User talk:WeakMindedSkeptic

Welcome

What is going on? World Blogs Clogs Elections The Bar (talk) (talk) (talk) (talk) (hic) Welcome to RationalWiki, WeakMindedSkeptic! Check out our guide for newcomers and our community standards! Tell us how you found RationalWiki here! If you are interested in contributing: Read what our articles are intended to be Check out the to-do list See our help page and Wikipedia's formatting cheatsheet If writing a new article, consider writing up a draft And most importantly: Pull up a goat and have some fun!

FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 23:07, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

Because of your edits to and time on the wiki, wizard Sysop has been added to your user rights. Feel free to let your newfound POWER course through your veins. Once the high wears off, see RationalWiki:Sysop guide for more information. If you have questions, bleat ask away. FuzzyCatPotato of the Dead Nukes (talk/stalk) 19:28, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Rabbit hole

Love it, good measurement.

What's on the mind now? Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 22:26, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

5/10

That's a relief. Like the shortened username. Also, when signing, try to use 4 tildes (~~~~) rather than just three. The difference:

Three: αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk)

Four: FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 22:08, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 22:08, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Will do!--WMS (talk) 15:58, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm quite late to say this and I'm really sorry about that but thank you very much for the concerns, I appreciate that :-)--WMS (talk) 18:22, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

RationalWiki bias

RationalWiki is generally pro-liberalism and anti-religion, and that's what people usually complain about. 20:34, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh ok, thank you for the answer--WMS (talk) 20:54, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

NP. For example, see Sargon of Akkad's reaction to RW -- he doesn't like that it's pro-feminist. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 22:50, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

My predicament

As soon as I get rid off my irrational fear of conspiracy theories, I become fearful of the simulation argument. I hope someone can help me with a little predicament. Anyway, so, I read the page on the simulation argument (especially the 'evidence for' section a few times) and I understand that, to a certain extent, it is possible but possible doesn't mean that it's True. Bostrom's equation does seem flawed and not most reliable. Overall, there isn't any real evidence, just speculation.

So, although there is some possibility that we're in a simulation isn't there also possibility that this is indeed the real life? I've seen the article and some other sources and they did have valid criticism of this theory which points out the flaws in it. So, there isn't really conclusive evidence for this theory. This could be the real life right. The simulation argument really seems more faith based than evidence based, it also is unfalsifiable which isn't a good thing. Also, people do say "you can't fully disprove the simulation argument" as their evidence. It just seems like a bunch of speculation, like I said faith based, people have been doing the same with God: trying to explain things with "goddidit", trying to come up with equations for God and saying that you can't disprove God.

On a side note, whenever I hear a theory like this I always use Occam's razor, in the wrong way, for explanations of things. I know it's not the right way to look at things and I know that there are more valid reason/theories than "simulationdidit". It's annoying but I don't know how to combat it (but to be fair, the same thing happened when I feared the illuminati but I did have people to pull through that, a lot of them on this very website)

Anyway, I hope someone can reply to this. Thank you in advance and apologies for being a moron.--WMS (talk) 11:59, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

First, Occam's Razor

If we are living in a simulated reality, would we know it? If the answer is "no" (if 1: the simulation is so accurate/complete/whatever that it shows no signs of being a simulation, or 2: it is generally impossible to know if one is in a simulation, in part because there's nothing to compare it to), then the evidence for "simulation hypothesis" and for "nonsimulation hypothesis" are equal. If so, then by Occam's Razor, you should assume the simulation hypothesis is wrong.

Obviously, this doesn't apply if the simhyp is more likely than not (because of Bostrom-esque equations or because of known facts). FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 21:39, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Just as a side note: I'm not saying there's anything wrong with exploring the above scenario/intuition pump/thought experiment (I even think it's fascinating) - but I just wanted to kick open an already open door and say something you both already know, and which is probably aside to the actual above discussion, by just pointing out that: the scientific way to approach any of these philosophical questions is not "What could possibly be imagined to be going on?" (I mean, we could all imagine infinite incompatible random scenarios); the scientific (and sceptical) way is only to ask "What do we have reason to believe is going on?".

Empiricism and the mechanism of falsification unite to remind us that anything we can't "weigh or measure" goes out the window (a.k.a. we are literally unable to get our hands on any data regarding it/there is no reason to believe such data exists), while any suggested scenario (while interesting) which is also unfalsifiable is, as Carl Sagan put it, a discussion on something which sounds an awful lot like a discussion on "nothing at all".

And then there's the fact that any discussion on reality leads to the Münchhausen Trilemma. Meaning; even if we had somehow established for certain that the universe is a simulation, the reasoning can't stop there - just like the stream of questions wouldn't exactly end even if a theistic God was proven to exist - so, the question then becomes; what caused the universe that the simulation is running in? And the reply will be one of three - either an infinite regress ("That's a simulation of a simulation of a simulation..."), or the reply is circular ("X causes Y causes X..."), or it's brick wall (axiomatic reasoning, a favourite of apologists like William Lane Craig) - e.g. we arbitrarily put our foot down and conclude "Ok guys THIS is a simulation but then outside of THAT is just a universe caused like a mystery like we used to see ours before we knew this was a simulation, ok?" (in which case what we should in fact be doing, per Occam, is to be saving a step and simply concluding that the universe we live in is the one likelier caused by a mystery, and no need for a simulation is left).

I mean, the whole problem of simulation is that it necessitates further universes - just a multiplication of the problem of original cause, but with less and less evidence for each step (see Occam). Again, I'm not saying this is fatal (per se) to what you guys are doing. But since Occam's razor and other tools of scepticism were brought up... Just wanted to toss that in. Thought experiments and intuition pumps need to be unfettered. Just make sure to remember that if we're, in a sense, actually discussing what is going on in real life, then the above has precedent. But please, do continue. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:03, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation of how to use Occam's razor in this scenario, it'll certainly help with this predicament. I read up about it a bit and there does seem to be flaws in it, even the main article on this subject states that the equation is flawed an he used ad hoc later on to arrive at the same conclusion. Others have said that Bostrom's equation isn't great and some even said it's self defeating. I think it's safe to assume that Bostrom's equation isn't the most reliable, is flawed and isn't conclusive.--WMS (talk) 22:54, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

No problem, WMS! Happy to help, if I did. (Also, I hope you weren't being sarcastic by thanking me on explaining Occam's razor in this scenario? It's hard to tell in text sometimes :3). All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:11, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Don't worry RBP, that wasn't sarcasm. I genuinely am grateful that you took your time in order to help me with my predicament :) you seem to do that frequently and I really appreciate it! Again, thank you :)--WMS (talk) 23:32, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! That makes me happy to hear! And I do try my best to always make sure to be a teacher, student, and friend to all the good editors at this site - glad you feel that my efforts are noticable! :3 All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:58, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Enough is enough

United we stand, divided we fall. All the best, your friend Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:31, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Wow, this is the first time an edit war unfolds while I'm a member (or at least I think it is) if it isn't resolved yet, let's hope we'll find a solution that everyone agrees on. FCP's proposal seems pretty good--WMS (talk) 21:22, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Rabbit hole status, old chum

(In a Cockney dialect) "What's all this, then?" Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:21, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Excus me? I'm slightly confused. Have I done something wrong?--WMS (talk) 19:05, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I messed up with anything. I can answer any questions you have pal :)--WMS (talk) 19:20, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, I hope I haven't angered you in anyway. You've helped me earlier and you seem like a real nice fellow and I would loathe it if I screwed our relations (I'm sorry for the amount of messages on this talk page but hey, anxiety is normal with me :) )--WMS (talk) 19:43, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@WMS: He's asking what you mean by "rabbit hole status".

@RBP: It means "how much have I bought into conspiracy theories recently". Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 20:11, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

It's got something to do with Alice in Wonderland... Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 20:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh ok, once more thank you for clarifying FCP :D (every time I let anxiety take over, it seems I make a fool out of myself :P).--WMS (talk) 23:02, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Argument from ignorance

The article writes:

a premise is false because it has not been proven true

You wrote:

I found that confusing because, if someone makes a theory, don't they have to prove it?

That's exactly the point! Let's do a little translating.

• "a premise" = "a theory". (A premise is merely the assertion that something is true -- very very similar to a thoery.)

• "is false" = "is assumed to be false". (We don't say that, say, string theory is wrong because it has not been proven (because we also do not know whether it is wrong, as we have no evidence against it) -- but instead merely fail to use it as true (because we have no evidence for it). In other words, "X is false" largely means "we ignore X".)

• because it has not been proven true.

This makes:

"A theory is assumed to be false because it has not been proven true."

Which makes sense, doesn't it? If there's no reason to believe in something, Occam's Razor (roughly) tells you to ignore it.

32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 21:03, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I gave a way, way messier reply on my talkpage, too! But this is the neat version. I think. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:13, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you RBP for your response, it helped me get an idea of what is meant by the argument! Also, I agree, it is nice when we speak! (Little hugging emoji (I have no idea how to insert that)). Thank you FCP for your respone too, it made me understand the argument a bit more too. One thing I still don't understand is that: if it makes sense to assume something is false because it hasn't been proven true, why is that classified as a logical fallacy? If it's a reasonable thing to do why is it considered a fallacy? Again, thank you both very much for responding; if you could also tell me why it's classified as a fallacy that'd be great. Anyway, thank you very much again--WMS (talk) 19:49, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I found this example on the Internet "Fred said that he is smarter than Jill, but he didn't prove it, so it must be false." if Fred failed to ever prove that he's smarter than Jill, why is it wrong to assume that Fred is false? Seems logical to assume his statement is false if he fails to prove it.--WMS (talk) 20:19, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

The reason for this is the burden of proof. Please watch this video, it'll make things much clearer I think! Also, you insert the hug emoticon by typing {{hug}}. Oh, and by the way - on an unrelated topic - don't forget to add your endorsements/anti-endorsements/goats to the campaign page (anyone can add those). They help other people know how to vote and so on. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:15, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Alrighty, thank you again amigo! And I'll do that thing you asked me to. Thanks again and have a good day! :)--WMS (talk) 18:16, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

"Paranoid git"

Paranoid, maybe. Git, certainly not! Asking for help with debunking is not mean by any standard. By all means, keep it up -- it's even created some good articles! :) Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 21:17, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you FCP, that means a lot to me! :)--WMS (talk) 01:45, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

WOW, Skeptic — great moves! Keep it up. Proud of you.

I grant you... my secret weapon.

For use only when your victory is utterly flawless and complete. I trust you to link to it wisely and with restraint. All the best buddy, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:42, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

It's a great honour my friend, I shall use this with gratitude. Thank you, RBP--WMS (talk) 12:49, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Mwahahaha! I have found the secret weapon!-D1@m0ndD15c1 (talk) 03:23, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Wrote you a reply

Here. Nice catch, by the way — you were right to think that the reasons given for why Aynd was wrong (something something physics?) were incorrect (they are). Though the fact still remains, she's wrong too. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 09:47, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Hit me up if you ever read my reply! :) Peace, friend. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:53, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello from the other side.....

-Totally Not Adele (talk) 05:52, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I must have seen this lyrics a thousand times .--WMS (talk) 21:40, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Just wanted to tell you I'm sorry for not dropping by sooner...Totally Not Adele (talk) 00:09, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

But when you're active, I never seem to be on (RW)...--WMS (talk) 01:11, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

-D1@m0ndD15c1 (talk) 01:24, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Always good to indulge in some lyrical banter, haha :D --WMS (talk) 01:34, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

RE: your right-leaning friend

I think it's a good idea to remain friends with this person. One of the key defining features of rational people is that they avoid echo chambers. You don't want to be friends with people who only think like you; that is a recipe for disaster. However, that said, you need to keep your wits about you, lest he "influences" you and drags you to the "dark side". It's important to critically question everything he puts to you, even if they seem convincing. Always play "devil's advocate", even if it's just to fuck with him. --Levi Ackerman (talk) 13:39, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, it'd be boring if all my friends had the same political ideologies to me. And sometimes we can have a good, entertaining debate me and my friend; I will try to play devil's advocate more and I will stand my ground with more courage when he says something I consider not correct now thanks to you encouragement :D. I'm very glad for the help, I needed it.--WMS (talk) 23:25, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

And don't forget the positive effect you have on him by being his friend — a patently nice person — yet not sharing his views. If you can be a friend and an ideological opponent at the same time, you prove a lot about humanity, and you help to prevent splitting both in your friend and in yourself. If you were to adopt his exact views (or he was to adopt yours), you would both stand to lose a certain amount of nuance. This is yet another reason to, as Levi puts it, actively challenge each others' views yet not "convert or be converted", per se. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:30, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the very kind words RBP ! And you're very right- it's very good that we manage to stay good friends despite our beliefs being quite the contrast and in recent weeks/months (because of the time spent on RW and with yours, FCP's, Levi's and many other lovely people's help in teaching me the etiquette of debating which I was able to pass down on my friend) our arguments have moved on from ad hominem, straw men etc. into actual coherent debates.--WMS (talk) 23:44, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

A page relevant to your interests: Fake news

Figured I'd just drop a link. :) FuzzyCatPotato of the Rapturous Cinderblocks (talk/stalk) 20:29, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you :)--WMS (talk) 20:37, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Everything OK?

Saw this, was wondering. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:23, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Everything's ok friend, just going through (for the lack of a better phrasing) a time of solitude. Thanks for asking, by the way, I really appreciate it !--WMS (talk) 00:50, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm way behind on my friendly chatting quota

Hey dude, sorry for taking so long to reply to you (to this).

Your questions, as always, were and are welcome, and you didn't have to erase one of them out or anything. It's just my ADHD and the fact that I've been so busy doing stuff off-site these past weeks.

Regardless, to give you my two cents: I'm going to quote Ethan here, who — I think — nails the most important thing in the following quote:

Just remember that as we goof on people, it doesn't necessarily mean that we hate them. I think one of the most important things we can take into the world is a tenderness and a compassion for those we may dislike or even hate. And one more footnote — that Zarna does not represent feminism. I think what she represents is the cult of outrage, it's a bastardization [of feminism]. It's like... It's like saying an Orc is an Elf. Ok? And those of you who are familiar with Lord of the Rings lore know that the Orcs were buried and bastardized by dark magic and turned into a completely different race. So to say that Zarna represents feminism is like saying an Orc is an Elf. And anyone where who's read the Lord of the Rings knows that's not the same thing.

A lot of people have jumped on these issues with the disingenous and incorrect view that Zarna somehow represents feminism. Let's be clear that she doesn't, and bringing attention to all the shit she's been stirring is not an indictment of the entire project of feminism (read: equality) itself.

She's just another example of the cult of outrage, which Ethan wisely points out is made up of the just as triggered Alt-right. In the end — while no person in the world is above bias — what we must atleast help each other to avoid is falling victim to our own splitting. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk)

Thank you very much for replying amigo! And don't worry that it took you so long, I understand that people tend to be quite busy outside of the online world. Anywho, I do completely agree with you, like you pointed out feminism is about equality and respecting others, Zarna did not have any respect for Hugh and her outrage for such an innocent joke was unjustifiable. She went so long about the alleged "sexual harassment" whilst more important and real issues need to be tackled. You are correct, she doesn't represent feminism, she represents the outrage culture which has sadly became more prevalent in the recent years. I'm glad that Ethan brought attention to this, helped Hugh and pointed out how silly and irrational Zarna was. Thanks again for replying friend, Papa bless :).--WMS (talk) 17:19, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Do you enjoy audio books?

Well, do ya? :3 Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:22, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I do, why do you ask friend?--WMS (talk) 23:23, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Because Christmas draws near... Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:31, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

It sure is :).--WMS (talk) 23:35, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Do you have Audible? If you don't, I have a plan, see... Edit: Turns out the plan works out regardless if you have it already or not. So, do ya? :3 Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:38, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I do not have audible currently :P.--WMS (talk) 23:44, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, if you'd be interested, I'd love to use the Audible Share feature and gift you this brilliant lecture series, from the esteemed Great Courses series, narrated by the highly talented Steven Novella. 24 lectures in total, 31 minutes per lecture, a total of 12 hours of great audiobook content on all things a skeptic should be acutely aware of. Tell me if you're the least bit interested in this, and I could e-mail you the link. All you gotta do is open it on your smartphone, and it'll download the Audible app (a great app) and you can start listening. (Or even better, if you wanna be proactive, just download the Audible app from your trusted app store first, and then take the steps in the e-mail). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:13, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Courses that can enhance my critical thinking skills and, therefore, make me a better skeptic? That sounds brilliant! I'm interested in this quite a bit. I already have the audible app downloaded. Do you know my email or should I write it down? --WMS (talk) 00:33, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Type out your e-mail here (use a throwaway e-mail if you want your main e-mail account to stay anonymous) and I'll e-mail you the link! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:32, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Alrighty, here's my secondary email (please don't mind the name, I was young and just starting my 'edgy' phase) --WMS (talk) 01:38, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Check you inbox! Also, love the game assassin vibe. Watch h3h3's "Cleaning Your Gamer Gear" to learn why. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:54, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Haha, that's a great video! Anyway, thank you very much for this RBP! This is going to be an awesome lecture :D.--WMS (talk) 02:33, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

So, how's the lecture going?

Assuming you're doing all right with it, I have one more you just have to listen to next — it's brilliant, and if you liked the Steven Novella one at all, you'll love the one I'm recommending now — Skepticism 101: How to Think like a Scientist by the irreplacable Michael Shermer. It's a bit like if someone made an audiobook on "The topics relevant to RW". Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:10, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey! The lectures are fantastic! Thanks again for the gift. Ooh, more ways of becoming a better skeptic, thanks RBP . By the way, my sincerest apologies for replying to you so late, I hope you don't mind. Thanks again :).--WMS (talk) 21:47, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

No worries, m'boy. I'm 'late' too, as it were. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:43, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

*has not forgotten about you*

Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:53, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Haha, thanks RBP, I haven't been on lately because I've been super busy- and, to be fair, I doubt I'll be on much later too unfortunately. But hey, I found some spare time and I decided to come on by.--WMS (talk) 03:28, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Makes me glad to hear that you've got things going on to fill your days, as it were! Remember... It's not bad when you're tied up elsewhere. It's just good when you drop by. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:39, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks RBP --WMS (talk) 12:51, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Asteroid collisions

Hey: I don't know much about this particular asteroid, but know that [1] many headlines about asteroids are sensational, not factual (see https://www.snopes.com/tag/asteroid/ ) and [2] the B612 foundation is not predicting 100% certainty of an extinction-level asteroid in your lifetime but rather in the future (no time limit set). [This is because there are no known extinction-level asteroids on a known collision course with the Earth, so they can't make that prediction.] As the Inquisitr article notes ( https://www.inquisitr.com/4881237/earth-will-be-hit-by-an-asteroid-with-100-percent-certainty-says-space-watching-group-b612/ ):

For what it’s worth, the last extinction-level asteroid to hit Earth did so 35 million years ago, according to National Geographic. Homo Sapiens didn’t evolve until 200,000 years ago. What’s more, by the time another Doomsday asteroid hits Earth, we, as a species, may have evolved into an unrecognizable form, or gone extinct some other way, or simply left the Earth to colonize space. Long story short, we may not even be around to see the next one (and that’s probably a good thing).

TLDR: Don't worry about it. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 04:53, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank your very much FCP, that's managed to calm me down. Sorry for such a frantic email by the way, this stuff just always manages to freak me out. Again thank you for the reply.--WMS (talk) 07:15, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

An Offer Accepted, Quick Offload

Again, thanks for the kind words. Normally I enjoy watching a bad movie. I grew up on MST3K, and I love a lemon of a film, especially with a couple of friends. If you get the chance to watch a bad movie with friends, explicitly to make fun of it, I suggest the last-true-genius Uwe Boll's "In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale." Cast is Jason Statham, Ray Liotta, Ron Perlman, Leelee Sobieski, but truly starring Matthew Lillard chewing the scenery while Burt Reynolds is literally drunk, absolute all-stars acting on top of a too-big budget that's already been spent to pay their salaries by a dissociative German director who is positive he is blowing minds with this cinematic short-handing of niche young adult fiction. It is an under-the-radar romp of a B-movie. It's pure fun to call out every mistake and every orc in a rubber mask with a plastic weapon, and fill in lines when it gets stupid. It's like watching the puppy bowl. Everything is adorable in its lack of awareness, Uwe Boll is absolutely trying to break out, this time by paying big actors, and man, that is fun. But when I watch something that is intentionally trying to mislead, and doing just enough to do it, and I know what the consequences are 23 years down the line, it's like watching any successful propaganda. But I also can tell these guys were just experimenting with manipulative film techniques, I don't think they wanted to break news, I think they wanted people to believe their alien argument to prove to themselves that they had horror film chops. That's what drives me nuts about it, I think. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:02, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like a fun time :D. I’ll be sure to get some friends round after the whole Covid thing calms down and give it a watch with a few beverages. But yeah, I understand why it got under your skin so much, I myself also really dislike when people purposely mislead and use manipulation to achieve whatever they want. I mean, the whole thing scared me to the point of obsession (guess that’s a job well done for them...) but I’m susceptible to anxiety about that kind of stuff. It really brings my blood to a boil knowing that there are people, such as myself, who get so paranoid over that kind of stuff, and people perpetuate that stuff for a quick buck. Thanks for leaving a message my dude, I really appreciate it, feel free to leave another one anytime :).—WMS (talk) 16:41, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Hey pal

I saw your request for some debunking work on Gol Sarnitt's talkpage (because I spam recent changes and I am a nosy so and so).

"I'm just in overdrive in regards to anxiety."

I'm kinda busy with stuff (and my persuasive debating skills are not the best anyway) but there is a subreddit where people do this sort of thing for the kicks. Maybe you can post your challenge there and see if they can be of help? Just like with our articles of course the quality seems to vary, but it might be better than nothin'. (Read their rules and stuff if you do decide to post, they are a bit uptight.)

I wish you luck. Keep your chin up, yeah? - Rairyu75 (Talk) 22:21, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Hey, I was looking for a community like that but I didn't know where to find it, cheers for letting me know of it, I'll be sure to use it. Thank you for showing me this :).-WMS (talk) 17:54, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

You want me to talk about the thing

I want you to not worry about the aliens.

https://www.allaboutvision.com/resources/pupil.htm

It's a non-biological notion that an eye would be all pupil and we would not just film the back of the eye with our cameras. That little reflection, that white dot, that's a reflective surface. Pupils aren't reflective.

When I first moved to my hometowm I got laid out, wind knocked out of me in touch football, but I had a kid ask if I believed that half the world would flood and the other half would burn. I said no. My neighbors weren't aliens.

I mean, half of the US is burning, the other half is sinking, in some sense, but no, that's not proof this middle school kid imparted true facts to me. Let's say the alien tape is real, absurd, but what do you get from it? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:40, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, I wouldn't have noticed the eye thing. I really need to stop worrying about this goddamn film. As you've said, it's BS so there's no reason for me to be so petrified, but here I am defying all rationale. Could you just explain what you mean by "what do you get from it?" ? I just don't understand that part sorry.

But thank you for all the help, I'm really sorry for being such a pain with this. The whole documentary thing is bullshit and I should stop worrying about it, don't know why I have developed such a paranoia over it. - WMS (talk) 15:36, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Request in Saloon Bar

Here you go, list predictions of the end of the world. By no means comprehensive, of course. CoryUsar (talk) 17:02, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

And here is a similar list from Wikipedia. Not quite as comprehensive and a bit less snarky. Best of luck and keep a cool head. Nowhere Man (talk) 18:44, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, sometimes I hyper focus on one of these that I forget that there were literally thousands of them and still so many cranks pedal them, it's easy to forget that whilst in that state. Thank you, I'll try to remember that whenever I get irrational again :)--WMS (talk) 17:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Repeat after me. The world. Isn't. Ending.

It isn't. It isn't. It isn't, it isn't, it isn't. Do you understand? How would this fucker know that the world is ending? Do you reckon that if the world was ending all the finest thinkers of our time would be just hand waving it away? Ya reckon this old man is some supa genius and everyone else is dumb? Who cares that some old guy, that no one has ever heard of, in a movie that no one gives two tosses about says that the world is ending? I don't lose sleep over this, WMS. And neither should you. Some cheap, D-list actor, in a fake ass crappy alien suit is supposed to convince me that EVERYTHING we know about science is wrong? I watched the bits of your movie that you pointed out, about the alien moving it's eye? It looks like the dumbest special effect I have ever seen. The only way that movie could have been any worse is if Taylor Swift in a cat suit had shown up.

Also: "I'm sorry about all the paranoia and all the stuff I have caused." You feel unwell dude. That is not something to be ashamed of, ever. Do you understand? Have you met the rest of us? Dude, we are all here, all of us, messed up in the head; every weirdo who uses this website can relate to you when you tell them that you have some shit going on and not a single one of them thinks less of you for it. Right? All of us, just read some of the shit we say, you can tell we all have problems, and if any of them try to tell you that they have 100% healthy minds I will tell you that they are fucking lying. Because anyone who says that is a LIAR.

Wish you the best.

(I'm sorry the people in the subreddit weren't helpful. I saw them do some good, detailed debunking and hoped they might be able to help you. I'm so sorry man.) - Rairyu75 (Talk) 17:11, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! Thank you so much! I needed someone to say that, just to put the rationale where I was lacking and I appreciate it so much! What you said really puts the irrational fears out and lets me look at it logically, I'm sure I'll use this whenever the fear creep up and I can't thank you enough for that!

Yeah I understand, thank you for being so kind, I just get afraid that I'm just annoying people by sounding like a broken record, being plagued by dumb thoughts that I know are irrational but them still having power over me. I really appreciate the kind words and the putting into perspective.

Hey man, please don't apologise you tried to help by offering a solution and now you're helping with showing how illogical my fear is, you have nothing to apologise for man, you've helped me out a lot and I really wish there was some way that I can show how thankful I am as words sometimes feel so limiting.

But again dude, thank you so much, thank you for everything :)--WMS (talk) 17:18, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

It's not ending

It's not. It's. Not. Look, i think i can at least kind of understand what you're feeling. I was diagnosed with OCD last year and I also have to deal with these irrational thoughts a lot. I would highly recommend talking about this with a therapist, you'll feel so much better. In the meantime though try to remember that these irration thoughts are simply thoughts and are best ignored. I hope this helps in some way. Evilatheistheathen (talk) 22:21, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the reassurance :), and about therapy, that's my next step. I'm going to the doctor's to check the cause of this paranoia and hopefully I can get appropriate therapy for it. This has helped quite a bit my dude, thank you :).--WMS (talk) 17:20, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

You're an anarchist?

What's your Discord ID? — Oxyaena ^Harass 21:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Yup, and I'll send it to you over email if you don't mind.--WMS (talk) 19:04, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

You should send it again. — Oxyaena ^Harass 12:26, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I’ll do it in the morning as I just logged on for a quick edit and it’s really late right now, watch of for an email tomorrow my dude :P—WMS (talk) 03:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I see you sent me an email...

...but for some reason, it's not in my inbox. Not even in the junk. Would you like to try again? Or maybe, if it's not too personal, I can give you my opinion about that thing, whatever it is, here. Spud (talk) 08:28, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Hey sorry for late reply, but it’s all good now :) I’ve been having issues with my email so that’s probably why it screwed up.—WMS (talk) 19:11, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

A friendly note

Well WMS I am glad to tell that I am not at all angry about our disagreement on the Jung page. No. I hope that you will not be apprehensive to interact with me here on RW in the future. I was of course joking in the comment note. I will admit that it was also an expression of exasperation. The term "shyster" is well meant in reference to someone who acts in an unethical, or unscrupulous manner, often a lawyer, politician or business person. It is a mere insult, imparting no information other than summary judgment: this guy's shit, this guy's no good. Not fitting the characteristics of a momentous historical figure in the field of psychology.

At first I thought that synchronicity meant only the very human tendency to connect unrelated events. It appears that it also can be viewed as an actual mental process, one that might be associated with parapsychology. Now, we reject parapsychology today as non-scientific. It is true that Jung did speculate about possible parapsychological phenomena. His ideas about astrology were quite dubious. But he did not do so in an unscrupulous manner, rather as a possible method of discovery and disclosure of patient's problems in his analytic psychology. Remember that therapy has an artistic component that is not clearly scientific.UncleKrampus (talk) 21:26, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I understand and don’t worry there is no apprehension in interacting with you :). I did not see psychology from that perspective so thank you for the insight, definitely new stuff for me to consider. And yeah, the shyster thing I just didn’t really understand the context behind the category. But thank you for understanding and explaining it to me, I really appreciate that :).—WMS (talk) 19:14, 9 October 2022 (UTC)