(this is paywalled) has me a little shook. It identifies a few methods that find their roots in Medieval Europe rather than the liberal West.

• Imposing orthodoxy
• Proselytising
• Expelling heretics
• Book banning
• Creeds
• Blasphemy

The ones I have bolded are the ones I find the most concerning and also clearly present. Though other factors are at play, other than just politics, I feel as though there is a certain level of liberal elitism leaking into the progressive ether.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 16:27, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Some of the most foolhardy progressives indeed are picking up on the old tactics that the churches used against "sinful" material in older times, just as modern conservatives have adopted the victimization whine that the left traditionally had. I guess the question is, why the cover story? What actual political power has these illiberal "progressive" side wrought?

Sure, some universities do need to cut out pandering so hard to the hardline woke, and the Twitter cancel culture and woker-than-thou mobs on the "left" are as annoying as the "right" mobs angrily reaction to whatever policy point was handed out to Fox News that day. But, most of the times, when I hear of some wokeish stupidity in government or by an activist or whatnot, there is heavy push back. Even in lefty left San Francisco, when the school board wasted tons of time proposing to rename schools named after supposed racists like, er, Abraham Lincoln (lolwut?!), there was pushback from pretty much everyone and people are progressing on recall a few of them. Even those "commie San Francisco" types would prefer a school board that actually does its job instead of trying to score far-"leftie" woke points.

There is nothing in that list that the populist right doesn't do as well. Were a more sober version of the right wing present and there was push back against populist stupidity, that would be one thing. But the Republican Party literally engages in much of the above at a party level (at minimum the creeds, expelling heretics, "book banning" (ya can't teach X Y and Z!) and imposing orthodoxy for sure). They have political power up the ying yang right now. And the pattern repeats (albeit usually with less power, Hungary and Poland excluded) in most of Europe. The populist right party is the populist party nipping at the buds of power.

So, okay? I guess thanks for the warning, I suppose. Seems a bit of a balance fallacy though to say "hey, now, a few students are acting stupid!" in times where Republican governors are literally trying to forbid municipalities on making policies on face masks. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 17:38, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

@PanGalacticGargleBlaster From what I've seen and read, Lincoln probably held racist views, though not to the same degree of his more infamous contemporaries. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 17:52, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I always view it like this-

There is a credible (but no means absolute) chance that in ten years reactionaries under the direction of a Pence/DeSantis type figure will have turned the USA into an authoritarian procedural democracy like Hungary or Poland, where right-wing populism is the de facto state ideology. On the other hand, if you unironically believe that woke twitter mobs/university students will dominate America and turn us into Venezuela but with "identity politics," anytime soon, you are a buffoon who should consider joining your local right wing militia outfit.

What I'm getting at with this is that the recent fear of the "illiberal left" is overblown, kind of like the fear of Satanists back in the day.-Flandres (talk) 18:08, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie: In modern terms, I'm sure, but:

A) I prefer not to evoke presentism, Lincoln easily was more on the civil rights side of things when you adjust for the time he lived in.

B) Many progressives mistakingly seem to assign a binary to social justice issues where such views should be more on a sliding scale. Especially for someone like Lincoln, whose racial views tended to evolve in a more positive direction over time.

C) Names are "symbolic shit". In some cases, sure, it's good to adjust imagery or names that may be of offense. Abraham Lincoln, the one who actually freed the slaves, however, is not exactly going to be a great candidate for directing hurls of charges of racism. And even in the cases where a name change is appropriate, I would personally argue that there's something lazy about the annoying trend of the "woke" about focusing on names and statues and other things of a symbolic value, instead of actually focusing on the economic injustices of the present caused by racism and other social inequalities. If that school board was spending time figuring out ways to help the disadvantaged at school (including those left behind due to America's systematic racism), it would be a helluv a lot more helpful, I think. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 18:16, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

@PanGalacticGargleBlaster By that logic acknowledging Marx, Proudhon, or Bakunin's antisemitism would be "presentism". Can we be adults and acknowledge that historical figures had shit views while acknowledging how that fit into their contemporary climate? Please? We don't have to demonize them or lionize them, just to show them in their totality and context. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 18:21, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Right, discussion is fine. Lincoln definitely said some things (and did some things) that were racist, particularly by today's standards. There is no problem with a detailed examination of Lincoln's view on race, and whitewashing his racist moments would be incorrect as well. However, holistically, looking at the history of Lincoln's career, a "must forbid his name on school" is basically, I think, proving The Economist's point. An orthodoxy where even the person who freed the slaves is "too racist" to adorn the name of the school? (Why, next thing you know, you'll tell me that the person who spearheaded the Civil Rights Act of 1964 also made racist statements, and we should rename/deface anything LBJ for his racism! Shocker!) People are complicated. Well, at least, some people are -- certainly both LBJ and Lincoln had kind of complex views on race that could veer in both directions, and it would be problematic to misrepresent this one way or the other. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 19:08, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

If any of us had been alive 200 years ago it's pretty certain that we would have held views which our modern selves would regard as horrific. It's likely that people who live 200 years in the future (assuming that global warming has not destroyed civilization) will look at us in horror.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 19:37, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

@PanGalacticGargleBlaster I never endorsed purging historical records or achievements. (I'm actually vehemently opposed to such positions, something that has resulted in a bit of flak from other leftists in the past.) All I did was address "(lolwut?!)" in your first post, which I took to be a question as to why one might view Lincoln as a racist. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 20:04, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

We are at a peculiar juncture in history when many of us both despise the past and are horrified by the future. Not a good spot to put yourself in. One might try to build a better airplane while flying the old one. I prefer to watch from the ground.UncleKrampus (talk) 20:29, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

@PanGalacticGargleBlaster When you have all of these several attempts to turn political activity away from things that make a difference and towards tribal totems, you first need to ask 'who benefits?' The billionaires in charge seem mostly happy to do this. Most universities have Departments of Granfaloon Studies dedicating to cultivating grievance, and whatever the merits of the research done there, it all seems to have this goal. Somebody has to be paying handsomely for all of this. (The Ford Foundation was very active at the beginning.) The tragedy of identity politics is that it cannot propose - and indeed reacts with hostility against - any ameliorative strategies intended to improve the situations that give rise to these grievances. If racism, sexism, etc., became solved problems, they'd lose their meal tickets. All they can do is endlessly dramatize their grievances, and if you point out that the situation for racism (though certainly still there) is better now than it was in the 1920s, this is heresy. And the thing about all of this politicking aimed at symbols is that it threatens people's core identity and sense of self, and so a desire to tear down some statue or erect another turns into an existential threat that draws a gut reaction and pits one group of citizens against another. I thank God that I am very ill, and getting worse, and that I won't have to see the future. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 01:27, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I have given up on progressivism. It's contrary to human nature. Coltsfan1 (talk) 21:17, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

@Coltsfan1 What, pray tell, is it you are refering to when you say "human nature"? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 21:31, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Also, is the implication that something else is better? Because there really isn't any evidence that there is.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 22:36, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Human nature is like pornography: I hope you know it when you see it. A better question is what are you referring to when you say "progressivism?" Many of us take it as a synonym for "the common good." I would say that particular connotation is ambiguous.UncleKrampus (talk) 01:43, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

This is why there's a need for words like 'wokism;' and 'regressive left'. No one should confound this zeal and hostility with 'progressivism'. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 01:49, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Resources to become an informed voter for 2021 Canadian election?

Oyez, oyez, my fellow Canadians!

I was wondering if any of you know good websites one may consult for this year's election. A website that lists the political parties and their ideologies/policies, analyses of proposed/passed policies by experts, the voting records of MPs, their past and present stances, etc. Basically, a place where I can concisely get relevant info about the election. Thanks! —Earl wilmore (talk) 18:54, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah Unfortunately almost nobody cares about that kind of stuff, even fewer people in Canada, so good luck with that>'Legion^{what do you want from me} 20:13, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Political parties of Canada is an article of ours that may help you. LongStylus (talk) 21:31, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I find that the CBC has a lot of good coverage on the election. I don't know if this goes quite into the depth of detail you're looking for, but this link might help: https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/elections/federal/2021/party-platforms/. You can find the results of any vote in Parliament here: https://www.ourcommons.ca/members/en/votes, and with a little poking around you can find any given MP's voting record there as well. I'm less familiar with this site: https://openparliament.ca/, but it seems like it might be a good one. Hopefully some of that helps.AcidTrial (talk) 13:50, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Best thing to do is check out each party's platform on their websites. Also, you can try the political compass and see how close you are on the scale to other parties. I would basically say unless you are rich, care little about social progress and rights for minorities and the marginalised and like cuts to important programs and would like minimal action over climate change...then vote for anyone but your conservative candidate...preferably the one likely to beat them. ShabiDOO 15:45, 3 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.[9] 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)

Question about 2021 California recall election

In the California recall - if Gavin Newsom is recalled, is the vote for a new governor on the same day, same ballot or in a different ballot? Andrew5 (talk) 16:51, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

It's all the same ballot, which is terrible for several reasons, which I can detail, if you like. Semipenultimate (talk) 17:41, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I think the ballot has two "parts," that go something like-

Do you want to remove Governor Gavin Newsom?

If he is recalled, who should replace him?

If a majority of voters choose "yes" on the first part, Newsom is recalled and the guy who got the most votes on the second part is put in charge.-Flandres (talk) 20:02, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

That is correct. If you vote "no" to recall Newsom, you can still vote for a replacement if he is recalled (Newsom's campaign is telling voters to leave that blank). Early numbers from mail in ballots show a significant majority voting no.^{— Unsigned, by: 12.23.183.186 / talk / contribs}

Is there any use for chiropractic?

What exactly makes chiropractors different from doctors who treat bones? Are they in any way as useful? ^{— Unsigned, by: 2607:fb90:a87b:e9fc:ff8a:3911:faf5:e091 / talk / contribs}

Chiropractic "medicine" is based solely on pseudoscience. The idea is that adjusting the spine cures disease. They oppose vaccinations, believe in homeopathy and will charge mountains of money for treatment. There are Chiropractors out there who support vaccinations and modern medicine. There is actually a split between Chiropractic organizations on the subject of vaccinations. --Get Vaccinated (talk) 00:52, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Why don't you read our article on the subject first, before JAQing off here? —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 03:41, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

A Doctor of Osteopathy (DO) is is a quasi mix between a MD and a chiropractor, but DOs are less likely to give misinformation than chiropractors in terms of alternative medicine that is ineffective/harmful. DOs commonly work in hospitals and do much of the same work that MDs do. MDs and DOs in practical terms of everyday family healthcare medical practices are the same. I go to a DO because he is the closest doctor that my medical insurance company works with.

I have noticed that DOs seem to care more about their patients and look at the person as a whole (like take a more systems view of the body), but like all things "let the buyer beware" (caveat emptor) applies. For example, my DO gave me a mix of very good advice and some bad advice also.

I hurt my knee while working and a chiropractor did some kind of manipulation on my knee that fixed it immediately and it never bothered me since. I saw some MDs for months who couldn't diagnose some kind of lung infection nor treat it. I went to a Russian-American chiropractor who was previously a medical doctor in Russia and he gave me some nutritional advice that turned things around in about a month.

There is ineffective/harmful treatments in all types of healthcare. I went to a medical specialist several years back and he said he doesn't trust new medical treatments due to all the fraud that is going on in the medical literature and medical field. The specialist only trusted medical treatments that had a credible amount of replication in the medical literature. And there are good/bad professionals in healthcare. You have to do your due diligence and it has never been easier due to the internet. You don't have to be at the mercy of healthcare professionals who give bad advice due to incompetence, greed or ignorance. Erno (talk) 07:33, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Anecdotes aside pure chiropractic is pretty much pseudoscience.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 08:46, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "pure chiropractic". There are several chiropractic schools and some are more empirically based than others. There is research that indicates that spinal manipulation for lower back injuries works and that is why there are some government medical systems that use chiropractors and some hospitals that grant chiropractors privileges. The Olympics community uses chiropractors also.

When it comes to consistency in rendering quality healthcare, my experience is that dentists do the best work. It's a shame there is dentist/doctor divide. Teeth/gums don't seem know that they are supposed to confine their problems solely to the mouth.

I am glad there are DOs. And there are chiropractors who do good back work and give some good nutritional advice. Spinal manipulation for lower back problems often works and manipulation seems to work for some neck/knee problems too. One major weakness of the medical doctor system is doctors are often not given adequate nutritional education.[10] In addition, doctors are often paid for doing procedures and not the amount of time dispensing advice. So there are a lot of doctors who treat their patients like cattle and spend a minimal amount of time advising them. Erno (talk) 09:47, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

By "pure chiropractic" I am referring to the nonsense originally coined by D. D. and B. J. Palmer and which is still practiced buy those who call themselves "straight chiropractors".Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 20:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Need some feedback on the video I created from non-EAS creators

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTwuo8Jcohs

I am working on a video I call "Annexed" which I mentioned in a previous post here. Just need some constructive criticism. --Get Vaccinated (talk) 00:55, 4 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)

Jeff Bozo (I know that it is Bezos) suing Elon Musk is just too funny.

Blue Origin is a joke that only sends a single billionaire into space for fun while SpaceX has had ambition and contributed to scientific research. Why would NASA want to sign a contract with Jeff Bozo who had no true results? Jeff Bozo is the crybaby who did not get a spot on the basketball team. --Get Vaccinated (talk) 15:23, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

they both proved the same thing with their space ventures - money talks. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:16, 4 September 2021 (UTC)