RationalWiki:Saloon bar

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Saloon bar
WIGO Bar colour.png

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

What is going on?

The Bar
(talk) (talk) (talk) (talk) (hic)

To do list

What is the body?


From what the article mentions, what we take to be the body ( a solid and enduring form) is reallyjust a series of momentary conscious events that are happening. Personally I don't buy it but I want to know what other people think here. I mean consciousness has to come from somewhere right? Like the brain. This just seems to me like a variation of the whole "consciousness is weird" trope.Machina (talk) 19:34, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

This is a little excerpt from it:

Contemporary cognitive science agrees. All experiences arise when consciousness is activated by a sense organ meeting an internal or external object. (Here, the mind itself functions like a sixth sense organ in relation to emotion and thought.) We assume we are “experiencing” the object that gave rise to the event in our consciousness. But the truth is that the only thing we can verify is the experience itself, however we may be misconstruing it. The idea of the body is like this. It is an idea based on unwarranted assumptions about the coherence of our conscious experience.Machina (talk) 20:39, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

you cannot escape your own head. you can only see through your eyes, hear through you ears, touch through your own skin. this is the limit of what we can perceive. we can augment with specs and hearing aids, it can worsen or be lost through age or physical trauma. whatever form the information we receive via those senses is all we got. we process it in our brains, which can be effected similarly through physical means. if we can only ever perceive things the way we do, it is irrelevant if we perceive an abstraction, or a delusion because thats all we have to go on. its an abstraction that makes sense us and reinforced by constant interaction with our environment. its coherent because walking into traffic or over a cliff can cause you to perceive severe pain. science and maths can help conceive of things not perceptable via our senses, and physical effects can be apparent even when you cannot see the cause.
if these are our limits and can never get beyond them, what functional difference is it if whats 'real' is something we never experience or perceive and cannot comprehend? you cannot do anything based on something you cant experience, perceive or comprehend in any way beyond contemplating your naval an disappearing up you own arsehole.
what if it were all a dream? what if this is a simulation? you going gamble that it is based on nothing? you can do nothing with that information true or not. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:49, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Not sure how that addresses the point i made.
Also here is the other bit to the quote: The Buddhist teachings on the workings of mind, called Abhidharma, teach us that there isn’t a body per se, just a variety of momentary mental events. some of them we think of as “physical,” even though they’re not. When I feel an ache in my right leg, the Abhidharma analysis goes, this sensation is a mental event produced in consciousness when an object I call a leg activates inner sensors that awaken awareness in a particular way. Likewise, seeing, hearing, and all sense perceptions are mental events stimulated by apparently physical objects.Machina (talk) 22:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
you were talking about experience and perception. now you are talking how we interpret stimuli. its still experience and perception. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:34, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you are getting at, so is the guy right?Machina (talk) 22:56, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
i mean i guess. there is a physical process and its interpreted in your brain. a biologist can give a better description. we interpret it in a way that we can understand and is useful to us, but it doesnt make it false in anyway. the guy in link goes on to about oneness with earth and such like. im not a buddhist so means little to me. AMassiveGay (talk) 00:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't think he means that. He's saying there is no "physical".Machina (talk) 01:41, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Which is dumb and wrong. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:24, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
hes not really saying that though. he says buddhist thought is that there is no physical and all is an illusion, but he just restates what ive already said - stimuli is processed in the brain and we react accordingly. he also goes on to describe a variety of actual physical processes and facts to highlight just how amazing our bodies are and we should appreciate that. hes very much asserting this is physical and is very much real. where he and i differ, is how, after whatever stimuli has been processed, is how we process that information, our awareness of it, our perception. he would have you think that our awareness is, from want of a better word, a real thing, separate from our physical bodies, while i would say its firing synapes and chemical reactions in an amazingly complex computer that is our brains. and even then, he still saying that everythings informed by the physical, leading in on how meditation can be used to reduce stress by 'bringing awareness to every part of your body' kinda bringing kind of equilibrium between your body and mind. there is no denial of the physical, no claims of your body not being real, but opposite. on the more spiritual claims, they seem purposely vague. ambiguous enough to read in either way - he gives no concrete and definite pronouncements of 'this is the way things are'. thats quite refreshing for this kind of thing.
please bear in mind though, and i cannot stress this enough, i am not a buddhist, i have no special knowledge of it nor indeed in any of things discussed. i will disregard all spiritual or religious stuff unless i see how could relate to a more materialist? approach. you'd need an actual buddhist for more nuanced look at that stuff. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:29, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Well actually he is saying there is no physical: http://www.lionsroar.com/everythings-made-of-mind/Machina (talk) 19:40, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
ok, ive not read that page, just the linked one earlier. different circumstance might give this more weight in one than in another, but not really important to me. let try a different tack. im not buddhist and the religious spiritual stuff i can ignore. you try it now. throw out the karma, the enlightenment and anything like that. now consider there is no physical, its all illusion. where does that get you? what choices do make in life, major or trivial with that? you would make no decision or make any action based on that. because its based on nothing. there is nothing to suggest it is illusion in any way, and the only things that that can inform or guide you are your own experience and perception on given to your own senses. nothing else. everything you know or feel tells you there is a physical reality. you see, smell, taste it. it give pain and pleasure. it is all ever see and do and ever will see and do. against a vague idea of your perception is an abstraction. it makes no difference to what you can do real or no unless you to prepared to sit still long enough to starve to death. if it is an illusion, its pretty solid as they go. you cannot pierce it and test for it. try this - next time you need a shit, ask youself if its an illusion and if you treat it as such or live it as if it is real. you will have an answer depending if you shit yourself or wander to the toilet. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:51, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
The Zen Buddhist would just tell you to go use the damn toilet, that's what's it's FOR. (And he'd hit you with a stick if you didn't.) Pere Ubu (talk) 19:53, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
They would also likely dodge the question.Machina (talk) 02:50, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
i dunno they seem pretty clear to me - all things physical are an illusion. reach enlightenment to pierce it. in the meantime, go for a shit. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
But that doesn't mean they are an illusion. You buy into that enlightenment stuff?Machina (talk) 18:06, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes. Also, the scientific and religious approaches are incommensurable. Ariel31459 (talk) 18:45, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Get your NOMA outta my conflict hypothesis. They conflict frequently and science is right when they do. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
to be fair be, im pretty clueless on the science side of things too. and at maths. and philosophy. economics. politics. it takes me a couple of seconds to read a clock. im quite good the crossword. so theres that AMassiveGay (talk) 19:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm not actually bothered by your personal openness and desire for nuance, just a single, specific word Ariel used, "incommensurable" is an overly generous way to describe the relationship between science and religion. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:19, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

A miserable little pile of secrets! But enough talk... have at you! (sorry, I just had to say that). Towards-the Unknown (talk) 01:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Spud's latest Esperanto translation

I have just created the page Sankta Patriko, an Esperanto translation of the Saint Patrick article. That's my eighth translation, following my six previous Esperanto translations (Lewis Carroll (Esperanto), Guy Fawkes (Esperanto), Haloveno, Ĵakvo la Buĉisto, Kristnaska Viro and Oscar Wilde (Esperanto)) and my one Spanish translation (Papá Noel). I am saying this now because all of those article were created in draft space and then moved into main space, meaning that they did not show up on the new pages special page, so I have to make this announcement. I am also boasting. Spud (talk) 09:56, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Nice work. NekoDysk 14:57, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, Spud! Bongolian (talk) 19:58, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Boasting is earned. Last I heard about Esperanto was... a long while ago. I hope you do enemas next! The page is killer long though, but when something involves anatomy, spero spero. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:43, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
@Gol Sarnitt Between now and December I plan to translate the pages on Saint Christopher, Frankenstein, the yeti, Bigfoot, mermaids and the Gunpowder Plot into Esperanto. I also plan to translate the Santa Claus page into French and the Halloween page into French and Spanish. Folklore, history and literature. Those are things that interest me. Spud (talk) 04:15, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Power to you. I am not disappointed. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 01:04, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Some Room for Improvement?

As a very occasional reader of RationalWiki, I can only contribute sub my IP address, and I apologise. Perhaps I should not bother you with this, but I wonder who has written the lunatic introduction to Same-sex marriage. And has nobody seen fit to make a few changes to it? Very best, Bessel Dekker ( (talk) 01:20, 14 March 2019 (UTC))

At the risk of showing that I can miss the obvious, what exactly is lunatic about the introduction? Kencolt (talk) 05:15, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't see what's wrong with it either. DuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 13:23, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
@DuceMoosolini@KencoltThe introduction to the article in question is not only acceptable, it is informative. The BoN's motives on the other hand appear less than pure... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:40, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Hey BoN perhaps you should stuff your fucking bible up your ass you cunt. Having two dads is the same as having a normal childhood you impure piece of fucking shit. Fuck you BoN. And yeah homosexuals and blacks are the best dancers, you bigoted fucking asshole. Euphoric Intelligence (talk) 13:55, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
@Euphoric Intelligence You seem to be jumping the gun somewhat. The BoN seems more concerned with tone rather than content, at least thus far. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:45, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Tone my ass. What does he mean "supposing" blacks and homosexuals are better dancers? That's sheer bigotry. As you pointed out it isn't pure at all. Euphoric Intelligence (talk) 15:54, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
@Euphoric Intelligence It seems you have missed the point of my post, as I intended to illustrate that the complainant failed to discuss before making the linked edit. Somewhat undermining their credibility. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:12, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
As for my initial comment, I was slightly concerned about:
”Already as of July 2015, the institution of traditional marriage has been improved destroyed in twenty-one countries.[note 1] As a result, millions of poor innocent people around the world have been forced to watch their gay friends and neighbors declare their loving commitment for one another publicly. This, of course, is a sign of progress in society Satan.”
How, for instance, I could be a Bible-thumper by objecting to a reference to Satan is a question which baffles and amuses me: I have issues with his being brought in in any serious way at all. But I understand from the above comments that all of this is “informative”.
In addition, there seems to be some confusion related to my edits in quite another article, Homosexuality. As a homosexual I can testify to knowing a lot of gay and lesbian people who do not conform to the stereotype of being “better dancers” (and this includes myself). As for the bit about distinguishing colours, there’s nothing rational about it. I wonder what reader could take this seriously — and if you lose your readers, you lose your raison d’être. Which is fine, of course. I thought I’d be able to contribute something. I was mistaken. (talk) 19:40, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Please excuse Euphoric Intelligence, he's a troll who has been banned. If you want to remove sterotyped content (like tha dancer stuff), please feel free. RoninMacbeth (talk) 19:47, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
@ I would hope that you recognize the quoted section as being somewhat snarky, something that is a recurring theme on this site. That being said, I do not necessarily disagree with your opinions on the other pieces of disputed content. I merely disagreed with you removing the disputed content before the discussion had either begun or concluded. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:53, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Sincere thanks, RoninMacbeth. There is much to object to in both these articles, especially on the basis of the relevant literature. I do not think I have the stomach to do so now. However, GrammarCommie, I apologise if as an outsider I am unfamiliar with this project's mores, and, worse, have failed to realise this myself. Best of luck! (talk) 20:01, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

As a practical atheist I don't find anything offensive about the article. However estimates have it that 75% of Americans do believe in God. Assuming that All folks are alike in this respect, it is reasonable to suppose that 3 out of 4 LGBTQ folks believe in God and are not comfortable with jokes about satan and irreligious bullshit that atheists think is so hilarious. We alienate some people by ridiculing religion out of context.Ariel31459 (talk) 23:37, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

thats an assumption that i dont think can be made not the us but something similar is likely, especially since it is religion and/or the religious who are at the fore front of prejudice AMassiveGay (talk) 15:52, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
@AMassiveGay Yes, but most people not affiliated with religion still believe in God. They didn't ask the right question.Ariel31459 (talk) 01:25, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
That's a real stretch of the concept of "all things being equal" there Ariel. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:31, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Oh, I don't know. I tend to think of LGBTQ people as just like everyone in sufficiently large numbers.Ariel31459 (talk) 01:20, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, but, you know, the whole "this religion has actively attacked you as fundamentally and irreconcilably evil for decades" thing isn't just some trivially ignored thing. Some people do ignore it, but it's a big stretch to assume that's normal. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 01:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
only 6 years out of date ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 01:32, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes. Still that poll is 1 in 2 for religion. Many non-affiliated people believe in God, so it is really more than that.Ariel31459 (talk) 01:44, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
so what if it is? its the christian religion that is the basis for most of the prejudice against lgbt in the us and the west, and particularly the arguments against marriage equality (i loathe the phrase 'same sex marriage' - it sets apart as something different to hetero version) AMassiveGay (talk) 13:21, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
I think I have made clear what my point is. More generally, minorities are not majority atheist. Another example of this unexpected behavior is that the Christian religion condoned slavery, and black Americans are overall quite dedicated to Protestantism, the religion of their captors. Ariel31459 (talk) 15:34, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
i'm not sure that you have. what is so wrong with ridiculing the beliefs of those who use those beliefs to oppress others? if some are 'alienated' because of it then fuck them. they should face up to whats said in their name. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:06, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Wait...did I say there was something wrong? No, I checked, I said a majority of LGBTQ might not be comfortable with withering criticism of religion on this kind of page. I am not telling you what to believe. Yes, they should face up to what is said in their name, just like you should face up to what is said in this wiki may offend people whom we otherwise would not want to offend. I am not offended. I don't care to be offensive either. It doesn't fucking bother me unless, as in this case it makes the wiki appear really fucking sophomoric. Even then, I didn't write it. I am not responsible for the idiocy of others. I just feel an obligation to point it out. Finally, if your attitude is fuck religions, I tend to agree. If it is "fuck the majority because they happen to be religious people," I can't go there.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:51, 16 March 2019 (UTC)


If bread leads to toaster, and toaster leads to toast, does bread lead to toast?

I would think this to be a valid logical formulation, but it appears to me to rest upon a case of conditional logic, in order for it to be logically true it needs to meet a certain set of criteria, the criteria in this case being if the bread in question was meant to be toasted, and if a toaster was going to be used to toast the bread in question. So, does bread lead to toast? Oxyaena Poke me 14:02, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

As you said, it's conditional. If bread = future toast, then bread leads to toaster then to toast. However, if bread =/= future toast, then bread does not lead to toaster or toast. Personally, I'm more concerned if bread leads to crumbs, but I guess that's because I just passed the cleaning lady... Kencolt (talk) 21:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
The logic is sound, but because the premises aren't actually true, the logic being sound is irrelevant to the conclusion being true. That's true of 100% of logic, including the most basic and intuitively true mathematics. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
The argument is valid, but unsound, because the premise is untrue.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:56, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Okay fine. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:57, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I think Michigan State University is desperate for students

I keep hearing ads for MSU on the radio nonstop. With the fallout of the incident with perv doctor Larry Nassar and the fact that the university made it more difficult to report sexual abuse, many people are avoiding MSU. I rarely hear ads for University of Michigan. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 14:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I find that odd, given MSU is apparently reporting that they had their largest class ever this past fall. I'm guessing they're just trying to draw more in-state students, assuming you're in Michigan. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 15:30, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
I was born, raised and live in Michigan. I don't see as many people who support Michigan State University anymore. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 16:38, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
I live in Ohio. Fuck Michigan. Oxyaena Poke me 13:52, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
@Oxyaena fuck you too buddy. Michigan is better than you Ohio cunts. Now, I was not talking about which state was better. I was talking about University attendance after a sexual abuse scandal. P.S- don't start an insult war you can't win. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 21:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
@Rationalzombie94 PS You might not want to refer to other people by the word of country matters. Oxyaena Poke me 03:35, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

What is preventing you from escaping atheism and freeing yourself?

I know. There are probably several factors that prevent you from dumping godlessness and freeing yourself, but what would you say is the biggest one?Kingdamian1 (talk) 16:36, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

The fact that I DO believe in gods, multiple ones, just not your tired intolerant sparrow-obsessed patriarch. Pere Ubu (talk) 20:06, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
@Kingdamian1, Now that you've had your mop restored, try doing something useful and not being such a troll. Bongolian (talk) 17:06, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Troll DuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 17:15, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
"Godlessness" is somehow bad but I suspect @Kingdamian1 would not like my Gods (I am a proud Pagan). Better be the Abrahamic God I assume? --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:35, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
I find the question confusing. As an atheist I am already free of religious indoctrination.Hubert (talk) 18:58, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
I mean, yeah, you've got to move onto the next step of "now that I've adequately perused the question and certified to myself religion is totally full of shit, I should stop wasting my time deconstructing it and decide how I actually want to change the world for the better". ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:01, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
There are many forms of atheism and agnosticism - and heavens even for them. Anna Livia (talk) 19:05, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
"I mean, yeah, you've got to move onto the next step"
@Ikanreed I agree. I would say that you gotta find the next god to kill. Thinker(unlicensed) 20:24, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
The fact that I don't believe in a god. That's literally what atheism means. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪) 22:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Damian grows dull. A sad provocateur that I feel sorry for. ShabiDOO 23:31, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Damian thinks that we want to switch to his belief system. 😂😂😂 I certainly won't. No sane person would. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
That is the trademark of the faithful, is it not? Everyone really wants to be just like me, some don't know it yet. RoninMacbeth (talk) 02:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
While most of us enjoy comparing and debating our various ethical/belief systems and worldviews. And if the deity/deities wanted us to have one religion we wouldn't have been provided with so many hymn sheets. Anna Livia (talk) 11:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I would modestly propose that it is the music that now infects your camp, my friend. At least from a European historical perspective, religion had a much better case for the Holy Spirit when composers like Haydn and Handel were by their sides. Nowadays, it is the maudlin (like the Hillsong crap) that is supposed to give me inspiration. Frankly, I would not be inspired by such nonsense even after drinking large quantities of a Holy Spirit. Soundwave106 (talk) 12:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Simple. What stops me from rejoining Christianity, is the content of Christianity. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:02, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
And for me it is all the Christians. Their beliefs not making any sense is another big factor too. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 14:25, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Mostly facts, logic, and not wanting to support an omnicidal manic with the power of a god. Commie Lib (talk) 18:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I ditched traditional Christianity twice (long story). I am happy with my path. The way Christians view their Bible makes no sense, they way the Bible is written implies two totally different Gods. What do you expect though? How many times throughout history was the Bible translated an rewritten? That happened for over 1000 years. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 21:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I would like to hear an account of a god intervening in somebody's life, and some explanation as to why it must have been a god, and not some normal working of society or probability. I mean, let's say if God saved you from dying in a car crash, what about all the people who worked to make cars safer and all the people who have died in a car? I'm willing to get more abstract than that. If faith and acts are the path to a suitable afterlife, who is the arbiter of the gate to that afterlife? If there needs be a gatekeeper, then what does corporeal morality matter? We can't decide what's right or what's wrong if the gate is kept by something we don't understand. But if there is no gate, we have every right to decide what is right or wrong.
I was a self described soft-agnositic deist in high school. But then I was asked what that matters, how that position affects the world. Well, there's a higher power we can't understand, and I am in awe of it. OK, so when a magician performs a really good trick, do you believe the magician is magic? No. So does that mean that maybe, this higher power that we can't understand isn't magic? Yeah, but it's what's not explained. Does the magician explain his magic? ...Not usually.
So what is the difference between believing in an active deity and just some god? The active deity bamboozles you, and reinforces that anything outside of your worldview must be magical. The passive deity at least doesn't give a shit when you refuse that line of reasoning, but also falls to the invisible gardener argument. If the garden grows, and the claim is there's an invisible gardener taking care of the garden, and his actions can't be bothered or stopped or measured or caught, what is the difference between having an invisible gardener and no gardener at all? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 01:31, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
@Gol SarnittOOH!! OOH!! PICK ME TEACHER!! I KNOW!! I KNOW!! ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:36, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie Ok, ok, settle down. So there's no God or afterlife, please add to the discussion. EDIT: From a base standard that morality and purpose exist. Does morality/purpose come from a higher power that deigns and designs morality and purpose? Does a higher power seem to exist but does not deign or design what seems like morality/purpose? Does no higher power exist, but morality/purpose exist despite? Resident nihilist, not your God-damned teacher. I should set up an 8 values style site and just cash on this. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:48, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
The main one would be the complete lack of actual evidence for gods - for example I give to you the crappy behavior of human beings in general which religious belief does absolutely nothing to improve. I guess you might call that comon sense really. What is it do you think traps people in such useless beliefs as religion, or white supremism, or any other useless doctrinaire? Aloysius the Gaul 20:08, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Mass shooting in two mosques in New Zealand

CNN: http://edition.cnn.com/2019/03/14/asia/christchurch-mosque-shooting-intl/index.html

"At least 49 people have been killed and 20 seriously injured after gunmen opened fire in two mosques in the New Zealand city of Christchurch Friday, a coordinated and unprecedented attack that has shocked the usually peaceful nation." Thinker(unlicensed) 09:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

One of the shooters published a nazi manifesto, a la Anders Breivik and Dylan Roof. Hannasanarion (talk) 13:47, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Turns out he's also a memer. He reportedly shouted "Remember lads, subscribe to Pewdiepie!" during the shooting. Felix has already responded in a tweet. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 15:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I think that clearly seals the "meme nazis are just as bad as 'real' nazis" question. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
He also apparently referenced the "remove kebab" meme, which is brought about some soul searching in the Paradox games subreddits. DuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 15:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
The problem is, Nazis use memes to hide in plain sight. They can write racist and violent shit and then claim that it's just a joke when confronted. Most people use jokes as jokes, but some of them are serious about it. DuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 15:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I told them. I fucking told him.
For context, my friend and I both play Paradox games together (CK2 and HoI4), and at one point we discussed the phrase "Remove kebab." I told him that it's a little uncomfortable because of the Schrödinger's Nazi problem, and he responded that the meme itself was just a harmless Polandball reference. Well, now look at it. On the plus side, I get to prove him wrong.
Oh, and props to the Paradox subreddit for cracking down on the phrase. RoninMacbeth (talk) 15:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
"The problem is, Nazis use memes to hide in plain sight."
@DuceMoosolini Nazis don't hide, they are very proud of their ideas. This attack was very well planned, by a man who is evil and smart. Blaming memes doesn't make sense: essentially all young people, especially gamers, "meme" in some way, and most memes have nothing to do with racism or violence. This remember me of when comic books, and then videogames, were accused of making the young violent. Thinker(unlicensed) 17:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
They fucking do both. Get out of here with that shit. Some hide behind plausible deniability and/or isolated anonymous communities, and quietly radicalize people, and some are sufficiently radicalized to commit mass murder openly. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Jokes don't actually cause violence. People don't look at some hitler memes then go and blow up a synagogue. They read it and laugh not because they're nazi but because it's funny. — Unsigned, by: Tabula Rasa / talk / contribs
Given that, no, this exact fucker did almost exactly that, go home rethink your entire worldview. There's only one kind of good nazi. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:55, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
My take on it is that it first starts as "joking" or a "meme", but you're receptive enough to find it funny and spread it around in the first place. As with all memes, they lose their "joke" power quickly and you start believing the crap you spread around. It's like Argumentum ad nauseam but for yourself. I don't think I'm part of those circles that meme about racist and violent crap though, and I wouldn't last long either, so maybe my take is wrong or incomplete. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 19:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I can't help but feel that while that may be true, humor is thought to be a mechanism of in-group identification. People normalize towards it because that's its social function. It doesn't need to be good or clever humor to fill that role, and when it's right-wing it's innately hateful in a way that drives out people who don't care for it. Every community either bans those (who are mostly conservatives) who post "haha only serious" bullshit, it descends into being an awful hellscape of bullshit.
It doesn't help that, yeah, nazis secretly and directly planned to use sites of disaffected mostly young mostly men with low moderation to actively use this strategy to promote their ideology through pseudohumor and plausible deniability. There's ample documentation to this effect by way of leaked nazi discord conversations and editorial style guides from the daily stormer. It's insideous because it's meant to be. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
there is very little difference to posting shitty racist memes because they are funny and posting them because you are a racist prick. in both cases you are a prick posting shitty racist memes. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Pardon my ignorance, but is Nazis trying to brainwash and recruit really new besides the technological advancements of access to information? How can we assess the harm caused? How many terrorist attacks motivated by the spread and subculture lingo of white supremacist beliefs were carried out prior to the establishment of high-speed internet? How was getting information like before the rise of the internet, if any of you are old enough to remember (I'm certainly not old enough, I'm only 24). --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 21:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
how widespread do you think it was before the internet? how would you, if you were a nazi of some description, find info about far right causes, find like minded people? sadly this is the world we live in AMassiveGay (talk) 22:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Nazi skinheads were a problem in the punk scene in the 1990s (sometimes a "start-shit violence for the sake of it" type of problem) and I've heard it was even worse in the 1980s. I have no idea how they found each other, but they did. I witnessed some asshole climb on stage at a Sick Of It All show in the early 1990s and attempt a Heil Hitler salute, only to be gangtackled and violently thrown off the stage... complete with a speech from the lead singer after the song saying something like "if you want to fuck cows, don't fuck cows on my stage". So, yes, this is not *that* new. I do wonder if the Internet amplifies the phenomenon by compartmentalizing groups, but I'm not sure. The opposite is also possibly true: previously, the racist tended not to spout their dribble as much onto forums of permanent record. Now, we have all the Facebook, Twitter, and 8chan postings to sort through, and for some reason people don't seem to realize these are public forums yet. (I *am* sad that nerd culture via Gamergate has been infected by a small, minority incel loudmouth, that is something drastically different from the earlier times.) Soundwave106 (talk) 05:04, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
I'd imagine it'll be like an underrated threat and not super well known, but might be more common than you think even back in the days. I figure that if you look hard enough, you'll find far-right sympathies, especially if you're all economically down-trodden (as I think the rise of the alt-right has roots in Great Recession as how Nazism has some roots from Great Depression). Kind of like how Hitler rose, he listened to far-right recruitment people. It's just a lot easier these days if you do a quick search and how the media talks about them (but hasn't the media talked about them too earlier?). I sometimes do feel that while it's easier I also feel the results might not be be so different for the hard-ended ones. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 23:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
sure it existed before, but how did it spread? word of mouth, a friend of friend. in one the links it mentions it was all very face to face, with the odd flyer on on your windscreen. its not like you could have just approached people in the pub without getting your head kicked in. and often, in many locales at least, anything resembling an organisation would be illegal. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:37, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
hitler also had the advantage of most decent people not knowing or realising that nazis were and are poison AMassiveGay (talk) 23:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
these days, all the fucknuts on internet are normalising these shite.AMassiveGay (talk) 23:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Are you guys really taking seriously the "memes recruiting Nazis conspiracy" ?
I found online the "manifesto" of the attacker: (REDACTED). It could be interesting digging into it, especially in the prospective of writing a RW page on the attack. Thinker(unlicensed) 23:02, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
i've no intention of downloading a pdf of that shit onto my laptop, ta AMassiveGay (talk) 23:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Calling things conspiracy theories when there's Direct primary source evidence with well-established chains of custody is a bit shit. And by a bit shit, I mean go fuck yourself and shut the fuck up. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 00:44, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

This is a dreary topic @UnlicensedThinker. ikanreed and AMG don't seem like it either. I don't get this meme business. Is someone claiming cold-blooded killers wouldn't kill if everyone used the right sort of language? Ariel31459 (talk) 01:39, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

The implication that there are people who are innately "cold blooded killers" who act purely on internal whim is way fucking stupider than even earnestly believing your gross misrepresentation of what I said is true. It's pure magical thinking. Propaganda exists and works, and that's not a particularly unreasonable point to make. But what you said just now? Pretty damn unreasonable. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 02:01, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
So that white guy who killed a bunch of white people in Las Vegas, he was influenced by propaganda? Yeah, that sounds magical.Ariel31459 (talk) 15:43, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
thats just fucking dogshit. he didnt say what influenced him and just how relevant is he to someone with an admitted far right world view? what it is you are saying here, that people arnt influenced by they the things they see and do? AMassiveGay (talk) 16:16, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry for being unclear. I am saying that some people will kill without remorse. An idea may well direct them to kill a particular victim. Psychopaths often kill people. Sociopaths can convince themselves it makes sense to kill someone in that they profit by it, say for example killing to collect on insurance. I am saying that polite speech will not likely lower the murder rate. If you think that's dog shit, then you clearly have never owned a dog. Finally, I am saying that people who would do such a terrible thing are already dangerous before being exposed to any set of ideas.Ariel31459 (talk) 18:10, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
sorry for my tone. i just dont see the relevance here when motive is clear and unambiguous. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:05, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
I read the manifesto. It's very snarky and superficially smart-sounding in a way that would appeal to an adolescent looking for cues on how to be a cool guy who takes shit from nobody. Memes are an ingredient, but the attitude is what does the damage. Millennium Scallion (talk) 02:50, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Another thing this attack shows is that anything less than the death penalty is an inadequate response by the aggrieved nation in which this sort of thing happens. People who oppose the death penalty worry that the innocent might be convicted and killed. This is usually a specious argument against my actual position. I don't think that the death penalty ought to be routinely applied to every murderer. But for a mass murderer with a manifesto, there usually isn't much point in arguing whether the accused in the dock is the person who did it. And those are the mass murderers who ought to be sentenced to die. You might doubt their sanity; you very seldom doubt that the government has the right defendant. In cases like this nothing else is adequate. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 02:52, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Why is it the only option? Why doesn't imprisonment work? RoninMacbeth (talk) 02:58, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
It isn't a matter of what 'works' or 'doesn't work'. I'm not claiming that the death penalty has a 'deterrent effect' or any such thing. Again, it's a matter of proportionality. In a world where you can get sent to prison for ten years for stealing a can of beer, imprisonment even for life is simply an inadequate response to a crime of this heinousness in my opinion. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 03:35, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Personally I think both options are inadequate. On the one hand, locking them up for life does nothing since most only regret getting caught, if that. On the other hand, killing them off is just petty vengeance which gives nothing of any real substance to anyone involved. Neither option pays the debt the perpetrator has invoked, and neither really changes anything in the grand scheme of things. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:54, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Actually, if I recall correctly, there was a provision in a failed death penalty abolishment proposition in California back in 2016 that had to require criminals to provide reparations for the victim's family and loved ones along with lifetime imprisonment, so that concept of paying debt isn't mutually exclusive to lifetime imprisonment without parole. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 21:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
@Smerdis of Tlön I disagree. First, I believe that the 10-year sentence for stealing beer is unjust and should be changed. Furthermore, I believe that the killing of another human being is such an extreme action that its use should be avoided at all costs. If it doesn't deter crime, then there is no reason for the state to take a person's life, unless he is actively threatening even more lives and there is no means of nonlethally subduing him. RoninMacbeth (talk) 04:09, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
new zealand does not have a death penalty. this is merely revenge fantasy that serves no reasonable purpose here or elsewhere. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:56, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
even more pointless is that most people who commit this kind of crime dont 'come peacefully' - they are usually killed in the process. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Once he started shooting I watched about 30 seconds of the playback before I swallowed my guts and let everyone else watch it. Fuck off with that, I'm crying just thinking about it later. I can't unsee what I've seen, but fuck off with that.Gol Sarnitt (talk) 07:03, 16 March 2019 (UTC)06:47, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Anyway, the attacker explicitly rejects the label of Nazi or neo-Nazi. He called himself a Fascist or more precisely Eco-Fascist (Environmentalist is written in the logo of his manifesto) and says that the nation with the closest political and social values to his own is the People's Republic of China (which is Communist). He also says that Oswald Mosley (leader of the British Union of Fascists) is the person from history closest to his own beliefs, that he supported Trump as a symbol of renewed white identity and common purpose, but absolutely not as a policy maker and leader. Thinker(unlicensed) 09:17, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
soo white supremacist then? nazi enough in my book. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:56, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
So, he's a White Supremacist who is politically Fascist? So... He's a Nazi... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:04, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
and oswald mosley, a man for whom hitler was a guest at his wedding, a british nazi, is closest to his owen beliefs. what are we to make of that? AMassiveGay (talk) 13:13, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
"soo white supremacist then? nazi enough in my book."
I haven't read enough to see if he is a white supremacist (for what I read it, he seems mostly of the idea that races should be separated, without saying one is better than the other. Is the term "segregationist"?). A racist and an ethno-nationalist by his own admission. However, could you guys just be a bit less superficial and stop conflating every bad ideology with Nazism? There are hundred of other terrible ideas around. I'm not an expert of history, sociology, politics, etc. but I guess that the analysis of the actually experts are more complex than "It's a Nazi!" Of course, I expect that somebody would understand nothing of what I said and assume I'm now defending Nazism... Thinker(unlicensed) 14:36, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
oh no those poor misunderstood nazis. it as good a description for this prick as any, except to most idiotic of apologists. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:43, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
an admitted racist and ethno nationalist is the crux of this and whatever else he describes himself is irrelevant, nuance adds nothing to this except at best pedantry and at worst apology AMassiveGay (talk) 14:47, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
"...A racist and an ethno-nationalist by his own admission. However, could you guys just be a bit less superficial and stop conflating every bad ideology with Nazism?" Now you're just making shit up. If someone meets the criteria for label X, then label X applies. Nazism is a mixture of white supremism and Fascism, with a touch of Antisemitism thrown in, though the latter can in many cases be part of the white supremacist rhetoric. "Ethno-Nationalist" is PR speak for White supremacist, one of the weasel words and dog whistles they hide behind. "...I'm not an expert of history, sociology, politics, etc. but..." It shows. I actually study behavioral classification as a hobby, and guess what? Fascist + White supremacist = Nazi. It's like trying to argue that Mormons aren't Christians, they are, they meet the basic requirements (Jesus, God, Bible, salvation etc) for that label to apply. Or that "Intelligent Design" isn't Creationism. "Of course, I expect that somebody would understand nothing of what I said and assume I'm now defending Nazism..." You are, whether you intend to or not the result of you're pedantry is the defense of a Nazi. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:11, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
it doesnt even need to be an exact precise definition. extreme racist authoritarian views is what a nazi is now. its how its used and its what it is now. you might as well say 'hes not a nazi because he made no mention of lebensraum'. its idiotic. the term nazi is still such poison that even nazis dont want to be nazis - they say alt right or some other bullshit concoction. they can call themselves what they want but we should still call them nazis. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:41, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
"I actually study behavioral classification as a hobby, and guess what? Fascist + White supremacist = Nazi."
@GrammarCommie Nope, you should study better (and, by the way, Nazism goes below "political doctrines", not "behavioral classification".)
"it doesnt even need to be an exact precise definition"
@AMassiveGay OK, let's throw History in the garbage and let's call everything is bad Nazism, that well surely work out well... Thinker(unlicensed) 16:10, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
did you read the rest of the of what i wrote fucknut or were you too busy defending nazis? AMassiveGay (talk) 16:18, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
"Of course, I expect that somebody would understand nothing of what I said and assume I'm now defending Nazism..."
"did you read the rest of the of what i wrote fucknut or were you too busy defending nazis?"
@AMassiveGay God, you are predictable... Thinker(unlicensed)
I created a page on the event, if somebody is interested to contribute. Thinker(unlicensed) 16:46, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
why should i be trying to surprise you? saying you expect to be called out on your nazi apologia doesnt somehow shield you from it you piece of shit. you could explain why i am wrong in this, you could answer any of the points made, but you chose not to. because you are a piece of shit AMassiveGay (talk) 17:17, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
@AMassiveGay You have to learn the difference between "defending Nazism" and "saying that not all extreme racist authoritarian views are Nazism". Then maybe we can have a serious conversation on the topic. Thinker(unlicensed) 18:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
maybe learn to respond to actual points made. maybe learn that by any metric this guy is a nazi. maybe learn that denying that a nazi is a nazi gives them a free pass. maybe learn to stop beind such a disingenuous prick and then maybe we can have a serious discussion. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:59, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Since "fascism" and "nazism" are often used as synonyms, calling the guy a Nazi seems accurate enough. Not sure why this is such a major point though. Is this an "ISIS doesn't like being called ISIS so let's call them that" sort of thing? 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:6C5D:2EE2:4AFB:6C04 (talk) 19:08, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Tudor England was "a bustling scene of ethnic diversity"

They analysed a tooth from the Mary Rose and found it was possibly from a North African. Bluebird (talk) 09:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

It's well known that there's long been a minority of black and other non-white ethnic groups in the UK, in the 16th century and even before.[1][2][3] One source estimates perhaps 1000 black people in England by the end of the 16th century.[4] While this discovery is interesting, it's not surprising - ships have long taken on crews from around the world in every port they visit (although ships' crews are likely to be more diverse than the population of England). --Annanoon (talk) 10:25, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
So race is a valid concept after all? Bluebird (talk) 10:41, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Ethnicity=/=race Hannasanarion (talk) 13:48, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

In 1792, a kilossal mistake was made

Am I the only one that gets very bothered by the fact that the base unit of mass in the metric system is the Kilogram? It is the only one of the 7 SI base units which includes a prefix in the name of the unit. They changed it from being the gramme in 1792 because it was too small for common use or something, but they should have just kept the base unit being the gram and used the kilo prefix in common use (I mean that is the whole point of having a convenient prefix system built into your units). Instead they had the worst idea ever and changed the base unit itself! As is, a thousandth of a kilogram should be a millikilogram and a thousand kilograms should be the kilokilogram. I was really hoping they would fix this last year when they did the overhaul of the SI base units, but the fact that they just left it is a travesty. Now every god-damned unit converter has to be programmed with a special case for unit conversions and naming schemes for that unit specifically! They had a perfectly consistent naming scheme, just to fuck it up. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 15:48, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Eh, I don't mind it. Mostly because the US still uses Imperial, and the only time I use SI is for science or some math classes. RoninMacbeth (talk) 15:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
What really needed to be done was to stop basing the system around powers of ten and redo it around powers of twelve. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 16:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I can't tell if you're joking or not. Are you? RoninMacbeth (talk) 16:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
@RoninMacbeth I don't know if @Smerdis of Tlön is joking, but I heard more than one time people arguing that 12 is a better base than 10, essentially because 12 has more small divisors than 10. The point is that one could object that 60 is a better base than 12 for the same reason, and so on... In truth, there's no better base, it depends on what kind of computations one wants to do. Thinker(unlicensed) 17:06, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Unlicensed Thinker has a point here. The Babylonian numbering system were based on the numbers 12 and 60. Have you ever wondered why there are 360 degrees in a full circle, or that there are 60 seconds in a minute? I'm talking about angular measures here. By the way, what's the SI unit of angles? How often do you use it? Temperature? One should be flexible. Dogmatically sticking to SI units is unwise. Scientists certainly do not do this, despite popular misconception. Nerd (talk) 00:20, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
@Nerd "what's the SI unit of angles? How often do you use it?" It's radiant, which is good for math and very bad for measurements. Thinker(unlicensed) 16:02, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
@UnlicensedThinker Very good, but there is no t at the end. It's just the radian, short for radial angle. Nerd (talk) 16:40, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
I believe @Smerdis of Tlön is referring to the fact that English numbers go up to twelve before switching to compound words (thir-teen, four-teen). Am I right, Smerdis?--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 13:07, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
There's plenty of applications where the second and meter are completely inappropriate. I've no idea why the gram is the problem; maybe someone didn't like giving their weight as 100000 g. --Annanoon (talk) 16:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I know I measure travel distances in meters. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
The kilo is the base in name only. One of the reasons why is because it is the weight of 10 cubic cm of water or 1 litre (more or less) and that's the original weight stored for calibrating scales. I'd rather an imperfect scale be in kilos than grams. Slight errors in the weight of grams become enormous if you multiply it by thousands. In any case...gram is the base in terms of the prefixes used. On a human scale we measure our height by the meter...our beer by litres and our weight by kilos. I don't think much calamity has arisen because the base is considered the kilo. ShabiDOO 21:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Not having a consistent naming scheme *is* the travesty. I also do work at a calibration lab so I can speak from experience when I say that many calibrations are done using esoteric units. When measuring pressure we use millimeters of mercury [mm-Hg], because we are literally measuring the height of an actual tube of mercury. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 00:14, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
At the time...calibration wasn't remotely as precise as it is now. I believe the meter is now expressed in terms of distance light travels in a vaccine? In 1800 for example if your gram weight was 1% too high it would add that much in kilos which would make almost everyone weight off by a kilo or so (and kilo weights were not cheap). If you are weighing something like gold you are talking a huge under or over cost. It was a lot easier to get a kilo close to the original than a gram. Both in fabrication and measurement. I never had a problem working out that gram is the base for the pre-fixes and kilogrammes was the base for our reference. A travesty? ShabiDOO 14:16, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
@Shabidoo I'm pretty sure we define the meter in terms of the speed of light in vacuum, not a vaccine. LOL! In case you missed it, we recently decided to redefine the entire metric system in terms of fundamental natural constants, taking advantage of modern high-precision measuring techniques. Nerd (talk) 15:00, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Oh the joys of autocorrect. ShabiDOO 16:29, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
I tried to measure the speed of light in a vacuum. But it was dark in there. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 04:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
I tried to measure the speed of light in a vaccine but I got diagnosed with severe autism. ShabiDOO 14:43, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

And what about the metrification ditty - 'Two and a quarter pounds of jam/Weigh about a kilogram'? (The other two being 'A litre of water/Is a pint and three quarter' and 'A yard metre is three foot three/It is longer than a yard you see.') Anna Livia (talk) 23:49, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

A Linguistic Problem with Nuclear Power

I've noticed people have started to complain that nuclear energy should have been green lighted a while ago, but it was the greenies who shut it down and now we always needed it. Green Peace is apparently kicking themselves over nuclear energy. The problem I have, is that the people talking about this call it "Nukular power" and say the people behind shutting it down should have learned the science. This is wholly frustrating to me. Now, I agree that the fear about Nuclear energy was overblown, as far as Nuclear power needs regulation, and a decent mitigation of waste plan. The problems are shown by countries that just kinda slap that tech together. {redacted for clarity, I'm drunk} Nuclear power plants have a whole list of requirements and problems that need regulating, but they kinda got a bad wrap, but to say "Nukular" power should have been implemented years ago, forgive me while my eyes roll back into my head so hard that my optic nerves snap. Don't want that kinda support. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:35, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

What are you talking about? We have employed nuclear energy for over two generations now. A legitimate concern is the disposal of nuclear waste, though it must be pointed out that nuclear waste is currently collected for storage rather than pumped out into the natural environment. We might be able to (1) recycle wastes in the future, and (2) come up with new designs that are safer and more efficient. Nerd (talk) 15:05, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Are you annoyed that people pronounce nuclear "nucular"? Because Jimmy Carter the only US President who was actually a nuclear reactor engineer pronounced it that way. I think nuclear power has bigger problems, like being way more expensive than other much easier methods of power generation (even if hydro-electric and arguably solar have killed more people). --Annanoon (talk) 23:21, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
When the oceans rise and the climate zones move people may reconsider the way that human and financial costs were previously calculated.Hubert (talk) 13:19, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
No. Onshore wind and hydro are much cheaper than nuclear. (Cost of electricity by sourceWikipedia's W.svg) --Annanoon (talk) 14:36, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Nuclear waste poses one of the most interesting problems in linguistics. That stuff will need to stay buried for more than ten thousand years. Assuming there are any, it's unlikely that people that far out in the future will easily understand contemporary languages or cultural symbols. How do you communicate that the waste is dangerous and ought to be left alone, without also making it spooky and interesting? Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 17:25, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
@Smerdis of Tlön I'd say make the sites as plain as possible. By that I mean not making them stand out. If some people happen to get inside, there should be plenty of warning. Should they choose to persist, it's their problem. Also, nuclear wastes can be recycle several times before having to be disposed of, at which point they are a lot less radioactive, enough to make your Geiger counter click, but not enough to be used as fuel. Nerd (talk) 17:39, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry, I was a little past drunk for this one, had a painful conversation and lashed out at the ever-forgiving-internet. Points taken, I do agree that nuclear waste is the biggest problem with nuclear, and again, frustratingly, the people who want to laugh off the traditional greenie opposition to plants are the same that want to deregulate everything from schools to hospitals to prisons. "Let's just launch it into space!" Screw that up once, and see how it works out. So instead we bury it in a mountain. I'm pro nuclear, but the pro-nuclear shift in America is bubbling up from the scariest people to hand any energy-extraction rights over to. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 01:41, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Gender bias in hiring

One study. And another. I'm away from my laptop on my phone so it's the best I can do. There are better ones if anyone feels like looking them up. One was a larger study. ShabiDOO 19:49, 16 March 2019 (UTC).

You linked the same study two times. Thinker(unlicensed) 22:08, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes indeed. Corrected-diddly. ShabiDOO 22:53, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Amazon scraps secret AI recruiting tool that showed bias against women It was because its training data was based on previous hiring decisions which were obviously quite biased against women (computers only do what they're told, and AI only replicate what they are shown). An interesting yet morbid phenomenon, technology replicating human biases. Féinléiriú (talk) 00:08, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Stupid Username Spamming

Can something be done about the latest outbreak of disruptive-username-itis (or a more general process)?

Why cant the generators be more amusing? Anna Livia (talk) 10:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

It's a troll trying to rile everyone up/gain attention, ignore them. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Depending on if there's a recurring theme, it might be possible to use the edit filter. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Why can't the trolls be more creative (if that statement is not an oxymoron)? Anna Livia (talk) 10:15, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

According to 8 values I'm a fascist

Equality/Markets is 69 for markets Nation/Globe is 98.9 for nation Liberty/Totalitarian is 90.3 for totalitarian Tradition/Progress is 73.2 for traditions

Well boys I guess I'm a fascist — Unsigned, by: Baldr The Brave / talk / contribs

Congrats, you're a moron. Why should we give a shit? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:31, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Have you ever tried not being a fascist? DuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 23:56, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@DuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator I don't know man it's pretty hard. Baldr The Brave (talk) 00:12, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Well 8values says I am a Marxist. Don't sweat it. NekoDysk 01:11, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Apparently I'm closest matched to Libertarian Socialism. Never heard of that before. Those were extremely loaded questions, but in its defense, every question was so. extremely. loaded. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 01:58, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Economic Axis: Centrist
  • Diplomatic Axis: Balanced
  • Civil Axis: Moderate
  • Societal Axis: Neutral
  • Closest Match: Centrist

Well, that was fun. :) 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:6C5D:2EE2:4AFB:6C04 (talk) 02:12, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

You know, after taking the test and re-reading, I would reposit the question... "Have you ever tried not being a fascist?" @DuceMoosolini has the point. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:30, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
The questions were certainly designed to obtain responses. Seems I'm a social Democrat. Well over on the Social, Peaceful, Liberal, Progressive side. It really describes the person I'd like to be. (The odd thing is that my star sign is Leo - so the test is probably wrong.)Hubert (talk) 08:52, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Decided to try it out. Got Social Libertarian. Huh. DuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 13:17, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
I got “Moderate Conservatism”.
Economic axis: Market
Diplomatic axis: Patriotic
Civil axis: Moderate
Societal axis: Neutral —RWRW (talk) 22:49, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Libertarian socialist here. --MtDBogan 01:21, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I took a similar test called "Political Compass" and it said I was Libertarian Left. This is an Emergency Action Notification --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
I am apparently a 'Revolutionary Socialist.' Economic: social. Diplomatic: patriotic. Civil: moderate. Societal: neutral. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 03:01, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
I am apparently a 'Libertarian Socialist.' Was not expecting that. RoninMacbeth (talk) 03:58, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
So according to it I'm a libertarian socialist: Economic Axis: Socialist with 88.4%, Diplomatic Axis: Internationalist with 81.4%, Civil Axis: Libertarian with 85.4%, Societal Axis: Very Progressive with 86.2% Diacelium (talk) 08:33, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Similar to what I got. 'Libertarian Socialist' is apparently close to anarchism, which I am not a fan of. The only reason I see myself getting that is because I'm pro government transparency (to a degree) and pro legalization of drugs. An ordinary human man (talk) 13:41, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
I think part of the problem is that the statements are relatively simple, but can act as a motte and bailey in serious political discourse. RoninMacbeth (talk) 14:21, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
i think the bigger problem is why we should even care. except for the most broadest terms, it all becomes rather meaningless. what great difference does it make to 'know' exactly what manner of libertarian or socialist or facist one is beyond the massaging of egos? the differences are trivial if the core beliefs are intact, even less meaningful when expression of this amounts to little more than arguing the toss about what kind of ism your chosen badge is. look for common cause not accentuate the differences. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
These questionnaires are ridiculous at judging political tendencies. Everybody claims to be in favor of freedom, human rights, self-expression, autonomy, decentralisation if you ask them "do you think nice things are nice?", but when politicians tell them illegal immigrants are going to rape their children suddenly they become law-and-order freaks. --Annanoon (talk) 14:40, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
I took political compass and I got left leaning authoritarian centrist. Not sure what that means but I might be a fascist. 16 values said something similar. — Unsigned, by: 2601:CA:8200:34A:35F1:A7E:6656:7EBD / talk
Interjection I worked with a hardcore Christian that used to say "property is theft." An approximation of the full case here http://www.demos.org/blog/10/8/14/why-property-theft-and-why-it-matters. Basically, the earth is for everyone, even the things you find dear are part of an existence that is either only validated by your sharing it or believing it was made for you to take. And I agreed with him, the hardcore Christian. He and I both have an anarchistic bone somewhere in our bodies, and we both believe sharing our time, energy, wisdom, and property without hesitation is the ideal. He shares Proudhon's religious thinking, I unfortunately do not, but I'm not in the Sumner school of explanation. But I am willing to admit I share their reasoning. Take a penny leave a penny has more than one justification. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:04, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Names of Nationalist Texts

RZ94's guide to reaching Alex Jones level insanity

Step 1- directly eat cannabis plants, don't make into a joint.

Step 2- drink a bottle of Kentucky Bourbon.

Step 3- snort some cocaine.

Step 4 (final step) Watch low budget religious movies.

If you have properly did these steps, you have reach Alex Jones level insanity. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

you should read jon ronson's 'them: adventures with extremists'. its most enlightening. it has alex jones before he was famous. i was watching a interview with ronson the other day. he thinks his lunacy is more about his fame. AMassiveGay (talk) 01:28, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
there was a tv series of it that book too. that was jolly AMassiveGay (talk) 01:30, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
actually, the tv show was called 'the secret rulers of world' AMassiveGay (talk) 02:00, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
and its on youtube AMassiveGay (talk) 02:02, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Step 3.5, drink your own Kool-Aid nightly. Don't forget that your fame comes from you being a fake truth-teller, but people believe it, which means you're actually a real truth-teller. Your entire world, economy, and simple interactions with other humans now depend solely on believing that your fake truth telling is real truth telling. Shout it to yourself in the mirror before you go to bed. Then hit step 4, because you've earned a little time to treat yourself. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:06, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
To me, this quote from Kurt Vonnegut applies to so much of today's shout-happy pundits: “We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be.” (Alex Jones might have been legitimately insane from the beginning, though.) Soundwave106 (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, this won't make you insane. It's far more likely to kill you.

Then again, an argument can be made for Jones being technically brain-dead-- or at least spiritually dead-- so... Kencolt (talk) 13:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

if you remove step 4 it sounds like a half decent weekend AMassiveGay (talk)

Discord sysops

@Dysklyver, @Oxyaena, There seems to be a trend here of people starting on Discord, creating an account here and then almost immediately getting Sysop (e.g., @KGlife, @EK). I do not want to join Discord, so I don't know what's going on there. I don't think that it's unreasonable that these people make the same minimal effort as everyone else: make some decent contributions for Autopatrolled rights, and spend a few days here making contributions for Sysop rights. Also, please use the "{{subst:rights}}~~~~" for Autopatrolled on the new user's talk page (and "{{subst:rights|1}}~~~~" for new Sysop). Bongolian (talk) 01:22, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

My philosophy to sysop tools is very simple. If they won't vandalize with it, they should have it. If I know someone already then I don't need to wait to see if they are a vandal. NekoDysk 01:52, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
The RW Discord server is a funny one, it has over 700 members but I would say less than 30 are actually users here. But yeah, I don't think its unreasonable to want a few edits before demotion. --RWRW (talk) 02:03, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Agree with RWRW and Bongolian. Though once they prove themselves, demote ASAP. RoninMacbeth (talk) 02:57, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Ditto w/RW, Bongo, and RM. (even though I'm not a mod). ℕoir LeSable (talk) 15:17, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
@Bongolian i wrote an article already, what is ur problem? EK (talk) 21:33, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
And specifically, dysk, I'd say that approach has absolutely led you to sysop vandals on at least one occasion. And that choice, in turn, is one willy-on-wheelsesque script-user away from catastrophe that takes ages to clean up, not to pull a BEANS, but think about how long it would take the mods to fix a script that just promoted every sysop in order of most recent edit then banned them. It wouldn't take very long, even if it's throttled, to get the whole damn active userbase. We treat sysop tools a bit like a joke, but don't go too far. Actual anti-shithead evaluation is crucial. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 04:33, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
This is exactly why it's a good idea to sysop trusted people I know well rather than randoms who have made a few good edits. NekoDysk 10:45, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
If we have a reason to trust them, what's the point? Oxyaena Poke me 07:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
do you though? ive seen some of the invites AMassiveGay (talk) 12:07, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Concur. I don't think anyone would enjoy the rigmarole of it, but I think if it happens more we should seriously consider making unwarranted mopping an abuse of sysop powers. If it happens out of sight of the active editor community, it's not good process. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:03, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
I guess it depends whether we want a process for sysoping, since there has never been one and there really shouldn't be. Nobody has ever been required to give a rationale for sysoping before and I consider that an important part of how mobocracy here works. NekoDysk 16:23, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────While it's true that there are no formal rules for demotion, there have been informal rules, to wit: Don't put the "welcome" sign up on someone's talk page unless they're obviously not a spammer (meaning at least one edit that's not obviously bad) 2) Don't Autopatrol someone who hasn't at least made a few non-stupid/non-spam edits 3) Demotion generally shouldn't happen until at least a couple of days worth of quality edits (i.e., not just fixing spelling/grammar/formatting). If people disagree with this and/or think that rules should be codified, I'd be all for codifying some rules. It's been a point of dispute at least once before (e.g., when @RWRW was demoted). Bongolian (talk) 22:50, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Well... it seems I'm becoming one of those Old People

Soon to be 30 years of age? Check.

Looks at 90s stuff on YouTube and wishes he could go back? Check.

Thinks some music was better back then (drum and bass/jungle specifically)? Check.

Wants things to slow down a little? Check.

Sick and tired of all the tish going on in the world? Big effing check.

Well that's that then. get off my lawn... I guess. Towards-the Unknown (talk) 05:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

only someone who doesnt remember the 90s would be nostalgic for it (the pop culture at least). it was wank. AMassiveGay (talk) 09:59, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
I'll take wank over whatever fresh hell this century is any time. D: Towards-the Unknown (talk) 05:48, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
The 1990s (more like the later half into the early 2000s) actually are IMHO a good candidate for a "golden age of electronic dance" category. Especially given the DnB note, I'll allow it. The more universally agreed upon "golden age of hiphop" was within the earlier part of this decade, and in the middle of the decade, the corporate pop end for some reason decided to throw a few of those artists who previously languished on college radio into mainstream pop, making things there more interesting. I wouldn't rank the 1990s above the late 1960s-mid 1970s pop music wise, but I think it averaged better than say the late 1980s (hair metal! Vanilla Ice! Milli Vanilli!) or most of the pop music scene since about 2005 or so. Soundwave106 (talk) 13:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Pffft. I'm 61. Contemporaneous with the Beatles, Zeppelin, and Yes. I know music was better then and so do most historians. Somethings need slowing, some need speeding, I've seen near-'bout all the speeds and can compare. Grew up when change started and so have the experience to know that it never happens instantly-- no matter what anyone says they're gonna do.
Kid, you ain't earned a lawn yet. Kencolt (talk) 11:45, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
i came of age in the 90s. i remember it well and it leaves me cold AMassiveGay (talk) 12:05, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Well, I was referring to Mr T-tU, actually, but... AMG, you might have half a lawn. Kencolt (talk) 12:16, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
What about the good part of the 90s, the internet wasn't expansive enough for us to see all the shitheads all the time. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:04, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
i refer mainly to the pop culture aspects of the 90s. though without the internet, i would most probably be dead. AMassiveGay (talk)
I... uh... sorry. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
thats not hyperbole, but best not dwell on it. my point being that for the reasons the internet has fucked things up ie. giving voice to the fucknuts of the world, and letting them find others and group up, it also does the same for more innocent pursuits or for marginalised and oppressed people. its a godsend for that. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia alone makes the internet worth it. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 15:39, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
There was 'an article somewhere a while back' which listed a number of activities that meant you had 'properly grown up.' One of the points was 'watching the news channel' - and someone said that one of the reasons people did so was because they had gone through all the other channels and found nothing worth watching - cookery programs, repeats of repeats, selling channels etc etc etc. Anna Livia (talk) 16:27, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Ah yes, the "news channel" a concept that didn't even fucking exist until 1980, a hallmark of healthy development. Farenheit 451 is the most prophetic book ever written, and it's so weird everyone focuses on the book burning. It's all but irrelevant to the actual themes. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:34, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Whatever the number of TV channels the total amount of material you actually wish to watch remains constant (and if you look at TV pages of the past quite often there is 'nothing one wishes to watch).
'The media'/moral panicers and suchlike are likely to focus on the 'material that indicates civilisation-as-we-know-it is coming to an end/being corrupted worse than (Nero and Caligula/Marquis de Sade/everything Mary Whitehouse complained about' etc) and (cute kittens and cute baby goats/politicians having pratfalls etc) than on the-useful-to-harmless stuff (how to knit a theremin-cum-flying bedstead).
And there is a greetings card - growing old happens, growing up is optional. Anna Livia (talk) 17:08, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
we've always liked trash. we always will like trash. it just doesnt last so we dont remember. for every rocket man theres a dozen sugar sugars. there have been bodice rippers, penny dreadfuls. we remember mozarts and shakespeares but we forget anything hey nonny nonny. people work all day and struggle to pay the rent, feed the kids. what are you going to do when you get home? its not going to be a ken loach film. bradbury bitched about tv. it was professional jealously. AMassiveGay (talk) 01:31, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

@ikanreed News channels existed around the 60s(and maybe 50s ?). They just weren't biased garbage packaged as entertainment. People actually cared about the facts, not cheering whenever your guy scored a hit like it was a fucking no-holds barred cage match. — Unsigned, by: Satan is Cool / talk / contribs

I would like to seek clarity about that. What news channels existed? I honestly don't know of any devoted-to-news television channels before CNN. Even relatively information focused things like public television only had a couple hours a day of news. Maybe I'm being amerocentric? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:25, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
no dedicated news channel in the uk till digital. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:25, 20 March 2019 (UTC)


Does anyone here speak fluent Japanese, because a Japanese Discord user brought to my attention recently that we, the wiki, should have an article on this one Japanese Nanking and Holocaust denier, his name being Katsuya TakasuWikipedia's W.svg. In the user's own words, "He's vile." Thanks in advance. Oxyaena Poke me 15:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Is the Japanese discord user unwilling to do it? DuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 15:57, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
@DuceMoosolini He only speaks semi-fluent English, so no, he's not willing to. He himself admitted he wouldn't be the best choice, and so he's decided to just stick to alerting us to rJapanese right-wing fucks. On second thought, though, there is one I could contact.... Oxyaena Poke me 15:59, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
I know some Japanese, I don't mind doing something on it. NekoDysk 19:06, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

The rambling nature of manifestos

recent events have got me thinking about things, namely the rambling nature of the manifestos produced by people who commit atrocities. as odd as it may seem i think we have dodged a bullet with the recent one and indeed, all the previous ones - the far right ones at least. because these manifestos are rambling and inconsistent at best, the work of 'lone wolves' with dubious sanity, they can be easily dismissed. they inspire only the most fanatical, the most hate filled, and only those of questionable sanity.

What happens when the next one, sadly inevitable, what happens when the next one is carried out but by someone not so obviously touched, someone who can appeal to more than the internet basement dwellers and the fringes of 8chan or the more extreme manosphere types and produces a manifesto that is, while still likely hate filled trash, at least looks reasoned, looks like a valid grievance, something that inspires atrocities that could be more far reaching or at least more numerous than the still awful 'one shot' deals we currently have with these cunts?

I again stress this is more about far right terrorism than the obvious mirror of home grown radical islamic terrorism - i dont see any wars or drones strikes or government duplicity in foreign policy as an obvious radicalising agent - though there must commonalities.

is this a valid worry or is it, for want of a better word, paranoia? what could be mitigating societal factors that are preventing this outcome or speeding us headlong into it? ruby ridge and then waco seemed to set off or galvanised a whole bunch of conspiracy theories and the militia movement in the us, and that was pre internet. Now? with the internet, local events are global, all news is fake and the craziest theories are all true, fuelling a wave of right wing populism that seems to gain strength daily.

where do we go from here? AMassiveGay (talk) 00:43, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

They've definitely gone downhill since the days of the Unabomber. His screed was at least readable, and in parts cogent. Breivik's manifesto was tiresome by comparison, entirely free from flashes of insight, and this most recent bozo's is just an embarrassment. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 01:25, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
we can be thankful that the unabomber's ideas lacked any kind of mass appeal. i am slightly buoyed by the failings of the idea of 'lone wolves' - they inevitable going to be loners or obvious loons. easy to radicalise, easy to spur on to some hideous deeds, but far from inspiring. the smart people, the charismatic people, are going to do the radicalising. they going to do the organising, if there is any where of this kind thing, sending out these dupes to kill. dupes who dont inspire, never gain any traction, become just dreadful footnotes. hopefully they remain a aberration and never anything more. AMassiveGay (talk) 01:49, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
i think as one offs, as aberrations, they can never succeed in whatever their claimed goals maybe. laws might come in, ultimately minor inconveniences that we quickly adapt to, but ultimately failing. they are one offs. a couple of weeks of media saturation. recriminations and hand wringing. then we get on with things. unless you are directly affected, or loved one is, its an abstract fear and they are few enough that disruption to our lives is short lived. despite the reach of the internet, the polarisation of society, the people who can do these things, physically and mentally capable to do these things is minute, in the scale of things. you would need an atrocity a week, amasacare a day, for any fears to become a real and tangible. for all the fears stoked in the press about far right extremists or radical islamists or anyone - there is just not enough of those willing to do these things to actually do these things. in places like iraq, even before isis, bombings and massacres were almost daily, but its not aggrieved citizens that produced that, it was war and the destruction of the government. i'm not in baghdad. i am in london. in the past couple years there have been 3 terrorist attacks within 5 minutes walking distance of my home, in places i regularly stroll through, where i have worked. i am not a hero. i am not brave. the only difference to my routine in any of theses things was i briefly checked the front door was locked. if we must remember these individuals who do these things in any way, it should be as abject failures. AMassiveGay (talk) 02:31, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure that literary merit or intellectual coherence has much to do with success. Getting killed or arrested immediately isn't the way to build a following: you need to be able to do speaking tours, spread your message incrementally, build a following. Hitler's Mein Kampf is generally pretty awful (notwithstanding some entertaining bits), but he got a following in other ways after his release from prison. The prophet Muhammad is another example of someone who wrote a rambling, incoherent manifesto but started a highly successful armed revolt. On the other hand, Valerie Solanas's SCUM Manifesto is better-written and had some impact as a feminist text but didn't inspire a wave of cutting up men. Osama bin Laden was a talented speaker and propagandist (this is maybe forgotten today), and ISIS also ran a skillful media operation, but they found fertile ground only in nearly-destroyed nations. Ultimately, influence wasn't determined by the quality of their writing or of their ideas, but other societal factors. --Annanoon (talk) 12:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
The Quran is a pretty high effort and coherent work in comparison to Mien Kampf, and of course those are both full length books and not really on the same level as a 80 page 8chan copypasta. I think the quality of the ideological work does matter when it comes to sustaining a movement. NekoDysk 13:15, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
That's not true. ISIS attracted quite a large number of foreign recruits from non-Muslim countries and the West. Lord Aeonian (talk) 00:38, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
How large was that following in comparison to their recruits in the Levant, Iraq, and the rest of the Middle East? Like, of the estimated number of total IS IS fighters and collaborators, what proportion came from the West? RoninMacbeth (talk) 00:53, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
A reading of wikipedia and its cited sources on ISIS and foreign fighters says that, out of about ~50,000 foreign fighters, about 10,000 came from Europe and North Africa, with numbers also coming from non-Western but non-Islamic countries like China and Russia. There is a page on foreign fighters in ISIS which breaks down numbers for each Western country, I achieved the 10,000 figure but quickly adding the numbers up (for example, 1500 British citizens joined, 500 french citizens joined, etc). Many of them were converts to Islam and the main ISIS page notes that many were well educated and financially secure. Almost all seemed to have been motivated mostly by religion. Lord Aeonian (talk) 03:27, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Christchurch terrorist attacks page

Did skepticism "lose"?

It seems like half the people who notably took up the label of "skeptic" on the internet are now some flavor of conspiracy theorists, we went from creationism being the bottom of the barrel religious fundie pseudoscience to flat fucking earth, homeopathy and supplements are a bigger industry than ever, vaccine denial went from potential danger to multiple directly attributable outbreaks of preventable deadly diseases every year. Have we had any victories? It just seems like loss after loss after loss. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:52, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, having successfully eradicated smallpox, we are just this close to eradicating polio, right? Three cheers for science and vaccines in particular, let me know when Jenny McCarthy accomplish anything of even 1/1000000th of its importance. Keep in mind that really whack-a-doodle types are "entertaining" to report on, and in this clickbait age their impact can be over-exaggerated. In the US, the number of un-vaccinated babies in 2015, estimated by the CDC, is only 1.3%. The number of kindergartners in 2017-2018 with exemptions, 2.2% Worrisome trendline, and the people that peddle bullshit need to be countered of course, but it's not hopeless. Flat earth and the anti-vax crowd are still fringe. Soundwave106 (talk) 18:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

its because 'skeptic' as word has a colloquial usage that is devoid of any formal meaning or usage. it makes it easy to steal your clothes AMassiveGay (talk) 18:44, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
I tell myself that, but I don't know. TAA was a mover in skeptic circles for a while, e.g. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:59, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
The popular understanding of 'skeptic' is not 'scientific rationalist' but 'doubter'; thus you hear about 'climate change skeptics' and so forth. King Usage has spoken here, and attempting to reclaim the word probably is a losing battle over an empty symbol. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 20:10, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
No, I was excluding that kind of abuse. I'm referring people who called themselves "skeptics" in the broad sense of movement skeptics, then went on to spout pure nonsense. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:51, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
@Ikanreed Well, the answer to that question relies on answering another; against what did "skepticism" fight? As Soundwave points out, Flat Earth and ant-vaxxers are relatively fringe belief systems, and the edifice of traditional religious institutions are collapsing. While the skeptic movement is not as prominent as it once was, in the earliest days of the wiki, that's because other movements have risen. So, if the traditional foes of the skeptic movement are gone or are losing, then to whom did it lose? RoninMacbeth (talk) 20:16, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
I dunno, my perception of its enemies was misinformation that hurts people. And I feel like there's more of that than ever before. Sometimes overwhelmingly much to even consider, much less actively fight. And while I do acknowledge the crumbling edifices of religion, I think they have yielded "not religious but spiritual" new-agism not genuinely enlightened search for truth. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:34, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

the 'skeptic movement' has always been filled with egregious arsholes - TAA is a case in point. its a very a broad church. people can be skeptical, in the formal, scientific sense, about one thing in particular and even gain recognition as a skeptic of that thing, but are markedly less skeptical about other topics while maintaining they absolutely are in all things and it is you who are irrational for even questioning them. after all they have a degree in engineering - they 'know' about vaccines. its such a broad church i see little in attaching yourself to such movements. but im suspicious of all such movements and labels. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:42, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Stop demonizing people

I ask this sincerely, but is anything shared on right-leaning media a "white nationalist talking point" these days? Because I see a lot of softball right-leaning opinions labeled like this. Just trying to pin down what's meant here. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:2876:3C83:70A9:92EA (talk) 20:13, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Aside the points from the above discussion, can you provide any examples? And from what specific channel? I need those answers so you can get a good answer rather than "it depends". --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 20:16, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Well, let's take a look at Fox News: "There aren’t enough billionaires in the world to pay for AOC, Beto, and Bernie’s socialist proposals", "Tucker: Left, liberal media want Fox News gone", or Gutfeld making fun of millennials for feeling stressful. Plenty of right-wing talking points here, obviously. But should they be considered white nationalist talking points as well?
Or let's say when Trump cites crime statistics about the border, or when he says women migrants are raped along the journey 1 in 3 times. Is bringing up those statistics a white nationalist talking point?
Or take the Daily Stormer (which is apparently just a meme-y alt-right news blog) mocking JK Rowling for retroactively announcing Dumbledore and Grindelwald had an "intense, passionate relationship". Does this mean it's then correct to call out right-wingers mocking JK (on Twitter, for example) for "spreading white nationalist talking points"? 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:2876:3C83:70A9:92EA (talk) 21:51, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Basically: Am I a monster for following TwitchyTeam on Twitter? :( 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:2876:3C83:70A9:92EA (talk) 21:58, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
No because trump makes most of it up and he does so to demonize a people and blanket insult an entire race despite evidence to the contrary. We don't consider fabricated charges as "statistics". ShabiDOO 22:41, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
I've seen many articles labeling Trump's use of crime statistics "misleading" and "fearmongering", but to call most of them "fabricated" is a charge I haven't seen supported. What happened to "It isn't racism to point out statistics."? (And here's a Snopes fact check on 'blanket insulting an entire race'.) 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:2876:3C83:70A9:92EA (talk) 23:12, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
A sample of Trumps most digusting racist comments that blanket insult an entire race:
  • “That’s because black people are too stupid to vote for me.”
  • “Name one country run by a black person that’s not a shithole,” adding, “Name one city.”
  • “Only the blacks could live like this.”
  • “Islam hates us,”
  • [Mexican immigrants] "are bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists." Despite no facts backing this up.
Blanket comments of prejudice that pointlessly offend:
  • "Why are we having all these people from shithole countries come here?"
  • “You [Jews] are not going to support me because I don’t want your money. You want to control your politicians, that’s fine.”
  • “You live in your poverty, your schools are no good, you have no jobs, 58 percent of your youth is unemployed,”
Trumps Fabricated lie:
  • “One in 3 women is sexually assaulted on the dangerous journey north.” Actually base on a very small sample of women (only 50 of which all of them were currently undergoing medical treatment for various reasons likely including STD tests and sexual related injuries) 1 in 10 said they had been raped. Not only is it a lie on the statistics (10% is very different to 33%) it is also not even a statistic, it is a terribly biased sample not remotely adequate enough to represent women traveling to the US. There is also absolutely no information about who perpetrated the rape, was it local people staying in Mexico or was it other migrants. Is this limited just to migrants or is sexual abuse at a higher rate in Mexico/Central-America than in the US? Then there is the motivation for saying it, is he trying to do it out of concern for these women (I highly doubt it) or to demonise all the people trying to go to the US. Of course, 10% is a sickeningly high rate, it's horrific, and pointing it out as an alarming statistic with some concern is one thing, grossly exaggerating some facts into a fabricated statistic and using it as a rhetorical weapon is not quoting a statistic, it's racist pointless smut.
If Trump uses a reliable statistic and/or he doesn't use it to offend or use it as a weapon, then yes, however uncomfortable that statistic might be, it isn't racist or prejudice to quote it. FGM happens mostly in Muslim countries. The overwealming number of child soldiers are in Africa. Latin America has a higher rate of domestic abuse than North America and amongst radicals and terrorists in the US you should fear white men. Uncomfortable but fact based and not used to offend/weaponise. ShabiDOO 22:54, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
The term "fabricated" is absolutely accurate in some cases. At any rate, white nationalism generally contains little of traditional "right-leaning" economic theory (in fact, the opposite: traditional economic theory thought of as "right leaning" tends to favor globalist, free-trade type economic positions, a big no-no among the white nationalist crowd). And libertarian oriented policy thought is not really related to white nationalism. There is some overlap, but it is not significant enough to completely conflate the two. So unless your personal definition of "right-leaning media" differs from traditional categorization, the answer is no. Soundwave106 (talk) 14:32, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
White supremacists who complain about being "replaced" aren't allowed to have any talking points or to say anything. We should consider CNN a gold standard of rationality. Racist Nazis off our streets. Why isn't the fucking racist fuck "Thinker" fucking banned already, the fucking Nazi. (talk) 15:09, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Do you think we're stupid? Scratch that, you do, but come the fuck on. Sentences 1 and 3 are 100% correct, and whatever imagined satire you placed in sentence 2 just reflects how poorly you understand your opponents' position. (EC), you also suck at parodying me. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:13, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
You advocate genocide. Are you a moron or a non-white? (talk) 15:19, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── You know, you never play innocent when caught. You always just revert back to your normal canards. Call me a jewish person next, that's one of your favorites. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:20, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

The only canard is "white supremacist" you victim blaming anti-white piece of shit. Now my only question is are you consciously doing this, do you advocate white genocide, or are you just parroting fake labels like a moron? (talk) 15:23, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Anti-White.png DuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 15:26, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
(Low fertility rates are not a genocide.) 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:2876:3C83:70A9:92EA (talk) 15:27, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Mikey, when are you coming over to my house? I made my special cookies and I want to share them with you. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:30, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
That sounds great, but again, who's Mikey? 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:2876:3C83:70A9:92EA (talk) 15:32, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Michael Coombs. He drops in every now and then to make an ass of himself. DuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 15:36, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
But can we get back to the question of what is and isn't a white nationalist talking point? I was hoping ikanreed in particular could lay out what criteria they use. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:2876:3C83:70A9:92EA (talk) 15:32, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
It's supremacist. Objecting to your people being wiped out makes you a "supremacist". (talk) 15:36, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Nah. It's the supremacist part that makes you a white supremacist. DuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 15:39, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Lying anti-white filth. (talk) 15:41, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes! Dance for me more, little boy! DuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 15:45, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Mr. 82, you're aware trolling on the internet isn't an effective way of raising the white fertility rate, right? 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:2876:3C83:70A9:92EA (talk) 15:47, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Oh I'm not trolling. (talk) 15:49, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, Mikey doesn't think he's trolling. He genuinely thinks he's fighting against the Judeo-Bolshevik anti-white hordes by doing this. It's sad yet kinda funny. DuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 15:52, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
(EC) Or screaming labels at people, then. It doesn't help your case or your cause. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:2876:3C83:70A9:92EA (talk) 15:56, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
(EC x a billion)Broadly "white nationalist talking points" are disconnected assertions about white people being oppressed or threatened, particularly by innocuous statements or the existence of minorities(not just ethnic minorities) having opinions about cultures of oppresion. Such "talking points" are strongly characterized by their disconnect from context, their tendency to make equivalency to broader regimes of oppression without doing the leg work to indicate how exactly that happens, a recurrent trend of being extremely rapidly disseminated exclusively through right wing media organizations. Now, there are both extreme, explicit versions of this for the already indoctrinated, these focus on more aggressive attacks, and falsely offended versions of it to promote a narrative of oppression that doesn't exist. The latter model was invented to appeal to liberals. UT explicitly posts a lot of shit that fall in the latter category. If it's what you want, it's unfair to expect me to demonstrate the former, since everywhere white nationalists organize they conspire to create propoganda campaigns that look exactly like what UT posts. Whether he's a member of those groups or a dupe who falls for their shit is immaterial to whether the nature of what he posts is "white nationalist talking points". That's a case I can't demonstrate, but your incredulity about this shit being not, as I said "white nationalist talking points" is totally unwarranted.
Now, I think I've done a fair job explaining why I think it meets that criteria. It's an opinion I'd be willing to reconsider, but also it's not one I got to without a fair amount of consideration in the first place. — Unsigned, by: Ikanreed / talk / contribs
"a recurrent trend of being extremely rapidly disseminated exclusively through right wing media organizations" So you admit then that UT's sin is simply following regular right-leaning media. Even if you're right that some talking points dreamed up and/or disseminated by white nationalists are shared on such media, it's generally not helpful to smear random people following such media as "spreading white nationalist talking points" or to accuse them of trolling merely because they want to engage in discussion about something they saw on a right-leaning site/broadcast. Aside from being detrimental for discussion, overreacting to fairly innocuous "it's okay to be white"-style content can also work to the advantage of the real trolls that consciously disseminate such content to 'trigger' and trick you into affirming their "anti-white Zeitgeist" narrative. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:2876:3C83:70A9:92EA (talk) 16:19, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
I try to take these spurious arguments at face value. Right and left are conventions, so called right wing positions on economy in favor of full neoliberalism, on traditional gender roles, but with no hint of hate toward strangers or panic about ethnic replacement, are example of non white supremacist or nativist "right wing" points. About the white fertility, at this point, it's mainly due to economic uncertainty, not a conspiracy. I think it's a consequence of recession and of governments either defending the "1%ers" economic power or being clueless on how to dismantle this economic dynamic and wealth concentration. I call it the congestion, the share of wealth circulating among average people or "99%" is not representative of the produced wealth and insufficient to exchange it, unless we rescale by ourselves. This is also combined with credit crunch and, in some countries with curbed government spending due to public debt which is being reclaimed, interest rates raising, just a few among many other factor. This combined with the fact that refugees program haven't been dismantled, helped the yielding of suprematist conspiracy theories like Kalergi plan, making people think there was an active program to make western population dwindle. The focus has been too bad successfully in part, shifted from the concrete economic and material aspect, to ethnic lines, to the point of accepting the infamous trickle down economy. This is how we got to challenge this narrative. (talk) 16:44, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
LOL @ He described himself as a white supremacist on Stormfront as recent as December 2016. Since 2018 he's tried to reinvent himself as a white nationalist who isn't a white supremacist. And out of shame or embarrassment he now denies or distances himself from his more extreme 2 year ago Nazi/white supremacist internet past. "I'm a white nationalist,* not a white supremacist! (*despite being a white supremacist two years ago)". What a lolcow and moron.Concerned (talk) 17:42, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Homeopathy in the WHO?

I had never seen this before, but apparently the World Health Organization has an entire branch devoted to "...implementing action plans that will strengthen the role of traditional medicine..." http://www.who.int/traditional-complementary-integrative-medicine/en/ I find the prospect of pseudo-medicine infecting the WHO extremely worrying. Does anybody know the severity of this? MirrorIrorriM (talk) 20:04, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

The WHO operates at the whim of its member states. China has been particularly responsible for backing the role of traditional medicine in international medical guidelines, partially because of the vested interests in selling traditional Chinese medicine both domestically and internationally. I can't find any sources that will tell me which other members voted for the so-called "Beijing Declaration" that empowered the WHO to support traditional medicine. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:46, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
The left hand also operates independently from the right hand. The International Agency for Research on Cancer, a branch of the WHO, declared Aristolochia to be a human carcinogen in 2002,[6] but in 2010, WHO encouraged the use of Aristolochia by including it in a list of Ayurvedic medicines.[7] Bongolian (talk) 20:59, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
I think more likely the right hand is rolling its eyes at the left hand that is blithely ignoring everything around it as it always has. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:14, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Would it be accurate then to say that the WHO is more a politically minded organization than a scientifically minded organization? MirrorIrorriM (talk) 10:09, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

It probably has dedicated scientists that are pissed off at this shit, but yeah WHO is definitely political. 2601:CA:8200:34A:5C61:FDEF:BD49:C265 (talk) 12:42, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

The International Agency for Research on Cancer part of WHO is not political. They have a rotating staff of top-notch cancer scientists. Bongolian (talk) 17:52, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

In case anyone is interested

This NASA website gives instructions on how to spot the International Space Station each night. Just type in your city or scroll the map to see where and when it'll be visible for your area. I saw it once when I was a kid; it's pretty damn cool. DuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 14:14, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Step 1, burn down all the strip malls that leave all their ad lights on all night just in case it makes you want to shop the next day. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:05, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Trent Toulouse

He seems like a great guy. Do all of his colleagues know he owns this site? I'm sure they'd be delighted to hear about what goes on here. (talk) 15:17, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

This site is owned by the rationalwiki foundation. A non-profit dedicated to the mission of spreading rationalism and critical thinking. Also, yeah, most neuroscience faculty are cool with skepticism, though it's not good to overgeneralize. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:18, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
You can always tell the quality of a community by the enemies they make. For instance, we've pissed off this one idiot who keeps swinging by with IP socks and dummy accounts to scream about "Judeo-Bolshevik" and "anti-white" and shit like that. What a doofus. We like to poke him, to see him writhe and snarl. It's like having a wild animal in a cage. I'm sure you're not a laughable moron like him, though. DuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 15:31, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
You sound like you'd be at home torturing people to death for the NKVD. (talk) 15:47, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
My harsh insults and stinging witticisms break down even the strongest of wills. No capitalist can stand against me! DuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 15:50, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
The Bolsheviks were funded by capitalists moron. You think they gave a shit about economics? (talk) 15:52, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
I'd pay real money to see what your blood pressure readings look like. You might want to take a break and go for a nice walk outside. DuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 15:55, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I made a debate

go check it out It'll be fun I promise. And you fucking mods better not delete my fucking page for "trolling the talk pages" because I'm not a fucking troll. http://rationalwiki.nom.pw/wiki/Debate:%22We_can%27t_save_the_white_race%22 — Unsigned, by: 2601:ca:8200:34a:5c61:fdef:bd49:c265 / talk / contribs

Yeah, you kind of are. But what the hell, I'll keep you around, if for nothing else than to have another pet white nationalist. RoninMacbeth (talk) 17:06, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm fucking mixed-race.— Unsigned, by: 2601:ca:8200:34a:5c61:fdef:bd49:c265 / talk / contribs

Assuming you're not another sock of the IP, your argument is very easy to debunk; self-identified white people are still increasing in number despite lowish total fertility rates, for example if you take one country as an example, UK, with a TFR of 1.8: the 'White British' census category increased by 1.5 million people from 2001 to 2011 (2011 census data). Heck, even South Korea with a fertility rate of only 1.1 (lowest in world) still has population growth. How could this be? Quite simply because life expectancy in most countries is increasing; people are living longer and so there are less deaths than births each year. So even though European countries have lowish FTR and most Northeast Asian low FTR they're not shrinking in population but growing. This is why the white nationalism talking point about low fertility rates leading to "white genocide" is completely false and ridiculous- its also why white nationalists are part of the overpopulation problem since they're arguing to increase white fertility rates when there's unsustainable population growth even with low FTR's.Concerned (talk) 17:11, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
I can smell the bullshit from hundreds of miles away. More racist arguments to go around. To the OP- don't try to represent white people, seriously. You make things bad for all sides. I personally distance myself from racist trash. 😓😓😓😓 --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:37, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

People de facto assume I'm white. Because I've been surrounded by whites my entire life and been assumed white, I find it hard to actually claim myself as mixed race. (I have some very light skin and only my noise gives away my mixed race ancestry). 2601:CA:8200:34A:5C61:FDEF:BD49:C265 (talk) 17:42, 21 March 2019 (UTC) (I signed my post you happy duce ?) Which means I'm white but technically not. Also when I was a young lad with my mother in the hood(before my white dad got custody) I saw lots and lots of violence. It took years before I was ready to hold a knife without seeing some gangbanger threatening some dude with a knife. 2601:CA:8200:34A:5C61:FDEF:BD49:C265 (talk) 17:46, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

So, self hating/renegade mixed race? Kidding, because that of white guilt is a typical suprematist talking point ;). But you can see parallels, about various leitmotifs like "why can't one be proud of being white?" with another evident false equivalency like "why isn't there a straight pride" or "straight people don't exibit all time they're straight", which on top of it require a high dose of hypocrisy! And I've seen that argument all time. (talk) 22:08, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

My ideas for new Sesame Street episodes (Joking with a dark sense of humor)

  • Nuclear Attack on Sesame Street
  • Zombie Apocalypse on Sesame Street.

Do you think TV networks would go for it? For the zombie apocalypse one- Big Bird gets eaten by a zombie Elmo. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:33, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

i think nuclear attack is a little lack luster. Go with zombie apocalypse. 2601:CA:8200:34A:5C61:FDEF:BD49:C265 (talk) 17:58, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Just go back to early 2000s newgrounds and post a flash video. They were all basically like this. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:01, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Remember when people would upload videos of stick figures shooting guns at each other with drum and bass playing in the background instead of lets play videos? Good times. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 18:46, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
zombocom nostalgia. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:48, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Red Dawn on Sesame Street. DuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 18:52, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

What are some good (public-domain) works of literature?

Asking for a friend. Oxyaena Poke me 18:59, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Gonna go real 101-level here. You've heard of all of these. Nothing by mark twain is particularly bad. His wit holds up. Connecticut Yankee might be my favorite. Reading Shakespeare is usually more fun that watching Shakespeare to me. Melville and Dickens suck Because Way Too Many Damn Words To Say Too Little. Frankenstein is good early sci-fi (the name Frankenstein refers to the inhuman monster, not the thing he created). I don't personally care for Jane Austen, but don't hate her writing like I do dickens. Lighter fare: I'd say doyle, but I think 1 or 2 Holmes stories is enough to get the gist. Not literature per se, but I've always liked Ambrose Bierce's Devil's dictionary. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:12, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Seas is one of my favorites, and I'm pretty sure that's PD by now. DuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 19:17, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

If you want more, take a look at Project Gutenberg's catalogs for a shitload of free literature. Link here. DuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 19:18, 21 March 2019 (UTC) ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Many thanks. The reason I asked is because there's just so much to choose from, I thought some suggestions would be good. Oxyaena Poke me 19:59, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Dracula and Don Quixote are worth reading, and they're both on Gutenberg. Frederick Douglass' book is on there too, which I haven't read but probably should. The same applies to Ulysses Grant's memoirs, which I've read and heard good things about. DuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 20:55, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Bear in mind that 'those in the past' had to describe much more than we do now - people did not have access to 'visual images (which can be worth more than a thousand words) and sound recordings' - we know what the Pyramids look like, can here Gladstone speak etc Anna Livia (talk) 21:03, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Don Quixote is a rough read. It's got its moments, but, partially because of how it was published, it languishes in places. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:07, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
I remember liking it, at least the first half. DuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 21:09, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
the overly wordy nature of 'those in the past' was often often the result of how they were published - serialised in some magazine of some sort, and paid by the word. Dickens is an example of this. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:30, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: A Christmas Carol was not published this way, and remains one of the few Dickens stories that is what normal human beings would call readable. But Oliver Twist or A Tale of Two Cities? Yeck. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:39, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
You are not in bad company as Ralph Waldo Emerson also hated Dickens' prose. Writing serials for magazines, he was paid by the word so, he used a lot of extra words. On the other hand "...he believed novels had a moral purpose–to arouse innate moral sentiments and to encourage virtuous behavior in readers." The London Times called Dickens, in his obituary, "the greatest instructor of the Nineteenth Century".Ariel31459 (talk) 22:40, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Is Tupac a Democrat

I thought he was a Democrat is he? thanks Doubloon! (talk) 22:09, 21 March 2019 (UTC)