Information icon.svg The 2019 RMF board election has started!
We are electing 3 board members for the 2019-2021 term.
Vote here and read their campaign slogans here!

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.
Spit.gif For previous conversations see the automagic barchives. Winoes.gif

What is going on?

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

To do list


Jeffrey Epstein is dead[edit]

So, yeah, he's dead. My dad said that he thinks that someone was told to ensure that Epstein never sees court to reveal too much. It sounds like a conspiracy theory, but is it too implausible? RoninMacbeth (talk) 16:59, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

To clarify, he meant someone other than the Clintons. RoninMacbeth (talk) 16:59, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Will Ghislaine Maxwell meet the same fate or will the accusers be entitled to their day in court after the UK extradites Prince Andrew for trial? nobsDie fascists! Make America Great! 17:23, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
It’s impossible to kill yourself on suicide watch in prison, he was at the centre of a bipartisan pedophile ring implicating some of the most powerful people on the planet. Someone, probably a Clinton but it could be Trump or anyone else on the flight logs, definitely had him killed. Obsession with debunking flat earthers and other conspiracy theorists shouldn’t blind us to actual conspiracies. Also it’s been a long time, hi everyone. Christopher (talk) 17:46, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Hmm, you sound a lot like a certain former NYC mayor. ;) 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:408F:6637:4B09:1A2 (talk) 18:03, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Trump supporters bringing attention to Epstein stuff to shit on Hillary is almost as stupid as Clinton supporters using it as a cudgel against Trump. Christopher (talk) 18:09, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
surprised you don’t have an article on Epstein yet. Christopher (talk) 17:47, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Actually, it's just really hard. You can kill yourself, on suicide watch, if you time it right. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:57, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
He officially died of hanging, they take away your shoelaces in case you hang yourself with them, I’m not ruling out suicide but Occam’s razor suggests that he was killed. Christopher (talk) 18:01, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
The Russians killed Epstein. nobsDie fascists! Make America Great! 18:04, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Was he given sheets or some other fabric? Also, did the other inmates know he was a pedophile? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:10, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Alternate theory, Other inmates murdered him because they wanted someone to vent on and hurting pedos is almost guilt free. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:11, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
suicide risks tend to very motivated and very inventive. I remember reading a report when working at kch when someone had stripped the sealant from a window, almost successfully hanging himself with it before he was discovered by a nurse. all is required is a guard to take a catnap at a crucial moment. all that is certain is that if he had stubbed his toe, it was the Clintons. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:18, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
So reports at the moment state that he committed suicide. But that's so boring! There was a conspiracy! The Clintons! Trump! The Russians! The inmates! The British Royal family! (OK, I added that one.)
Maybe we should wait until there's more information before we start identifying murder suspects?Hubert (talk) 18:25, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
I doubt he was "killed". Thats messy, and leaves a trail. Someone likely told him he wasn't going to be protected, but if he could... become quiet, they'd make sure what wealth he has will be sent where he wants, rather then payed to his victims. Revolverman (talk) 19:50, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Normally I`m not one for conspiracy theories but the timing of this "suicide" is too much, even for me. Just a few days prior to the release of new documents.... Yikes. Oxyaena Harass 18:26, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

In the "no shit Sherlock" department, the FBI has opened an investigation. Whatever happened (and yes, the timing is suspicious), "the plot thickens", so to say. Soundwave106 (talk) 18:30, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
@Hubert Good point. @AMassiveGay Well said. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:31, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Apparently he wasn't under suicide watch at all. So he could feasibly commit suicide, but why wasn't he under watch? RoninMacbeth (talk) 18:35, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
If he wasn't on SW, he might have conned the prison shrink into letting him go. Given reports of his intelligence and charisma, I'd buy Epstein being able to pull off a grift like that. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:41, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Good riddance. Even if it's a "Conspiracy", should we care? One less child molester in the world. Thanks, Imaginatti! Tinribmancer (talk) 19:32, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
doesn't help his victims get any sort of justice or closure AMassiveGay (talk) 20:04, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Being that (a) initial reports were that he was held in solitary confinement, then (b) he was found unconscious by a cell mate, then (c) no reports ever clarified discrepancies after the first attempt, (d) we're unlikely to ever get an understanding what happened.
Never mind the fact he was held in a cell under video surveillance and 24/7 suicide watch. Unless a jailer is disciplined for negligence, we can only assume the most logical explanation. nobsDie fascists! Make America Great! 21:45, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Yeah. He conned the prison shrink into letting him leave suicide watch, then offed himself BECAUSE HE WAS 66 YEAR OLD NARCISSISTIC EGOMANIAC USED TO A HEDONISTIC LIFE OF PRIVILEGE AND POWER FACING UP TO 45 YEARS IN PRISON!!!! Dumbass. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:21, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, it makes perfect sense that Epstein was actually suicidal. The dude had everything right up until he lost it all and became one of the most hated people in the US. I bet the arrogant fuck never saw it coming. Of course the coward couldn't handle it. Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 22:53, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Welp, guess I gotta resign from RW, I believe in conspiracy theories now. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 23:24, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
The American penal system calls for the blood of criminals and jail conditions are deplorable in many states. Violence, rape and guard abuse is a chronic problem. The general populace shows indifference to this and during special ballot measures dealing with prisoners rights don't usually vote to protect them and politicians are hesitant to bother with prisoner rights and people generally support retirbutive punishments including cruel and unusual punishments including the right of the state to murder a citizen (also supported). All of this leads to a justice system that in many states/prisons is pretty indifferent to the care /treatment/well being of a prisoner and only do so to the point where they will get in trouble if something really bad happens or there is a successful law-suit. It seems there are many suicides that should never have happened and pretty suspicious deaths and rarely does it involve substantial changes to law, prisoner rights or even prison policy. This isn't a suprise in the slightest. And so while I wouldn't be shocked if something suspicious happened, I find it equally likely this boils down to terrible policy, indifference and incompetence. ShabiDOO 23:31, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Not totally on topic, although considering the renewed press interest in one of Epstein's "acquaintances" and I'm in a somewhat giddy mood.

"Oh, the grand 'ole Duke of York, He had ten thousand quid, He gave it to Jeffery Epstein, So he could f**k a kid." Cardinal Chang (talk) 08:44, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Really, how many chasers per pint do you need for that to be funny? @RoninMcB: I am not much moved by his death, but the fact that it happened while in Federal custody stinks.Ariel31459 (talk) 23:54, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

It's Clinton Tinfoil time!!![edit]

The amounts of likes disturb me. More than 100 thousand americans are loyal Infowarriors... Tinribmancer (talk) 09:48, 11 August 2019 (UTC)


It seems obvious that HRH Prince Andrew did it, since the British Royal family has a known history of assassinating embarrassing persons, like Diana. It logically follows that the Royal assassins worked with Mi6 to knock off Epstein and burn the evidence. /s NekoDysk 09:59, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

What about MI5? Tinribmancer (talk) 10:26, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
MI5 can't operate internationally. Only domestically. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 11:58, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
That's what they want you to believe! 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:408F:6637:4B09:1A2 (talk) 17:40, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
it was unnecessary to leave Britain for mi5 assassins to do their job. that's how efficient they are - they could just go to the pub while the mark takes care of all the arrangements themselves. if suicidal billionaire prisoners aren't safe from these villains who is? such evil. they probably had to pay the guard who Epstein probably paid to look the other way while he hung himself to not look the other way so he couldn't hang himself and they could hang him instead. the timing and the planning had to be so spot on so precise, because one tiny mistake would have meant instead of Epstein being found dead in his cell, Epstein would have been found dead in his cell. and Epstein was found dead in his cell. real professionals these fellas. don't piss of the windsors. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:32, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Dunno who did it, but "Epstein killed himself" is the unrealistic conspiracy theory to me now. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:57, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Occam's Razor[edit]

So I've been trying to decide what could have happened, more than what must have happened. I've come up with 3 and a half possible scenarios. They are exactly as woefully undetailed as the reports.

The first possible scenario, Jeffery Epstein was taken off of suicide watch, the guards assigned were cartoonishly overworked and both guards missed a 2 hour window of half hour checkups on the highest profile federal prisoner ever. Within that time, he would have had recognize the opportunity to commit suicide of his own volition to meet those parameters.

The second possible scenario is that Jeffery Epstein was expected to kill himself, and the conditions were created with the hope he would make another attempt. He would have had to recognize the opportunity to commit suicide of his own volition to meet those parameters instead.

The third possible scenario is that Jeffery Epstein was assassinated, or encouraged to self-assassinate, which could include the second possible scenario's parameters as a tacit means, or could simply be somebody going into his cell and killing him. He would have to have died under the condition of extreme coercion or direct murder within a pre-planned two hour time frame that nobody involved with this federal prison, top brass to personnel, had any notice of or reservations about in order to meet those parameters, and it would also have to be understood that it would go off without a hitch in order to fit the extreme parameters of assassination or coercive suicide.

The half is this thing I keep hearing that Jeffery Epstein is still alive somewhere, there was either a legit dead body double or he faked it and wore dead-face. What, where is he then, fucking hanging out with Tupac and Hitler on Juggalo Island?

The absolute problem is, I cannot actually figure out which of these, even the half, makes the least sense. The main reason I disagree with the half idea is that it puts pressure on the next people down the line in the Epstein case to defend their own names, give up other names. His death indicates but doesn't admit to his guilt, sure, but it adds all of that scrutiny to everyone remotely connected to the case. If this cabal that could sneak him out ran a tight knit pedo ring, the last thing they would want to do is sneak their loyal tight-lipped pedo-pimp organizer out of there and pretend he was dead. They would want him to take every fall. But I dunno, I've never been in a global child rape frat before, I don't know how they keep their shit off the books, and I concede that. But I still think it's more likely that he's dead.

The problem I have is all of these scenarios are... unlikely. None of them meet the simplest explanation metric. I would hope something revealing is made public, but I am not optimistic, which sucks, because not knowing the truth of this is further serving to rip this country into factions. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 01:45, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

With Occam's Razor in mind, I'd say your second scenario is the most likely. The MCC is a federal prison and falls under the DOJ's jurisdiction - they should have been pulling out every stop to ensure that Epstein stayed alive. William Barr was "appalled and angry" after learning of Epstein's death, but why wasn't he appalled and angry after the first attempt? What about when he was taken off suicide watch for seemingly no reason? Where was the outrage then?
Bottom line is, it should have been a no-brainer to keep him alive. The DOJ dropped the ball, in some form or another, and AG Barr needs to be held accountable. TheUnderOver (talk) 14:58, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
I am completely in line with that. I could go over everything again and again, but Barr must prove that he is facing some kind of accountability for his department's failure, be it preconceived or coincidental. To be unable to hold a high-risk prisoner safely is a failure of the Department of Justice, and if the guy in charge cannot answer for it and faces no consequences, said failure is on a level that undermines the entire executive branch. Not that that would be new. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:49, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
We've already calmed down about this case. He killed himself, and a ton of people are happy enough with that result. This is the exact reason I am against capital punishment, nobody should relax just because the criminal is dead. That's vindictive bullshit that does not help anyone. The crime does not end with a single person, how do we address the crime? Who was involved in this crime? Why is this the crime that makes me sound like a conspiracy theorist? Epstein is dead, and I shouldn't be less pissed off about his crimes than I was before he was dead. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 11:33, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Michigan is getting pretty damn close to allowing Naturopaths to practice medicine[edit]

The Michigan Association of Naturopathic Physicians has done some impressive lobbying for it and like I said, licensing for naturopaths is getting close. Does not help when the AMA dropped the ball with Chiropractors and Osteopathic doctors.

--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:26, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Can we just create a type of license where prospective naturopaths have to go to an accredited medical school, get a bachelor's degree recognized in the AVICENNA Directory for medicine/FAIMER International Medical Education Directory, achieve satisfactory MCAT scores, and pass a board certification exam? --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 02:34, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Oh man, the full text is more fucked up. They give them full prescription rights, allow them to use the term "doctor", allow them to perform any operation "consistent with their training". The suffering this will create. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:05, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Can we go the easier route, where they just get their bullshit license, but like nicotine or alcohol have to post all over their shit that the license is not accredited and there is serious risk involved in their use? I guess that's probably the harder route in Michigan, now...Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:06, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
As I said in the past, the AMA really needs rethink their strategy for handling alternative medicine. The previous strategies failed and ended up benefiting alt medicine. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:42, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Leaving toxic relationships[edit]

I mean I get trying to understand things from the other point of view, but I think sometimes it might just be better for you to leave.Machina (talk) 04:19, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

sometimes you are a battered wife. sometimes you are abandoning a friend in their hour of need because they are harshing your high. sometimes you are fleeing all commitment for the most trivial of things and doomed to die alone. sometimes it means too much to walk away. sometimes things can be salvaged. sometimes you just need a chat. sometimes you are a god awful prick.
these are not one size fits all situations. I have had some extremely toxic relationships, abusive even, where I was not the 'guilty' party. I have on other occasions been hard work to say the least. I come with baggage. so does everyone. you can watch a relationship whither and die without ever knowing why and other times you can see every problem while doing nothing to fix them.
its not you its me. its not me its definitely you. in truth we are both cunts. you'll never grow if you put it all on them, or take all the blame yourself. if honest conversation is possible, things can be fixed, or you can part as friends.
its never black and white. AMassiveGay (talk) 09:44, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
It's a skill millions of people need desparately. Ditching toxic people. It can be really really really hard to do. Reasons include: the feeling you won't find someone else (friend/partner), giving up on something you've invested in, just a little more time will bring change (or make the other person better), have invested most of your self-esteem in the other person's opinions and treatment of you, feeling sorry for the person you are leaving, willfull manipulation on the part of the toxic person, financial/economic dependence, social/familiar dependence, the judgement of others, fear of change (and so on). I'd say 99% of the time your best bet is to ditch the toxic fucker. However if it's a toxic relationship (not necesarily toxic people) there is the chance the relationship could be salvaged. ShabiDOO 15:54, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
the difficulty I have with this discussion is that it asks the wrong question. 'should you leave a toxic relationship?' has such a clear and obvious answer. you might as well ask if you are on fire should you put it out? a clear and easy answer. what is not so clear and easy is what makes a specific relationship toxic? asking should you leave presupposes it is toxic, and If you are viewing it as toxic, it might already be beyond repair. ask what makes this relationship toxic. ask how it has progressed to this. a suitable course of action may present itself.
the other difficulty I have here is that we can only speak in generalities. there are many variables, so many qualifiers, unique to case, each person, it is so fundamentally subjective, that no judgement of any kind can be made without intimate knowledge of the a specific situation.
i will not label anothers relationship toxic. that is a judgement only the participants can make. and i will not label another person toxic, full stop AMassiveGay (talk) 17:55, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

I guess the point I am trying to get at is that the article asks to consider their side. Which to a certain extent I can agree with, but you have to wonder if whether sorting through whatever is the root of their mess is worth compromising your own health and well being. I know that sometimes other people have pain they haven't dealt with and inflict it to others (since I doubt anyone is inherently that malicious), but there comes a time when you need to break off and help yourself.Machina (talk) 03:08, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Video game hysteria Part deux: Walmart Edition[edit]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've always heard that there are some Walmart stores in the US that sell Glocks and handguns. If so, then I'm not surprised that they are siding with the gunnuts and weapon lobbyists... Tinribmancer (talk) 09:28, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

You are correct, at least for all the Texas Walmarts I've been to. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:07, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Also, it’s the smart commercial move: Removing some promotional material is probably not going to hurt video game sales much, you earn points with all kinds of “concerned citizen” types, and you avoid an embarrassing discussion of (and possibly curtailing) your gun sales by shifting the debate. Well spun, Walmart... ScepticWombat (talk) 17:52, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
especially so when you don't want to miss out on the boost that gun sales get after a mass shooting of this kind. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:07, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
It's also an easy trapdoor. You give people the appearance of doing something about a huge problem in the country, about caring. But you do the bare minimum, take the least effort, and doesn't really affect your sales of things. Of course, nothing changes because it'll cost a lot of money to do something, maybe cause controversy with the gunnies, and Walmart can't afford to lose out from the gunnie demographic. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 19:52, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
The Wal-Mart in my area happily sells guns without second thought- mostly hunting rifles but they also sell hand guns. Going with the "video games cause violence" logic, what video games did Joseph Stalin play when he led the Soviet Union (into the toilet)? --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:10, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

My Walmart today doesn't even allow sales of any video games (and it doesn't even sell guns as far as I know, or I'm just not aware despite visiting that place many many times). I have no idea if it's related to the incident at all, though, since I haven't visited it any short time period prior to the shooting in El Paso. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 04:13, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Btw, I think it’s very much on point that Sterling in both this and another video on this “evil video game” brouhaha insists on emphasising that Walmart’s and others’ ridiculous actions have not been taken “in the wake of the shootings”, but in the wake of Trump and others trying to deflect the discussion away from guns and onto literally anything else, with video games being the scapegoat du jour this time around. ScepticWombat (talk) 09:06, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Walmart was probably looking for an excuse to clean out the floor space dedicated to video games anyway. Nobody buys hard copy game discs anymore. Hannasanarion (talk) 15:42, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
No one? I still regularly buy physical. The appeal of getting physical copies is definitely still there, looks nice on your shelf, and don't have to worry about storage space on your console (unlike digital). --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 01:00, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

My Wal-Mart jumped on the same bullshit band wagon[edit]

The ads for games in Wal-Mart are now gone and surprise- they still sell guns. This whole thing is an attack on free speech. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 16:40, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep your frozen peaches to yourself. Pyro (talk) 19:39, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
It's not an attack on free speech. It is a choice in an advertisement. If you are buying your games from Wal-Mart, guess what, they are all still there. Sorry to break the Santa myth, but this is the same link posted above. Nintendo has always been against anything not family friendly. So playing this as if a Switch display carried controversial games and Wal-Mart pulled them is silly. Wal-Mart isn't pulling the games, or the guns, because they have calculated that they won't lose game or gun sales over it. They just don't have pictures about them in their departments. What do you care? The game is still there, you were still going to buy the game. Are you worried you're going to stumble through a Wal Mart and buy Animal Crossing by accident because the in-store banners are different? Wal-Mart hopes you do. Take it up with Nintendo. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 09:14, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Must admit[edit]

You have to admit Doable Trump is a fearless speaker, saying things that offend other people. Not that I think he is doing the right thing but still must say he is a fearless speaker. — Unsigned, by: 2600:1:F142:3D01:161E:CB7A:729A:158D / talk

Talking out of one's ass isn't that impressive. Youtubers have been doing it for years. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:44, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
You could say that about damn near any high-profile public figure. Anything anyone says will piss off a huge number of people. Hell, it probably requires even more guts to be a high-profile Democrat now that so many far-rightists are turning to terrorism. Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 18:10, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
He can't even experience fear not because he's courageous but he's too stupid and numb to any other feeling that isn't being a boastful prod. He could dance naked with a tongue stuck to a freezing pole and still wouldn't feel shame or fear. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 19:42, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Troll Oxyaena Harass 20:10, 11 August 2019 (UTC)


Is there a reason why the seven days of Genesis must be literal but the dome as well as moon being a light and the light and darkness being distinct from the sun are not literal? What is literal and what is figuritive in the Bible? How can one be a true literalist? — Unsigned, by: 2600:1:F142:3D01:EDC7:CEA5:350:DA08 / talk

It's very simple. You can't. The bible is internally inconsistent, that is to say in a vacuum, on it's own, it makes no sense. Adding anything else to that already untenable situation makes things worse. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:07, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
It’s even simpler: When the bible is clearly wrong, the passage should be taken figuratively, otherwise it should be read literally. At least that seems to be the literalist apologetic MO (unless they can find another reason why the text shouldn’t be understood in the way it appears, cf. the attempts at “explaining away” biblical errors and contradictions). ScepticWombat (talk) 09:11, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
The seven days must be literal because someone brainwashed you into believing that this preposterous passage of a book happened and next to nothing will change your mind on the issue. The dome and moon part aren't literal because even a ridiculous lost case like you cannot force your brain to accept every single blatant absurdity of the no one brainwashed you to care at all about the moon and dome...and thus it is metaphorical. If no one brainwashed you ever on this book and then you read it...the only opinion you'd have is sadness for the fools who take anything in that book literally. ShabiDOO`
Checking my sourcebooks. Says here "a wizard did it". Thank you for your deep theology question. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:56, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
The problem with it is that the book does not come with a God-sanctioned appendix telling what's allegorical and what's not as well as the way to interpret it. Meaning the too-many-to-count schisms over its interpretations (and things just go worse from there), the countless number of Fundies who keep insisting something written millennia ago holds the Absolute Truth™ despite both archaeology and science having advanced a lot since then, and more.
The sad part is that it's highly likely there'll be uber-fundamentalists (not just the flat-Earthers) out there who will think that dome is real and what we know to exist insteadd just lies of the Devil. Panzerfaust (talk) 13:04, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

To quote

  • “And that inverted Bowl we call The Sky,
  • Whereunder crawling coop't we live and die,
  • Lift not thy hands to it for help -- for It
  • Rolls impotently on as Thou or I.”

Omar Khayyam Anna Livia (talk) 13:42, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Neil deGrasse Tyson was absolutely right, and should not have apologized[edit]

I'm talking about his tweet about gun deaths compared to other deaths. He was seen by people as being "cold" and "statistical" (as if those are somehow bad traits. Yikes) just because he didn't wait long enough and because of the internet outrage machine. His tweet was entirely factually correct- disease causes dozens of times more deaths than gun violence, and yet due to our cognitive biases, we treat these "natural" deaths as somehow less bad than violent ones, and our outrage towards them is far less than they should be. At no point in his tweet did he say gun control was unnecessary- he was merely pointing out that it is illogical that reducing medical errors, which are equally as preventable as gun deaths, doesn't have higher priority in our minds. The inability of humans to process scale is behind many of our societies problems- we treat near nonexistent threats as huge while far away real problems are ignored. As this poll shows, people treat climate change with the same level of severity as gun violence, despite the fact the former will cause thousands of times more deaths. — Unsigned, by: / talk

And people wonder why I'm a depressed douchbag all the time. Most of society acts in a manner that makes me look down on them as a default. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:09, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Such as once again missing the point on the gun control debate. Does someone need to shoot up your loved ones before you finally get it? We can do something about this problem. This almost exclusively U.S.A. problem. The one that we've been arguing about since before I was born. We've been arguing about mass shootings for over 50 years. Over 50 years!!! You would have to be an idiot to hold back at this point. Or a sociopath... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:14, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
His tweet is not correct. Death from medical errors is vastly overstated and inaccurate, based on a flawed study.(Tyson uses a lower estimate but it's still misleading). So, he's wrong there. Even if he was correct, however, I'm not sure why Tyson had to bring that aside from to distract from the issue that we could save more lives if we just paid attention to medical errors. I get that in sheer numbers, you'll save way more lives to tell people to quit smoking rather than enforce helmet laws or something. But Tyson just isn't helping here when we can talk about both trying hard on gun violence and also climate change. Gun violence is a major problem while climate change's problems is only understated. The priorities are wrong but gun concerns are rightly concerning. Also, we already work super hard to minimalize medical errors, take a lot of legislative steps, compared to the jack we've done with gun control. He may not realize it, but he's also tarring doctors in the same brush as ideologically motivated mass shooters and people should feel right to be offended. Being "cold" is a bad trait, by the way especially if you post misleading stats to begin with. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 04:00, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
I think an even more basic “apples to oranges” problem with Tyson’s comparison that renders it tantalisingly close to if not an outright false analogy is that these other examples all involve unintentional actions or what economists would call negative externalities. People usually don’t get into their cars with the intent to crash, doctors usually don’t operate with the intention to botch the operation, we generally don’t emit carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases with the intention of heating up the globe. By contrast, these mass shooters knowingly and intentionally set out to kill people. This is a valid and hugely important difference that is also reflected in the legal distinction between man slaughter and murder. ScepticWombat (talk) 09:19, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
It's douchey to take a recent traumatic event and trivialise it compared with some other problem. Wait a bloody week or two. Or argue the merrits of working against disease on its don't have to compare that in sheer higher numbers than the deaths that just happened in a national tragedy. If we had a recent spate of vicious LGTB+ discrimination and violence and anyone were to say "hey look racism is a more serious problem leading to far more discrimination and violence than with LGTB+ victims insinuating that we should deal with racism as opposed to the not as alarming LGTB+ have to admit that sounds really douchey and unconstructive not to mention inconsiderate, hurtful and in really really bad taste (this is a guy who thinks he is a class act). We should work on both. However a recent national trauma or tragedy is a great time to focus on that particular problem...trivialising it in the face of recent victims is not just's assholey. Tyson has a history of being a stupid asshole sometimes. At least he apologised. There is likely no better moment than now to rally for gun regulations. ShabiDOO 10:37, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
To be fair to Neil's "technically correctness", two of the statistics he mentioned ("suicide" and "homicide by handgun") probably would be quite mitigated by firearms regulations. ScepticWombat is more on point: the type of event matters (people usually don't expect to need to worry about getting gunned down shopping at Walmart or attending a garlic festival), and the spectacular mass event, the immediate worst case scenario, worries people more than the mundane or slow, creeping massive issues. Soundwave106 (talk) 12:38, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
@Shapidoo Appropriate to say a "bloody" week or two, because in that time span we've already had 2 more attempts at mass shootings. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:09, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Yeah. It really is best to just focus your own activism on issues you care about and try not to trivialize others. Everyone generally benefits if you achieve your goals without pointlessly upsetting and hurting others. ShabiDOO 21:17, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Is boredom a bad thing?[edit] (talk) 03:38, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

IMO, boredom is caused by a lack of stimulation, pretty much on par with hunger, so I don't agree with the article at all. БaбyЛuigiOнФire(T|C) 04:02, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
No way, it's one of the best songs Buzzcocks ever did. Avida Dollarsher again 10:26, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Boredom is one of the greatest traits of humanity IMHO. It leads people to try new things, to explore new ideas, and to seek new opportunities. If making just enough money to buy food and shelter was all it took to be happy, the world would never have made it as far as it has. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 11:00, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
it has been my experience that acquiring food and shelter is the main motivator not boredom. new ideas and new opportunities are not fuelled by tedium but the polar opposite - overcoming all the shit that life throws at you. for most of humanities existence, boredom would have been welcomed. it meant something wasn't trying to eat you.
and since my method for dealing with boredom generally involves meth and very risky sex. boredom has been very bad for my health. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:59, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
30-50 wild bores. Oxyaena Harass 14:07, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Now there's a threat to children. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:58, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
For three or five minutes? Oxyaena Harass 16:20, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Boredom can be agonizing. A 15 hour flight without a book, no battery in your phone and a touch screen that doesn't work...can be utter hell for some. Same goes for those forced to share a room with someone who needs the lights out at 21.00 while you cannot possibly fall asleep for hours, doing nothing in the silence and dark. Forms of punishment or imprisonment can turn general boredom into agony. It can be pretty toxic stuff, boredom. I recently had a pretty serious medical problem and spent 2 months in the hospital and 4 months recovering at home often spending hours on my own while everyone was away for the day. I never let myself get bored. If you have even a small library, laptop and/or phone and a connection to the internet...I cannot imagine how you could possibly get bored. I improved my language skills, learnt advanced level use of some programs, researched a trip in a few years, caught up with old friends, watched tons of series and films, caught up on a backlog of philosophy reading, read a few stupid but fun trashy books, read several beautiful literary novels, music, magazines, games, competitions, writing, editing, learning, improving. Say what you like about the modern online seriously have no excuse anymore to be bored. ShabiDOO 21:25, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
I keep hearing that peoples threshold for boredom has significantly decreased due to iphones and social media. if its a problem for anyone, that they cant find something to divert for the attention though out the day, I suggest shoot up some smack. days will pass with you doing literally nothing. (don't shoot up smack)AMassiveGay (talk) 21:56, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
If you are easily distracted just try whatching influencer videos on youtube. Some of the videos are less than one minute. You can watch annoying young know-it-alls with a cool "I don't care attitude" tell us whats-what while virtually yelling at you in a frantic loud voice with near hysterical levels of energy and very mediochre production qualities. Any topic you like, there will be hundreds of such videos (along with how:to and critiques). Not entertained enough? Read the 10,000 comments on each video. So many comments are entertainingly mean with unecessary insults and vicious opinions everyone is dying to hear. Luckily with auto-play, you can just sit back and watch hours of soul destroying expert knowledge disemination. By the end you will know exactly which products you should buy, the info you "need to know now" and the top 10 vital facts that will have surely "blown your mind". More than a dose of smack will. If you shoot up might have the attention span to watch some of the longer videos where they go more indepth. Like a 20 minute make-up tutorial or an advanced Fortnight strategy guide or a 30 minute Gossip session about the adult lives of the "Saved by the bell" crew. As I just have no reason to be bored. ShabiDOO 09:05, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I guess I'm mostly wondering what people think about the article itself. I mean in one aspect I guess she is arguing that boredom is some kind of myth or that it doesn't exist because we tend to say " i Am bored" but that there isn't really anything solid you can point to as boredom. The other part of that is that I wonder if she means that one is only bored if they are not present and living in the now.Machina (talk) 19:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

You say there's nothing solid I can point to as boredom, but I would argue a monopoly board is hella solid. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:34, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm just repeating what the article said, don't shoot me.Machina (talk) 22:21, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Endangered species act to be gutted by executive fiat[edit]

Sorry, gray wolves. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah fuck Trump. Oxyaena Harass 16:19, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Trump is too dumb to know anything about it. It's David Bernhardt, oil lobbyist turned secretary of the interior. I mean, fuck trump for appointing the asshole, but still. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:31, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
You mean to tell me that Trump cares more for his cronies than for the rest of the country? Color me shocked... G Man (talk) 17:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't mean to tell you that. I mean to tell you the entire apparatus of the republican party is corruption incarnate, and trump is just a very notable part of it. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:48, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
But seriously, why should anyone be surprised that Trump appointed all sorts of lobbyists to his cabinet? Drain the swamp, my ass... G Man (talk) 17:26, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
I want to see how his supporters excuse or overlook this one. This sort of thing would be political suicide for anyone else, but no, Trump still will have an approval rating over 30%, and Republicans still stand by him, because "at least the economy is good". Trump is still responsible for this for choosing the worst possible guy to lead a sensitive position in the name of draining the swamp. You can't screw up this badly unless you are stupid or you put yesmen in charge for corporation allies to operate without more liability. Oh, he will drain extremely biodiverse swamps but he will replace them with concrete cesspools. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 17:28, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm not surprised, but I'm still really angry and more angry that I'm not surprised. I still haven't quite gotten over this administration gutting protections from the migratory bird act such as allowing polluters to not be held liable from negligent killing birds. That one is getting legally challenged up the wazoo, fortunately. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 17:38, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Trump already has a bit of a cult of personality. (I seriously considered adding him to the "Cult leaders" category on this wiki, at some point.) It almost seems like his base couldn't possibly be phased by anything. I'll go out on a limb and say that his "small government" supporters would probably be fine if he hypothetically overthrew democracy and turned it into a dictatorship, so long as he was the one who did it.G Man (talk) 17:47, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Trump is simply ramping up a GOP war against any and all environmental regulations and protections that dates back at least to Reagan. Trump is simply more successful because his ongoing shitshow distracts attention from his cronies’ and minions’ gutting of the remains of the laws and regulations that made the US a functioning modern state, rather than a semi-Dickensian Gilded Age’ish robber baron paradise with internet. Considering that swamps tend to be complex ecosystems with lots of endangered species, I guess that “drain the swamp” is a somewhat fitting slogan. ScepticWombat (talk) 17:56, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Come to think of it, a pro-atheism and (for the most part) pro-science page on Facebook posted this article a few months ago about how the Trump administration is legalizing lead bullets and harming wildlife (such as the golden eagle, which ingests the bullets found in its prey). Like clockwork, someone commented, "So, what?" and began making excuses about it, copying straight from the anti-environmentalist playbook (e.g. survival of the fittest, or whatever *rolls eyes*). G Man (talk) 18:01, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Now, to be fair, I have one disclaimer to make: My story is an anecdote which happened a few months ago. It would be too much to go that far back and take a screenshot to prove it, so you don't have to take my word for it. I was just trying to illustrate a general trend that I have observed under this anti-environmentalist administration.G Man (talk) 18:06, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
The problem is that even sensible environmental protections have become part of the culture wars, not least due to free market fundamentalists viewing anyone who cares about the environment as “watermelons” (green on the outside, red on the inside). Such free market fundamentalists rely on the conspiracy theory that any kind of environmental regulation is just the thin end of the wedge towards socialism and a planned economy (the 2010 book Merchants of Doubt traces the origins of these tactics to the tobacco lobby, replete with experts for hire). This is even more bizarre in the post Cold War era, when you can’t even rustle up the USSR bogeyman as justification, yet the same spiel continues and if anything, the GOP stance is becoming more extreme. ScepticWombat (talk) 18:32, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Inevitably, a hundred or so years from now, the concept of breathing will be seen as socialist by the GOP. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:20, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Bottled air is already a thing. We're already living in that capitalist nightmare where air is profitable commodity, forests are viewed only in the lenses of relentless exploitation, short term jobs/concrete marinas/cheap tables/toenail clippings are more important than the homes of tons of organisms, and Trump and his supporters say, "Who cares" to endangered species despite years of education screaming at us that biodiversity is hugely crucial to our success and it is a Moral Imperative to protect and preserve it. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 21:40, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
A hundred? Lol Trump's EPA is already trying to undermine the Clean Water ActWikipedia's W.svg. Don't be surprised if they go after the Clean Air Act with the next 10 years. Gone are the days when the GOP cared for the environment like Nixon did.G Man (talk) 22:58, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I doubt that Nixon cared much about the environment. His environmental legislation was in response to a general concern among the US populace about pollution and environmental degradation and Nixon latched onto it to seem green and caring. The difference is that today the GOP is actively anti environmentalist (or simply anti environment...), rather than rather being indifferent/opportunistic as was the case with Nixon. ScepticWombat (talk) 15:24, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I can't weigh in on this because I am so emotionally attached to it and on a federal scale it is so impossible to fight. I am against it, and I have seen how they do it. I will say, as an on-the-ground fighter against the Keystone pipeline, I saw my state representatives spread corporate propaganda as they allowed bogus eminent domain threats to be used as pressure against land-owners, proposed a change to the size of a National Natural Landmark to protect the route of the pipeline over protecting the landmark, and calculated a 0% chance of a leak in said pipeline, "proving" that there was no actual need to come up with a cleanup plan in the extra difficult cleanup area that is the Ogallala aquifer. I've seen the tactics. They are intense, and they are hard to stop. If the federal government owns the land, there is no real recourse because not enough people care to force their representatives to fight back to protect land. I mean, even in my state, we had to fight our own congresspeople tooth and nail. This is a huge blind spot that we, as American citizens, and joint owners of this space are never going to get back.Gol Sarnitt (talk) 07:08, 18 August 2019 (UTC)


I never slandered anyone by "faking illegal requests." Soap legit asked for nudes when I was 17, you're going to trust a known Nazi shit over me? To hell with all of you. Oxyaena Harass 00:30, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

@Oxyaena Calm the fuck down and keep reading to the bit where I called them out on their bull. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:39, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Can you not drag drama to here, please? --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 00:57, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Sorry all I was having an episode. Oxyaena Harass 01:40, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie Thanks, I appreciate it. Oxyaena Harass 01:47, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
You can't go to something that doesn't exit. Tinribmancer (talk) 11:17, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Cop mistakes bird shit for cocaine[edit]

The bird shit part is at 8:40 btw. Oxyaena Harass 10:35, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Ah yes bird poop. If that was illegal to possess I would be jailed for a really, really, really long time, since I own a bird poop generator in my home. БaбyЛuigiOнФire(T|C) 00:03, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Careful, that shit could blow up half a block if you let it out of its cage. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:09, 14 August 2019 (UTC) 02:09, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Oh no, it's not caged... БaбyЛuigiOнФire(T|C) 02:14, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
So you got into the chirpy boy game, things got messy. Classic chirpy boy poop dealing-wither. Caught white and black handed. Oh, you're going down. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:30, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Talking about dealing in shit reminded me of this. (If you are totally lacking in taste and culture) you can go forward to about the 3:45 mark to see what I mean. Spud (talk) 08:55, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Good gold, thank you for sharing. It's hard to find a reason to say it, but this was fun and I loved watching it. Whoever posted that TV man article to the news portal deserves a medal.Gol Sarnitt (talk) 10:20, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Discord times 2[edit]

Posts like this are why trolls think you’re a soft target. Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 16:15, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Can you not drag drama out from Discord to here? Times 2. But this isn't the second time you've done it. Don't have me warn you next time. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 18:58, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
It's all Greek to me. Oxyaena Harass 19:22, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Luna Younger / Child abuse or transphobia?[edit] James is an innocent seven-year-old boy. He has a twin brother, Jude. His pediatrician mother, Anne Georgulas, wants to change James’ gender and chemically castrate him as early as age eight. James’ father, Jeff Younger, is fighting in court to Save James. He needs your help.

According to the website, the trial will be this October. — Unsigned, by: 2620:7:6001::ffff:c759:e653 / talk / contribs

I don't care except inasmuch as the website you've linked is stupid propaganda and you should not like link stupid propaganda. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:01, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
From my cursory glance on what's out there that isn't the site, I'm seeing a number of accusations of scam artistry (e.g. this Reddit thread on /r/Scams). Even TERF Central /r/GenderCritical thread on this had commenters expressing how sketch this is. They also cite ACPeds, which is a fringe group masquerading as an academic medical organization.ℕoir LeSable (talk) 15:06, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Has UT returned, because this seems very much like the bullshit UT would post.RipCityLiberal (talk) 17:11, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Well it would certainly make the Bar more lively again, trolls help bring traffic. Oxyaena Harass 19:02, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Certainly looks like a con to me. Is there somewhere to donate to the mother's costs?Hubert (talk) 06:49, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
She is quite safe, thank you very much. This wingnut based hysteria is a bunch of bullshit. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:54, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm an avid Trump supporter, but I disagree with Trump on something[edit]

Trump is in favor of tougher background checks to buy firearms, and I disagree with that. We already have very tough background checks for one to purchase a firearm. Trump wants people diagnosed with mental disorders to be barred from owning firearms, which may seem like a good idea at the surface, but realistically, this is going to stop people who need help from seeking help because they will lose (or will think they will lose) their second amendment right to bear arms if they go to a doctor about their issues. That's exactly the opposite of what we need right now. (talk) 21:48, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

This is a supremely bad take. First off, Trump has made it easier for people with mental disorders to get guns. Second background checks are notoriously easy to get around and often NICS doesn't have complete information. Also people suffering from a mental illnesses often are bigger threats to themselves and people will choose not to kill themselves if they don't have access to their preferred method. Troll harder.RipCityLiberal (talk) 00:00, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
This can be framed as, in fairness, to mean "mentally handicapped people won't seek care they believe they cannot get a gun, so background checks hurt them". Similar to undocumented immigrants risk their lives avoiding health and economic support in fear that their status leads to deportation. Addressing mental health won't solve the gun crisis here, so this can further stigmatize people with mental health. BoN is correct in the sense that this sort of thing hurts people with mental health problems, makes them appear more monstrous. Maybe this sort of thing should instead help us question about the merit of a long-dated, irrelevant, and destructive amendment, question how sick this gun culture is into training people to value guns to the point it appears feasible that people with mental health problems don't want undergo a background check on fears they cannot own a gun, even though guns aren't that valuable. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 00:34, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
It's not even just about guns, it's outright belittling to people with mental health issues. And some of these people aren't what you would call "crazy" but merely have clinical depression, autism spectrum disorder, or even mild cases of bipolar disorder. LeftyGreenMario seems to get it. I wish Trump would stop stigmatizing mental health issues. (talk) 01:50, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
I suppose those dead people with holes in them died from mean words. No, they died from bullets fired from guns. The mental health crap is deflection form the main issue, same thing politicians have been doing for 50+ years. Now we have racism and xenophobia chucked in on top of that crap. These recent shootings weren't some big mystery, not in any real sense. The shooters were told by Trump and others that immigrants were invading their home and had to be stopped, they were told said immigrants were subhuman, they were told it was their duty to defend their homeland, and so they did exactly what they were told to do. They killed the people they were told were a threat to them. A + B + C = D. The chain of events is there, plain as day, but dipshits like you insist it's something else, anything else, besides xenophobia, besides white supremacy, besides guns being used for their intended purpose. "Violent video games are to blame" Trump says, "mental health needs to be addressed" says the NRA, "secure the border" says the GOP... Fucking cowards the lot of you. This is why I hate you, this is why I want to take your guns away. Because you're all terminally stupid. How about we either reduce guns use or eliminate it, actually give more than lip service to mental health issues, and actually view refugees as human beings who would rather live in their home countries than come to this shithole we live in? Maybe if we actually adressed the issues instead of hiding from them, we'd get results other than more death and suffering. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:52, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
You say you're a Trump supporter. Well, I say this as an anti-Trump person: stigmatizing mental health, being nasty to them, is the point. Trump doesn't actually care for these people. The gun lobby has their fingers, filled with gold coins, deep inside his pockets. They are friendly to him. And there are other supporters who also don't care about people with mental health issues. You should know how poorly Trump treats people with mental health problems by removing funding from organizations that help them. He tries to take away welfare and healthcare that are one of the few crutches that keep these people from falling through the cracks. He mocked a disabled person. Mental health problems is a convenient scapegoat for someone more concerned about political expenditure than human welfare. This is why I strongly oppose Trump. He hurts people so bad in the name of rich and powerful interests and intends to hurt them. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 17:38, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Background checks won't solve anything. Guns per capita is the only metric that matters for unnecessary death. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 01:28, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
interest in acquiring a gun should be a bar on ever being allowed one and you should be put on to some sort of watchlist along with the paedophiles and terrorists. anyone already owning a gun should find themselves not being invited to parties, partners should leave them, and be generally ostracised. they should not be allowed to live within 3 miles of a school, people should add no guns to the no pets clause of house rentals. any excuses for gun ownership should result not in debate but with people standing and pointing at the individual expressing support, accompanied by that howl from invasion of the body snatchers.
I am 100% serious in all the above. keep your guns if you want them. just go live on the side of a mountain with the other weirdoes who cum discussing calibre sizes. instead though we have a mass media that fetishizes guns and you can buy groceries with an instrument of death strapped to your back.
as long as you have culture where gun ownership is seen as normal, or in some parts 'patriotic' even, where guns are seen as sexy, it will always be a culture where a mass shooting doesn't result in legislation, but increased gun sales. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:07, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
It's not an original idea of mine, but I think the "Gun Club" idea is the best model. You cannot purchase a gun from anywhere but a gun club. You cannot show a gun anywhere besides a gun club sponsored event. Any gun you own must be registered and stored at the gun club. Any time you take a gun from the gun club for a sporting event, you must log it. I don't think it should be much more difficult to register as a gun club than obtaining a license to sell alcohol, but getting a gun out of a gun club should be the limiting factor. They are not selling alcohol, they are renting gun-safe spaces. Probably will have to reword that. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC)


What is the best way to delete your account completely? Kingdamian1 (talk) 23:27, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Log out, then never log back in. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:38, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Scramble your password if you must. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 23:39, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
I mean, I want my account terminated. Completely. Is there such an option Kingdamian1 (talk) 23:53, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
We would've said so. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 00:31, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
It is urgent that I terminate my account? How can I accompish that? Kingdamian1 (talk) 00:51, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Not possible. But if you want, I can delete and then mod suppress your userpage. But only your user page. Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 01:20, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
They can rename your account to something like "retireduser47391" like happens frequently on Wikipedia. But they cannot delete your account. (talk) 01:44, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
The problem is that people come here and see my earlier, bigoted posts and think that defines me. I have since changed my views, but I do not want this stuff to be searchable or to be traced back to me. What are my options? Kingdamian1 (talk) 03:55, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Weird that. It's almost acting like a self centered jackass has consequences... Huh. I mean you could suck it up, admit your previous misdeeds, publicly display them with honesty and integrity... Or you could try to hide them and pretend they don't exist, thus undermining any actual percepption of change since it looks more like you care about your reputation than actually becoming a better person. I mean, I can't make the choice for you, but if I was in your shoes I'd choose the option that actually means more. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 04:07, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
I have already repented. I was a MORON. I stupid, bigoted, borderline racist idiot. I repent it. But I do not want this stuff to EVER be tied to me. Kingdamian1 (talk) 04:14, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
You don't get it. Until you do we have nothing more to talk about. Either accept your past for what it is, and prove you can be a better person, or act like a coward and try to hide it. Your choice either way. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 04:17, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
I mean, you have admitted it, that's one thing. You could always just make a new account and pretend the last one wasn't yours. You could go with Kingdamian2, that isn't a bad username. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:23, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
But is there an option to retire this account? Kingdamian1 (talk) 04:26, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
I mean, I don't know. I've forgotten my password before, and not had a real way to retrieve it. I'm not sure how archiving works for userspace. The only option I know of is to ghost for two to three months, come back, be like "son-of-a" and start over, no history. I've put an effort in to not doing that this time around, myself. Sounds like you're really intent on losing your username though, so I don't know if I can help you there. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:31, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

@Kingdamian1 It's good that you've written a disclaimer on your user page. It's bad that you've written it in all caps but I'll let that go for now. Having just googled Kingdamian1, it looks like RationalWiki is the very least of your problems. Why did you join a social media site for fascists, for fuck's sake? Still, since you seem to have used the Kingdamian1 alias all over the internet and not revealed your real full name, the easiest thing would seem to be just not using any of those old accounts anymore and not worrying too much about people tracing those accounts back to you. And I must say, if you were trying to come across as a genuine bigot here on RationalWiki, you did a lousy job of it. You certainly wrote a few vaguely sexist things and plenty of stuff along the lines of, "Look at these stupid liberals. Aren't they stupid?" But you always came across more as half-arsed troll who was pretending to be a conservative than anything else. The fact that you'd already been banned as a liberal troll on Conservapedia meant I was never going to take you seriously as a wannabe fascist.Spud (talk) 09:07, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

@Spud I opened gab back when it was not as fascist. Also, I was pretty stupid with what I said. Kingdamian1 (talk) 16:52, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
KD1 - come up with whichever version of this quote suits you. Anna Livia (talk) 17:06, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Just want to mention this, Gab was always fascist. It never changed, not really. It was built for and by people who got kicked off Facebook and twitter for saying and posting Nazi shit. It was never anything more than that, not outside their near transparent PR campaign. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:12, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
GrammarCommie is absolutely correct, Gab was a fascist hellhole from the start. That was the pitch. Also, how are people looking you up? Are you telling them this username for some reason, maybe don't that? Spud's right, your best chance is to just walk away, and make sure any new accounts you tell people about, have no similarity to your old username. Also take GrammarCommie's advice and do a some more soul searching. I was an kind of an asshole to some of the people around me a while back. It few years to fully grasp how big of an asshole I had been to them. Almost 6 years on, I don't feel I've fully come to terms with it... My advice to you. So, I also went and looked up KD1 on Wikipedia and that was a treat. So, apparently KD1 got a perma-banned from English Wikipedia for being combative with other editors about edits that were clearly in violation of numerous Wikipedia policies on over a dozen occasions. They also caused RationalWiki to get brought up in the ban discussion, because apprently KD1 kept bringing it and CP up randomly to people in user talks. That was amusing to see...*Keeps clicking around in your former Wikipedia edits* Wait, did you seriously upload a screenshot of Wikipedia to the Commons to show another editor your edit instead of just linking to the revision, or quoting the text in the user talk... Why? You'd been editing for months, you had to know about the history and revisions.--NavigatorBR(Talk) - 10:39, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Intelligent Design VS Evolution: the Board Game[edit]

If someone wants to write an article for it. Complete with Ray "BananaMan" Comfort and Kirk Cameron. Panzerfaust (talk) 10:27, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Nice. Oxyaena Harass 19:50, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
That sounds interesting. I say- it is worthy of an article. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 13:19, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

8Chan follow-up[edit]

Found this video in an article in my country that had an update on the situation:

Extremistic site 8chan remains offline for the time being: owner is waiting for conversation with US Congressmen

The controversial internet forum 8chan will remain offline for the time being. The owner of the site, on which radical and extremist ideas are often shared, says he does so voluntarily, until he has had a conversation with members of the American House of Representatives.

Owner Jim Watkins has been keeping 8chan voluntarily offline for more than a week, after security company Cloudflare has decided to stop securing the forum against external attacks - a response to the terrorist attack in El Paso.

Watkins is now announcing on YouTube that his forum will remain offline for a while until he has had a conversation with members of the US House of Representatives. However, such a conversation is not yet planned. Watkins wants to convince Congressmen that 8chan has nothing to do with what he has called "the idiotic violence" of recent weeks.

A four-page text linked to the perpetrator of the terrorist attack in a shopping mall in El Paso, two weeks ago, was published on 8chan. Earlier the forum was in the news as the place where the perpetrator of the terrorist attack on two mosques in the New Zealand city of Christchurch posted his manifesto.

8chan is controversial, not just because of the manifests posted. Users also chase each other with all kinds of memes to commit attacks. There is even a high score, the highest number of deaths in an attack.

But Watkins continues to defend his forum and, among other things, talks about a smear campaign by the media against his site. He hopes that people will not blame him for the violence.

Tinribmancer (talk) 13:37, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh I don't blame him for the violence. I blame him for being an apathetic opportunist who profits off the violence. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:16, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
And child pornography. Don't forget profiting from the distribution of child pornography. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:25, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
@Ikanreed That too. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:28, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
he should be blamed the violence. I hasten to add not all the blame or is most to blame - theres a lot of blame to share - but he is an owner of a site that allows encouragement and validation of this violence and of the views that lead to it. in the recent high profile examples of this violence it undoubtedly a contributing factor.
sadly, 8chan it is not the only place on the internet or else where that does this, and recognising its culpability in all of this does not absolve anyone else of their own. it is though a more extreme example of the cancer that afflicts us. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:41, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
4chan is another cancerous site that has shit like 8chan. Tinribmancer (talk) 19:00, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I would say that Mr. Jim Watkins is maybe finally waking up to the fact that his money making site has been assisting mass murderers with carrying out their twisted plans (only after having others finally "pull the plug" on the site.) He claimed that the site was down by his own decision, but apparently it actually went down when two of his Internet service providers pulled the plug. I'm amazed that he only seemed to feel sorry for the Norwegians that may have been affected by the site, apparently because he has some Norwegian blood. Not a single apology for the Mexicans and New Zealand Muslims whose lives may have been lost, partly due to his reckless greed.

Thank God the site is down. I seriously doubt that anyone from Homeland Security is going to encourage this clown to re-establish his little "piggy-bank/ rent-a-homegrown-terrorist" site again. If the site ever does pop up again under his name, I hope we might be able to add an exposé section to our article on 8chan better exposing Mr. Watkin's apparent complete indifference to the fact that his lack of responsible oversight on 8chan has by omission, made him a certain kind of an accessory to the murder of Mexicans and New Zealanders. Amazing how a little money in the palm can so quickly act to blind the eyes of some. Scottperry (talk) 04:22, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

The Ethics of Doxxing White Supremacists[edit]

As many of you could probably identify from my screen name, I hail from a city that will feature another Proud Boy/Antifa Claash this weekend. The last time this happened I was more a casual observer, primarily concerned with the response from police. I was generally shocked at how open these people seemed to be, and I took a camera with me to snap pictures. Afterwards, I considered whether it would be appropriate to work with someone to help me identify some of these people, and then report their activities to their employees and families to shame them. Is that ethical? Should I document similarly this weekend? Is there anyone similarly interested in out White Supremacists?RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:22, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

According to Breadtube, yes. According to me, it's the least you could do. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:35, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
I can't say I myself have confidence in identifying people. There's always a huge risk of getting the wrong person and there's always the risk of information falling into the wrong hands that leads to always unacceptable violent threats. Still, I like incidents like people calling for taco trucks and mariachi bands on racist thugs like Aaron Schlossberg and "Taco Truck Tammy". --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 20:00, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Whether it's right or wrong, attacking an attacker as a sort of a "defensive" act is unlikely to persuade the would be attacker to stop attacking. It'll only encourage the would be attacker to put up more defenses. On and on the fabled arms-race/ war tends to go. Rather, open, honest, non-accusatory statements of personal experience, directed at the individual, and the solicitation of similar non-judgmental personal feelings and observations from the other can often be far more effective in "stopping" white supremacism. Here is an example of how one black man was able to stop 200 KKK members with this type of dialogue:

How One Man Convinced 200 Ku Klux Klan Members To Give Up Their Robes.

Here is another story of how a certain former CIA agent came to find herself to be more effective through dialogue than through sabotage:

A CIA Agent on the Value of Honest Dialogue

He who knows how to win the battle of hearts and minds, ultimately always achieves a more favorable outcome than the warrior of mere tactics and stratagem.

Scottperry (talk) 21:30, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah... No. Most of these dipshits are invested either through money or effort, and aren't going to change. Especially those that go to rallies. Slash their tires, trash their rides, get them fired, de-platform them, the works is my advice. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:58, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Not worth it @RipCityLiberal. Do that and it makes them look like victims and it makes all of us look bad. Just don't. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:30, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
I've heard a lot of these kind of folks come from families that were pretty dysfunctional, and in reality haven't got much of a clue what it means to have a "real" conversation where they really connect on a deep level with another. I'd be willing to bet dollars to doughnuts that the black guy who got 200 KKK's to give up their robes knew how to really "connect" with the folks he talked to. How else could he have succeeded? I just wonder what that black fellow does with a closet full of 200 slightly used KKK robes?
Scottperry (talk) 23:40, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
This reminds me of the debate over doxing homophobic politicians with gay profiles in online dating sites. On the one hand you think you are doing good (and there is always that chance it will lead to good) but you are also potentially ruining people's lives and outing someone before they are ready. Unless that person is a brutal active bully bordering on full out harassment or a crime I don't think the potential political gain (or backlash) outweighs the personal harm. It can all be handled in a better way. I think the same sort of applies to white supremacist (the difference being that there is nothing wrong with being gay while white supremacy is invariably toxic). Unless they are bullying people to the point where it is almost criminal, plotting a crime or engaging in any serious dubious activity...I think you have to sacrifice your own principles (taking away someone's anonymity for your own political gain) in order to promote your own principles (assuming doxing the person will ever actually lead to more than a bitter angry person who has been fired from their job.) Regardless of the moral system you's an extremely difficult moral problem to solve...even with deontological ethics. ShabiDOO 11:42, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I'd say take as many photos you like of what's going on and who's there, but due to the likelihood of false positives and accusations, I have to say I am vehemently against doxxing by amateur investigators and/or without proof beyond a reasonable doubt. "Oh hey the guy in this photo looks like the guy in this other photo" is NOT that (barring, e.g., unique tattoos). I apologize for the emphasis, but it's a bit of a touchy subject on my end. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 15:53, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Imo, while the idea of doxing grade AAA assholes isn't something that would get me in tears over, I honestly believe that this isn't our responsibility nor our business to expose their personal lives, because this goes into tier 3 ad hominem territory and you pretty much lose any debates and credibility you have when you stoop to that level to call them out. Don't set examples for the opposition to do the same either. If there's someone who really needs to get dirt done up, that's what law enforcement and authorities are for (and of course they come with their own brand of racists and supremacists and have their own set of problems but that's another story for another day). БaбyЛuigiOнФire(T|C) 19:41, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Fight fire with fire, just make sure nobody notices. NekoDysk 15:13, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
You're not only right to dox them, you're obligated to do so. These dudes have a track record of harming themselves and others. You should warn people for their own safety. 2600:1:F541:7E2A:0:11:4BF8:F701 (talk) 20:04, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

How did some fundie schools get alternative medicine mixed into them?[edit]

There are a few fundie schools that offer degrees in Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine, now knowing that AOM is based on Chinese philosophy while Christianity is radically different. How did some fundie school mix them together? --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:16, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Where are you finding out about this? My guess is that it's not really fundamentalist Christians, but "New Age Christians." Two very different breeds (amongst the thousands of different sects of "Christianity.") All of the fundamentalist Christians I've ever known would consider AOM as probably, if not certainly very naughty stuff (read "evil.") Scottperry (talk) 01:18, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm not finding anything through Google either. Off the top of my head, I know that a few fundamentalist sects have made inroads into Korea (both in less cult-y forms, more cult-y forms, and the embezzling preacher megachurch variety we all know and love), so if there is a connection, I'd suspect that the cultural blend happened there first. No Google hits so far. I was able to Google an American Korean Christian school that offers acupuncture, but being Presbyterian it is not "fundie". Soundwave106 (talk) 03:07, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
There's also Georgia Central University, which until recently had an entire school dedicated to "acupuncture and oriental medicine." However this place seems to be moving more towards being a missionary school and dropping the woo. Cosmikdebris (talk) 13:25, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Crank magnetism? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:29, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Have you tried rebooting? Oxyaena Harass 15:50, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Tardigrades, or Water Bears, on the Moon[edit]

I don't know how long ago it was, but I posed a question about how much it would take to preserve humanity in the grand scale of the universe. Would it take literal humans spreading in an interstellar exploration, or could it be just as effective to send androids? I made a joke, saying wouldn't it be just so human to send out Tardigrades, just to confuse other lifeforms in the long run about how Tardigrades might launch a ship? Wouldn't that be a good human joke to play on the universe? Now we've spilled Tardigrades on a lunar lander that crashed just because we thought we could try it, and my joke sucks because of it. I'm not terrified of the implications or anything, but this is a really frustrating setback for the best of the best when it comes to going off planet and we can't accept a lunar crash just because an experiment involving an absurd lifeform is now off the rails. I'm sorry, I didn't foresee this reality of tardigrades on the moon. It was a joke I made without foresight, it was always intended to be an absurd joke, and that should show just how deeply stupid I am. I can see now how something like this, if it were to actually be attempted, which it was, can get out of hand and inhibit/confuse future science. I LOVE science, even if I am not always very good at it. I cannot promise I won't make a stupid joke in the future, but I promise, I really understand that my joke about tardigrades in space has been proven worthless as a joke. We did it, this is a time to reconsider what is absurd, it's time to update the joke. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:09, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Not stupid - just extrapolating from 'the current range of scientific and cultural etc possibilities' - and we all make 'predictions' based on such, some of which are promptly developed by others who are in the relevant line of business. Anna Livia (talk) 10:19, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
I really do feel frustrated that private scientists blew a lunar landing and spilled tardigrades, and now we can't get the results, that part is honest. I was also playing with the influencer apology script, kind of for my own entertainment, but I messed it up because I really have opinions about things. And I did make a joke about sending tardigrades to space, it wasn't me making anything up. I do not feel responsible for this mishap. Thank you for caring about my sanity, and I am prone to feeling bad about things I don't have control over, so good read there. I'm sorry for any confusion I caused. But I can't tell my "let's send tardigrades out there as a prank on aliens" joke anymore, somebody else will start telling that joke now. The frustration over that is also very real. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 08:26, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Is it possible for a emotional/psychological contagion to reach pandemic levels?[edit]

By this, I mean like Mass Hysteria and Suicide. Weird question I know. You could call this a thought experiment. As for a fairly well known phenomenon, there is the Werther Effect in which when one person kills themselves, more follow suit. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 14:17, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Aren't we already in pandemic levels? Oxyaena Harass 15:15, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
You mean, like this?
--Cosmikdebris (talk) 16:23, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
I think he means more like this.Gol Sarnitt (talk) 07:21, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
@Gol Sarnitt It's she btw. Oxyaena Harass 09:37, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Full apologies. I will henceforth refer to RationalZombie94 as "she." Really, though, my bad, miscommunication, I was responding with the original post and I do jokes when I panic. Thank you for the information and I'll be mindful of that from here on, I promise. Being said, yeah, we are on pandemic levels. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 09:49, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
@Gol Sarnitt No I meant me, I thought you were referring to me as "he" lol. Sorry. Oxyaena Harass 15:52, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
@Oxyeana That's a little bit of the struggle here. Communication through writing, I'm still trying to figure out what Derrida was on about. I was making a joke first instead of just addressing the point, I know RationalZombie94 is a he. I wasn't calling you a "he" but also, I didn't miss that you told me to call you "she." A lot of this could be implied by "don't worry, I've got it" but that still lacks all the context that includes me being concerned that I've been misread, attempting to re-construct the original messiness of my statement, and laughing too. This is wildly off topic, and I think we can agree that pandemic rates of suicide is the real issue here. If you let me off the hook, I'll let you off the hook, and we'll have an easier time getting back to the topic at hand.
A link between guns and suicide rates Now I have a serious complaint with the idea that there is supposedly faulty language here. Gun ownership does not exactly CAUSE higher suicide rates. Gun ownership ENABLES higher suicide rates. Because guns are very fast and reliable when you want to kill a human, even on a misguided whim. So is it a cause when you consider that more suicides happen in homes that have guns? Yes, out of all the causes that might contribute to a suicide, the means of suicide also becomes a cause when it is as reliable a method as a gunshot. It's like saying "guns don't kill people" except, well, that's also what guns do, pretty much any time you point them at people.
So, if guns don't "cause" suicide, I get the semantic argument, but it is a consistently successful method. I know it sounds a little heartless, and believe me, I care about suicide. But if suicide is not 100% preventable, and the best outcome of an attempt is failure, shouldn't we also ask what the means of suicide have to do with the actual success statistics?Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:05, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Learning from failure.[edit]

So, according to multiple statements the ACA has turned into a hate group. If your wondering why it took me this long to talk about it or condemn them, it's because (for some reason) I still naively hoped that they would turn things around and admit their errors. They have not. Thus, it is our duty as a community to pick up and hold up the ideals they have tossed aside so causally. We should condemn them, and use our megaphone to reveal the dirty truth of their actions. Further, we should learn from their failure, learn what they did wrong, and learn why and how they have fallen. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:05, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

It's damn sad to see what "movement atheism" has devolved into over the last decade or so... but honestly, I'm not surprised. I'm of the opinion that the initial failure — the "original sin", for lack of a better term — goes back to the 2000s when the "Four Horsemen" of New Atheism became some of the leading spokespeople for irreligion. At the time, they served a useful purpose for demonstrating that atheism wasn't just the domain of libertines and communists on the left, that one could be an atheist and still be a red-blooded, patriotic American (or Brit, or what have you), and that it wasn't even incompatible with conservatism. The Christian Right's usual red-baiting attacks against atheists didn't work on them. But at the same time, their confrontational style also attracted a crowd of edgelords who were into atheism almost purely to offend people. It was an "atheism" as shallow as the "anarchism" of a left-leaning teenager (and many of these edgelord atheists were teenagers — speaking from experience) who's just skimmed Howard Zinn and listened to a few Rage Against the Machine songs, the "Christianity" of a newly born-again teenager who wants to tell everyone about his or her "amazing" youth pastor, or the "Islam" of a teenager from a Muslim family who's just been pointed to Inspire magazine, but it was still the zeal of the convert. And it was that crowd that took over "movement atheism" in the 2010s, recoiling from any attempt to get them to examine their own prejudices — because they knew the truth, which was that everything wrong with the world was religion's fault, so they've gotten rid of their illogical prejudices, which meant that the prejudices they still did express were totally rational. Eventually, even opposing fundamentalism, the force that movement atheism was originally born as a backlash against, took a backseat in favor of making common cause with conservative Christians over shared anti-progressive attitudes. KevinR1990 (talk) 03:33, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
I think it's a self-defeating issue; that every organization based around an idea has to have a base. I think the main failure is that the ACA is afraid that they will lose potential atheists if they don't stand up for a base and have a central ideology. They don't recognize that they will not lose members, they are scared they will lose POTENTIAL members. But atheism doesn't need protection, or centralization, and if the ACA can't accept that, they are doing the self-defeating thing. No atheist is going to withdraw their support of atheism over a trans argument. While I don't agree with either side on every argument in this deal, the fact that they are centralizing and not addressing, and implicitly would ask two people who hold diametrically opposed positions to come to a singular position that they cannot be sniped by religious conservatives over before they are allowed to come together under the ACA banner is a limiting factor. It's self-defeating. If entrance into the ACA requires only atheism, but also you can't argue with their golden boys, I see it as the ACA holding an untenable and unrealistic standard for athiesm and actively not welcoming the argument in order to protect an institution that protects atheism, which would survive without the ACA. Nothing to cancel the ACA over, but facing up a little bit would not only help, it would show some dedication to the idea that doctrine is self-sealing and should be avoided. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 07:42, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
i've said it before, i'll say it again. atheism is a ridiculous thing to hang your identity on. AMassiveGay (talk) 08:26, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean by that.Machina (talk) 00:15, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
it means exactly what I said. its a ridiculous thing to hang your identity on. its a ridiculous thing to form organisations on. I am an atheist. I do not wake every morning pondering my lack of faith. I do not have to think about it. I do not need to discuss it. I do not expect every atheist to think as I do or share my opinions on anything other than a lack a faith. I do not wish to form or join an organisation based around a lack of faith, to discuss a lack a faith. what the fuck for? I am an atheist and one of the best things about that is I don't have to do that shit. I do not wish to replace religion with something that has all the trappings of a religion. I do not care for religion and I do not care if others do. I do not seek to dissuade others from their faith, I do not seek to build a community based solely on not believing something. I am an atheist. it means I don't believe in god. that is all it means. you want to build a community around that? an organisation around that? you are building it around nothing. or worse, as seems to the case in every such community or organisation, a lot of stuff that has nowt to do with a lack a faith, a lot of stuff that is not specific to it nor absent from religions. its rebranded as positive atheism or atheism+. be a humanist if that's your thing. they do it better, and they aren't as obsessed with religion nor do they attract the sort of pricks who make atheism their defining feature. atheism tells us what you don't believe. it doesnt tell us what you do. why would it? why should it?AMassiveGay (talk) 01:11, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't think they are a hate group, I just think that people these days are so sensitive and defensive that you can't introduce anything that contradicts what they might believe without being burned at the stake. So much for open discussion in this day and age.Machina (talk) 00:15, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

That is the problem. (resident nihilist here) Not wanting to deal with a made up problem, made up by the other people that exist in this world (resident nihilist here x2), not wanting to Gish Gallop, not wanting to address every little issue can be shown as proof that you as an individual don't want to address any problem, and it really does not matter whether you want to deal with it or not. Which is fine to have to answer to when you are speaking for yourself. And it can be implied that any issue you want to postpone is a non-issue in your opinion, and that is the difficulty of personal responsibility. I think it is important to stand your ground when you've been Gish Galloped or trolled, but less important to say you must have been correct in the first place to postpone the issue, as opposed to getting on a topic. With all the brilliant minds backing the ACA, you would think one of them would be able to step forward and say "hold on, I'll work on this transgender issue." And I still think they can, again, I don't think this is anything to really cancel the ACA over. They should just definitely show interest in the argument. Nobody has to be tossed out over it. Both sides just have to admit "I wasn't listening to you." Fuck the ACA if they think they are the ones who don't have to say that first. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:49, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Spud's second RW Spanish translation is now in mainspace[edit]

I have just moved my translation Halloween (español) out of draftspace and into mainspace. Other Spanish-speaking editors are, of course, more than welcome to correct any mistakes I might have made, rephrase anything I wrote that they think could be phrased better and generally do whatever they like to improve the page. Spud (talk) 12:36, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Very nice. Not that I speak any decent amount of Spanish. :| NekoDysk 15:23, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
I know a few words. I know, for example, what puta means. Tinribmancer (talk) 16:07, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
It's nice work. My Spanish is nowhere near fluent, so I can't help much with editing, but I feel it would be incomplete not to touch on the Mexican (and Mexican American) holiday of el Día de los Muertos (The Day of the Dead -- really, it's not a zombie movie), at least in passing. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 15:37, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
@CogitoNotStirred The Spanish page does already touch on the Mexican Day of the Dead briefly and in passing because the English original does too. According to the fifth paragraph, the one and only reason why Halloween is associated with death nowadays is because American Halloween customs were influenced by Mexican Day of the Dead ones. (And apparently, it says that in a book published by Oxford University Press. So it must be true!) Still, if you, or anybody else, would like to add a bit more about the Mexican Day of the Dead to our Halloween page in English, I will then very happily translate that into Spanish (and Esperanto and French). Spud (talk) 12:37, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
@Spud Thanks, if I get a chance I will expand slightly to explain the importance of death-themed treats and decorations in Day of the Dead and its possible links to Hallowe'en...probably not much more than that to add. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 16:15, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Syrian Refugee Crisis[edit]

Do you think Angela Merkel's decision to admit a whopping one million refugees was a good, or bad idea? ཨོཾ་མ་ཎི་པདྨེ་ཧཱུྃ (talk) 16:01, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Is this the earlier decision or a new one? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:04, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
There's a new one? ཨོཾ་མ་ཎི་པདྨེ་ཧཱུྃ (talk) 18:16, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
@BobRoss That's what I was asking. I'll take your response to mean that you are referring her original decision instead of some new version. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:23, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
There are multiple factors on this being a good or bad choice. One is that many innocent people are out of danger and are less likely to be radicalized (a pro). The second is angry citizens in Germany who might use extremist tactics against innocent people (a con). This could be used to promote compassion and diversity (a pro). Not an expert on international relations but I would assume that there would be many other factors to consider before saying it is a good or bad choice. I am for helping people who need it. Problem though, the issue is not cut and dry. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:08, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Three Arrows had a video (that I can't seem to find at the moment) on the subject from his perspective as a person living in Germany both prior to and during the decision. In summery he basically views it as a decent decision made for bad and/or lukewarm reasons (Merkel covering her ass was one of the examples he gave), which sounds about right to me. Ultimately however, I personally think it was the right choice. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:12, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
It's harmless. You can call that a "good idea" if you value treating suffering people well at all. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:55, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Recent changes to Accelerationism[edit]

There recently occurred a complete replacement of the content of that article resulting in large changes in meaning. The current state of the article defines and conceptualizes accelerationism in a way dramatically different from the state of the article before the change. It refers to accelerationism as defined by the old state of the article as "pseudo-accelerationism" and characterizes it as misrepresentation. Though it seems quite possible that this change brings an overall improvement in the article's accuracy, it seems advisable to direct some additional attention toward it to assure the accuracy and quality of the new state of the article. This new state seems to have primarily been created by a single user, seemingly prompted by a talk page edit by an IP user with no other contribution history. (talk) 19:19, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

It looks problematic although I'm unsure about the older version. The user deleted the entire article lede without justification. The first half of the lede was entirely uncontroversial. The older version was itself a bit questionable in my opinion, as it went on about "Immanentizing the eschaton" in religion, which isn't the common meaning of the term accelerationism (contrast Wikipedia's accelerationismWikipedia's W.svg which is focused on Marxism and similar ideologies) - one of the references for the Christian version isn't online and the other doesn't mention accelerationism at all. It may be that "immanentizing the eschaton" is the same as accelerationism, but I've no way of confirming this. So I'm not sure if the article should focus solely on Marxist-style accelerationism (pushing capitalism to the extreme to make it flip) or also cover immanentizing the eschaton but explain the link more clearly. (Declaration of interest: I had a run-in with the same user who made similarly drastic changes on other articles: they seemed to feel entitled to delete anything they disagreed with.) --Annanoon (talk) 15:21, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
It seems that we may be talking about at least slightly different revisions of the article. I do not see references to the religious concept you mention in the versions just preceding the changes. Additionally, the series of changes I was talking about replaced a lot more than the lede section. Almost the entire content of the article was replaced, as evidenced by this diff between the states of the article before and after those changes: In what revision did you find the reference to the religious concept you mentioned? Sorry if I am simply confused due to lack of experience here. Also, during these events, another user with no other contribution history made an edit inserting a note which seems to make potentially uncritical use of the concept of autogynephilia: (talk) 05:14, 24 August 2019 (UTC)(I am the same user who made the first post under this heading, now editing at a different location.)


Admittedly a hobby of mine is online debating, and lately I've been seeing a lot of K's from religious nut-jobs (claims like the "unborn" are human and women are not... always with a healthy dose of Word Salad). Would this be a good topic for a page? Perhaps detailing the different types used by crazies, and how to counter them? Ragnar (talk) 01:51, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I admit, I don't understand the "k" reference here. Kencolt (talk) 09:09, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
So, you want to create yet another page about people generally talking bollocks on the internet and call it "kritik"? Well, Google's predictive text assumed I wanted to know the meaning of a Hindi, Bengali or Telugu word. And Google then turned up one actual result for "kritik", from Urban Dictionary and written 13 years ago. So on the whole, creating a page called "Kritik" really isn't looking like a god idea to me. Spud (talk) 09:47, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
I also don't think it's a good idea to create a page based on a word that also exists on Urban Dictionary. Just looking up "RationalWiki" on Urban Dictionary should say enough. Tinribmancer (talk) 12:41, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Kritik is a type of argument used in high school policy debate courses. It's a philosophical argument as opposed to a policy argument. In my humble opinion, they're almost entirely absurd, but I've never encountered anyone who takes them seriously. It's just a cheese strat to beat scared freshmen. Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 13:38, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
If you want to know more: read this. Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 13:39, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback everyone. And yeah, I agree that they're almost entirely absurd, like creationism and other BS. Ragnar (talk) 00:15, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Your daily dose of bullshit[edit]

Old video but still-

Somehow drugs, demons, witchcraft and zombies are completely related to each other. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:21, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Of course they are. You see, drugs are created by demons. Demons were made via witchcraft. And witchcraft also created Zombies. OPEN YOUR EYES!!!!! Tinribmancer (talk) 12:37, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Well, a more linear chain would be that demons grant power to witches, who make zombies using infernal drugs. So, pretty much Voodoo myth per Hollywood. Kencolt (talk) 17:52, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
No fair giving 3 different great Buffy the Vampire Hunter episode ideas. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:01, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
^I don't know how to this post. But this post.^ Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:26, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
I am Molag Bal, the Lord of Domination. Oxyaena Harass 09:11, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

A new study suggests ingesting fluoride during pregnancy lowers your child’s IQ - were the conspiracy theorists right?[edit]

I heard about it from this article:, here’s the study. Should fluoride be removed from water across the globe? Should we all avoid fluoride or should only pregnant women? At the very least this warrants a mention in all the articles on this wiki on the subject of fluoride. Christopher (talk) 21:09, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

If your going to JAQ off that hard, wear a condom. Revolverman (talk) 22:01, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
IQ is a racist bullshit measure of intelligence.RipCityLiberal (talk) 21:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Having a lower IQ is objectively a bad thing, and IQ is a decent measure of intelligence especially with children. Certain racial groups have lower IQs because of increased rates of poverty, poorer quality schools, etc, due to historical and continuing racism, not because IQ itself is racist.
Did you actually read the articles or just see the word IQ and write a knee-jerk response?
What is your explanation of these results, if IQ is bullshit? Christopher (talk) 21:31, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
The explanation is that this is an interesting result, indeed. But it is just one study. I agree with one criticism that the fact that it affected boys and not girls doesn't make too much sense to me. To be cautious, limiting fluoridated water while pregnant might be a good idea until further studies clarify the effect. Do note, however, that the same applies for several other food sources -- tea, black tea in particular, is known to typically contain fluoride in significant quantity. Soundwave106 (talk) 12:42, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
"The fact that it affected boys and not girls" is not a fact. It's a [quintessential example of P-hacking]: analyze the data from a bunch of different angles until you find one that shows a "statistically significant" result. Pyro (talk) 17:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Right in that article, there are those that criticize the study and call it flawed. It's worth following those links. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 21:37, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Are you also going to state that fluoride in the water is turning the frogs gay? Tinribmancer (talk) 22:51, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
So... we're talking about the Full Scale IQ test administered to 3 year olds(such tests are notoriously unreliable at such a young age), across communities(which to be fair is a necessary condition for such studies) finding only negative correlation among boys(heck, the girls have the opposite trend line), the overall shape of trend lines tend to be dominated by outliers on the mg/L scale, with the predictive gap between 10th percentile and 90th percentile of 2 points? It's worthy of following up, but yes you're a conspiracy theorist to start with an absurd conclusion and scrounge for any evidence that even marginally bares out your worldview. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:15, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Sexist & Transphobic game devs[edit]

Back story, the developers of a game called Ion Fury (this is supposed to be the spiritual successor to Duke Nukem 3D Atomic Edition) made some sexist & transphobic slurs in their game and on a discord channel. Fans found out and called them out on this and later on, the devs called these people "SJW's".

If this was 2015, they'd definitely be supporting GamerGate... Tinribmancer (talk) 22:49, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

"Something I don't really understand about the social justice stuff is that they have stuff like the 'slut walk' which I thought was about the right to not be harassed for how they dress but then if you portray women dressed the same way you get shit for it."

Do these guys not understand the concept of agency and context? --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 22:54, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
No, they don't understand. Like me, the US education system probably failed them. If it's no trouble, can I bother you for a cup of understanding this concept, neighbor? Zponk (talk) 04:23, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Sucks that 8chan isn't online anymore, rite? Tinribmancer (talk) 10:07, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
4Chan still rages on (though with "greater contrast" than 8chan, /pol/ exists there but /lgbt/ exists too). Generally speaking, the people who are making SJW type comments are the exact reason why "slut walks" are a thing, so I'm not expecting them to get it. Soundwave106 (talk) 12:31, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Not surprising if you know that 8Chan was founded by people who hated 4chan's "dictatorship". Wouldn't be surprised if many 8Channers (if 8Chan disappears permanently), would return or migrate to 4Chan. Tinribmancer (talk) 12:43, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

The comment section at IGN is also pretty... eh... Tinribmancer (talk) 23:08, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

first the ooblets drama and now this. What a time to be an epic gamer.--Yay for me, Rbl sigpic.png RightyBlueLuigi!(Not a Mod) 01:06, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
How are these kinds of transphobic comments tolerated still? And so much persecution here. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 18:48, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

So, it seems people on Steam have been downvoting the game "en masse", for "bending the knee to bullies"...

I'm surprised that I haven't seen this (yet) on GOG, since most GOG users are still angry at Beamdog for the whole Baldur's Gate thing (they literally downvote every single release from them, including the Neverwinter Nights remake, into oblivion.). These are the only 2 comments (for now) on the game's comment page.Tinribmancer (talk) 10:07, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

So it's fine to bully people, only if they get to bully trans people or "weird" people, but if people apologize for their transgression, then it's the victim bullying the devs. That sounds about right. БaбyЛuigiOнФire(T|C) 19:29, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Buddhist Detachment[edit]

I'm sorry if this offends Buddhists (ironic I know) but no matter how much they try to describe detachment as not being indifferent literally all the examples they describe is the definition of indifference. If you don't mind it's presence or it's absence then that is indifference. How is that a quality to cultivate?Machina (talk) 05:09, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Indifference is the state of not caring, detachment is a heightened state created by mental effort. I'm not sure how you could consider them the same except by having an overly shallow viewpoint. NekoDysk 15:10, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Except the entire article literally mentions the definition of not caring. If you don't mind the absence or the presence of something then that is indifference or detachment. You can't care about something and be detached.Machina (talk) 18:56, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Yeah but just because you don't care about something doesn't mean you are indifferent. These are not synonyms in a spiritual sense. Albeit that they may be so in plain dictionary English. NekoDysk 19:37, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Indifference is a temporal concept. Here is an exercise: Say you do not like to eat apples. Your master sits you down and puts an apple down in front of you. Your task is to sit there in that spot and gaze at the apple until you become indifferent to it's presence. Remember, you hate apples. Soon, after gazing for 24-36 hours, the apple may not look so bad. When you decide to leave, the master will instruct you to eat the apple. If you like the apple you not indifferent.If you do not like the apple you are not indifferent. It is not so easy to pass this test. Ariel31459 (talk) 00:48, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
That sounds like a rather idiotic test that is fighting biology. Every person has different tastes, especially when it comes to something spicy. You don't have control over whether you like or dislike something, or whether you believe something or not. It seems like these masters don't understand the brain that well. Plus it just sounds like a way to turn someone into a rock more or less. Without likes or dislikes, or any sort of value then you wouldn't do anything. Even the act of teaching students is a value judgment. It's not really passing a test so much as conditioning someone like pavlov's dog.Machina (talk) 01:22, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Also indifferent is literally the same as not caring. If you don't mind the presence or the absence of something that is literal indifference. It seems rather contradictory for them to also talk about compassion and virtue while talking about non attachment.Machina (talk) 01:22, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
I see you are determined to make excuses for not understanding. It is fine to not understand. Getting comfortable with your own ignorance is very important. Ariel31459 (talk) 01:41, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── It's more like pointing out the obvious flaws in their philosophy. Not to mention that test sounds like some torture experiment.Machina (talk) 01:47, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Not really, the flaw is in your understanding, not in the philosophy itself. NekoDysk 01:52, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
That's the excuse they always make for Buddhism when people question it. Like how detachment is not compatible with love and wanting liberate people from suffering.Machina (talk) 02:04, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
I mean based on what they say you should not care about anything because it isn't going to last anyway. From what I see detachment just leaves you like a rock and frozen, like a balanced scale. If you don't give any side any weight it doesn't move.Machina (talk) 02:57, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
That's a fair metaphor, and I think you're doing a fair job of, ahem, weighing in? Let me straighten my bow tie real quick. But again, you don't have to necessarily care about anything to add a rock to the scale. I, personally, enjoy my scale being balanced. However, my personal endeavors in keeping my own balance must occasionally require me dropping something heavy onto somebody else's scale, when their scale seems extremely unbalanced but also functionally includes me. I don't think we'd say that's unfair, but working the same metaphor to talk about two different ideas doesn't help. So can we at least agree to the dangers of speaking in metaphor to describe metaphor? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:05, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Well the metaphor is just to show how you can't really live a life unattached. The example he mentioned with the apple just sounds like the cruel psychology they did with conditioning, telling yourself to not enjoy the apple or to not dislike it. I didn't expect them to go that far.Machina (talk) 05:39, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Though if I am being honest I didn't know about that part with the apple. That was news to me. Though much of Buddhist practices seem more like building a certain type of human rather than seeing reality as it is. As for detachment, I'm sorry but the common excuse of "you just don't get it" doesn't fly anymore because all Buddhists throw that one out when backed into a corner or pressed on certain aspects of their works. They blame the person to dodge criticism. I'm sorry but detachment doesn't seem compatible with their values on love and compassion, and it makes it even more baffling how some Buddhists who preach this are married. It's indifference and no amount of cognitive dissonance is going to change that.Machina (talk) 00:11, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Detachment is a high ideal, just like forgiveness. The world doesn't change much by one person who chooses to/fails at existing detached from it, or by anyone who chooses/fails at adopting a forgiveness model. They are lofty perceptions that contradict the human experience, and not being able to detach from or forgive that contradiction is pretty human too. My opinion is it is so important to do either of these whenever you can, but so difficult in practice, that the action looks/sounds/feels/ hell, tastes and smells deistic when you see somebody get it or when you come pretty damn close yourself. At least, that's what my honest interpretations of the base ideas of the words detachment and forgiveness must forgive and detach from within their intentional meaning. So when you're told "you just don't get it" well, maybe you do, maybe you don't, it's really hard to weigh because the metric is intangible for both parties. I know it's frustrating to see hypocrisy in an adherent or zealot or tourist of an ideal. But in my opinion, we call them the ideals because they are within our reason to comprehend but beyond our functional grasp, the pure definitions kind of require a state outside of the human experience to achieve. Which is not to say they are inaccurate, but that they are a little less than tangible. I mean we have words for guilt and regret, too. But, of course, try explaining that. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:09, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Our Clinton Pages[edit]

Why are both of them under the Pedophile category? Lewinsky was fucking 18! Tinribmancer (talk) 16:29, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

@Tinribmancer I thought I reverted that nonsense, I'll go fix it... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:30, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Old guard Christopher put them under this section on the 11th and 13th of August. He also put Trump under said category. Tinribmancer (talk) 16:32, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Gonna guess the Epstein connections BOTH of them have. Revolverman (talk) 16:50, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
It's not without merit, buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut you know, living people, obvious libel, two tastes that taste even worse together. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:43, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Well essentially we can't go saying everyone from Trump to the Clintons, even Prince Andrew was um, purveying certain services from Epstein until someone actually proves it in court or they confess. Which will probably never happen, sadly. NekoDysk 17:50, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Chances to prove such things in court were destroyed in the suicide. There's not going to be a single trial related to Epstein. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:54, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Sadly, yes. Not worth it to step into that mud pit, honestly. Revolverman (talk) 18:11, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Presumably Katie Johnson knows if it's true that Trump raped her when she was 13[1], but she doesn't seem to be talking any more. It's certainly a stretch to add the category to Trump at the moment, but maybe some day the truth will out. --Annanoon (talk) 08:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Monica was at least 22 years of age at the time of her involvement with Clinton. Clinton claims to have met with Epstein only while accompanied by his Secret Service security detail, which would have followed him everywhere, and should know the identity of anyone capable of being in Clinton's physical presence, from January 21, 1993 until from now on. Ariel31459 (talk) 01:26, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Ah but if you look at the Clinton body count you will see that all the secret service agents were assassinated too! Er, I mean, they committed suicide. And all the journalists that knew as well! And a few dozen completely random people that just happened to have died, because, um, they had dirt on the Clintons too!! It's a conspiracy!!! Wake up sheeple!!!! /s NekoDysk 01:32, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
@RobSmith This seems like your kind of "case." Oxyaena Harass 08:04, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Ah but @RobSmith, have you looked into Trump's involvement with Epstein? NekoDysk 08:09, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes. (a) There are no known accusations of child sex against Trump. (b) Virginia Roberts Guiffre was employed at Mar-A-Lago where Epstein met her. (c) After Epstein's 2008 conviction, Trump banned Epstein from all Trump properties. (d) Guiffre and other victims' lawyer publicly stated that Trump was the only person willing to give information on Epstein, as the 2008 documents were sealed until recent months. nobsDie fascists! Make America Great! 23:53, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
The fact you're willing to vote for a literal sexual predator speaks volumes, Nobs. Oxyaena Harass 03:18, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
No. The fact Rationalwiki has an Epstein apologist as Mod speaks volumes. I'm expecting a severed cat head on my lawn next. [2] nobsDie fascists! Make America Great! 17:47, 24 August 2019 (UTC)


Oxyaena Harass 22:42, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Oh look, a person ranting at a camera about their opinions. This is a video that's worth my time and energy. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:05, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Beau is one of those so-called redneck anarchists and is also a journalist. Fuck off with the sarcasm. Oxyaena Harass 17:51, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
The novelty of these three all being descriptors of one person. :P NekoDysk 19:26, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
I do not care for this kind of video. It does not influence my opinion as to the views and nature of the person making the video. My sarcasm remains warranted. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:36, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
This is a strong response to something you don't like. And I get it. I didn't really enjoy it either, I wouldn't ask anyone to be influenced by it, but whether the points are sold in a way that you want to consume or not, and whether the points are necessarily true or conjecture, there is an overarching point, and while we can agree that the choice of media isn't something we enjoy, throwing your hand over your forehead and draping yourself over a chair because it is just. so. tedious. doesn't mean you have a point to contradict the content. That is, when interfering with force, there must be a moment where you can admit your force isn't conducive to what you actually want out of the situation. And the longer you do it, the harder it is to admit you're losing sight of what you wanted and should have just stayed out of the game you didn't want to play. Like playing WoW, are you just going to give up on your free trial level 10 character because you don't like the game anymore, or are you going to start paying that monthly subscription to keep that character alive?
And don't get me wrong, I'm with you and admit to being susceptible to media that strikes me. The mmoRPG format is not appealing to me, I would hope it isn't to anybody, it's a grift. But I will occasionally spend way too much time or money on a thing I like, if the format is something that I'm amenable to, even if it doesn't mean anything. I'm not confused about how small a 9x12 is, but I probably would have dropped $80 on this if I could have. The painting doesn't mean anything special to me, and I don't have a collection that I could add it to. Probably would have still thrown the $80 at it, and I can't explain why that is OK, probably because it isn't. The points in this video here took 8 minute of my time and honestly, whether I like the format of ranting longform at a camera or not, had a few things in there that were totally worth the 8 minutes to hear out.
I don't think any huge revelation or secretly informed prediction is made here. But I don't think any super jump cut made-to-be-sold video was made here either, I think this guy is speaking openly and if you don't want to hear it, it's not your prerogative to complain about the format exclusively. There's a ton of content on YouTube. All of it can't be the worst thing you've ever seen. And again, you don't have to enjoy the media, you don't have to enjoy the content, but being frustrated about one aspect doesn't seem like a good place to start criticism. Similar to enjoying the media and being a little too uncritical of the content. I ain't mad at ya. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:36, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Who the hell fucked with my video link? Oxyaena Harass 03:17, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Cool it. It was probably me. I don't know how to wiki. I do my best, but I fuck up like, every time. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:29, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Conflating anti-Israel sentiments with being antisemitic[edit]

This is blowing my mind. Why is it so fucking difficult for the GOP to understand that being anti-Israel does not necessarily make one antisemitic? This conflation is such a basic breach of logical inference that I'm genuinely amazed how widespread it is.

Like, I get it. Israel, on the world stage, is unique in the fact that it's a religious state, and the exclusive religious state of Jews. But it's also unique for about a thousand other different non-religious reasons - so if you have an issue with any of those other reasons, it doesn't mean your opinion was formed out of antisemitism.

I keep hearing people calling to condemn Tlaib and Omar for their antisemitic views but I just, genuinely, don't see it. And if it's a subtext thing, why aren't they holding Trump to the same standard? TheUnderOver (talk) 12:31, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Once upon a time I thought long and hard on the Israel/Palestine matter. Then I came to a conclusion, both sides suck donkey cock for all the bullshit they've pulled. Thus I decided to support neither. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:03, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Generally, when I hear "fuck Israel!" in the left commentary peanut gallery, it seems to be more "fuck Netanyahu's Israeli policies!" than anything else, Tlaib and Omar included. Phrasing could be better in some cases, but such is usually nothing like the genuinely anti-semitic drivel you hear and see on the white nationalist / fascist side of discourse. If Trump wants to know why American Jews are drifting towards "disloyalty" (in his ugly words, eg, towards the Democratic party), he could start by looking in a mirror, then by looking at some of his biggest fanboy boards where his biggest fans complain about (((globalists))). (In fact I would bet some of those "on that side" are a bit pissed that Trump is friendly with Netanyahu...) Soundwave106 (talk) 13:30, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't have opinions about Jews as Jews. I do think my own government ought to stop enabling Netanyahu. And IME the biggest Israel boosters of my acquaintance are not Jews but self-proclaimed Christians who believe in end times prophecy and magine that Israel's existence is an omen of the End Times. That entire belief system is treason. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 14:48, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
You think they don't understand it, rather than being purposefully dishonest? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:10, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Oh, I 100% believe that the people orchestrating these campaigns are being purposefully dishonest. But I guess I prefer to argue against them on the assumption that they are also arguing in good faith - because otherwise, there isn't even really a discussion to be had. You tell people "You know, that pundit you're listening to is lying to you on purpose" and they don't listen to you because that sounds ridiculous to them - you have to argue on the assumption of good faith to make any ground. TheUnderOver (talk) 15:16, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Which is why we're all fucking doomed. If disbelieving shitty, purposely dishonest assholes on awful overproduced cable news channels is a line that can't be crossed, there is not reasoning to be had. The other side of that line just has to be your enemy. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:03, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Generally speaking people criticizing Israel are not being anti-semitic, however a lot of criticism of Israel can stray into anti-semitism very easily, and the line is very fuzzy. It's pretty common for the far-left to advocate for Israel to not exist and their opponents to claim this as anti-semitism. And even more moderate people such as Jeremy Corbyn have been involved in massive scandals over perceived anti-semitic sentiment. Obviously the only solution to this is for the US military to intervene to deport all the Palestinians to Africa, and establish Greater Israel under the control of the King of Israel Emperor Donald J. Trump, the self proclaimed second coming of God.[3] NekoDysk 16:13, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I have nothing against Jewish people. The ethnic group does not bother me but the Israeli government is nuts. There is a difference between not liking a group of people and a government. I don't like the idea of my government dumping money into Israel. Free Palestine!!! --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:49, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
I would have agreed with you maybe 3-4 years ago about the gray area, Dysk. Now I see far more open "kill the jews" nazis on the unabashedly pro-Israel side than against it. Mostly because they like the ethnostate that has been established with first and second class citizens as a model for other countries, and a lot of them are happy to have a place they can fantasize about deporting American Jews to. It's win-win for genuine antisemites. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:58, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes a solid proportion of modern white ethno-nationalists are very happy for other ethic groups to have their own non-white ethno-states as long as that means there are no non-whites in their own white only ethno-state... NekoDysk 19:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

In brief, this is the same category error that is made by practically everyone. That is, widening the definition of a term to suit the current situation. Terms that are over-used may become ineffective. Ariel31459 (talk) 21:41, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

It is true that some criticism of Israel is simply veiled anti-semitism. That being said, I rarely see or read that these days. I'd say about 95% of the times people accuse those critical of Israel related anti-semitism, there isn't anything remotely anti-semitic about the criticism. "The Palestine wall is evil" which is met with: "You are an anti-semite. We have the right to defend ourselves". As though the only way Israel can defend itself is by being a religious state totally separate from Arab-Christians and Arab-Muslims with a wall in between. My criticism of the state of Israel is based solely on the fact that it is a religious state, which I find abhorrent, just as I find the Islamic Republic of Iran and Myanmar (a virtual Bhuddist state) and the Vatican as, a concept, rather offensive to humanist sensibilities. Judaism, Islam and Bhuddism are religions. A group of people with a set of ideas. Not a race. None of them have any right to their own singular religious state regardless of the immense suffering and diaspora over the centuries. None of this is anti-semitic or Islamophoic. It is an objection to the use of religion at the state level which invariably leads to excessive injustice as it does in Myanmar as much as in Iran and Israel. Their right to exist, for me, is only based on the fact that they are now an established nation, not because of their homelessness and vicious persecution in Europe. If that were the case then saying the Xingjian muslims of China don't automatically have the right to their home state would make you an Islamophobe. Which is ridiculously absurd. So while I agree with their right to exist, that doesn't give them the right to exist as a singular Jewish state, separated along ethnic and linguistic lines, with whatever territorial boundaries they desire, committing some seriously excessive injustices in the name of "protecting themselves", precluding the possibility of a single state solution and so on and so on. Despite none of this being anti-semitic: just about everything I've said here has been, is being and will be labelled anti-semitic. Even though it isn't. ShabiDOO 00:48, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Is sexual desire false?[edit]

Apparently they say that sexual desire is false because it disappears as soon as the object of the desire is gone, but how the hell does that make it false?Machina (talk) 02:06, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

The simple answer is no. The complex answer is, well, complex. Sexual drive is the result of sensory input and per-existing psychological inclinations interacting with hormonal surges. This results in arousal which is generally relieved by either orgasm or cessation/reduction of blood flow and input. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
So the linked article is wrong then?Machina (talk) 04:25, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Buddhism's whole shtick is "temporary things aren't real", I thought you would've noticed by now. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:4525:F1E7:FFA1:897 (talk) 03:59, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
What does "false" mean? If you define "false" to mean "impermanent" then the statement is true, which seems to be what Buddhists are doing. This is not the meaning of "false" in formal logic, although if you look up "false" in a dictionary it means loads of different things, including in some contexts "not essential or permanent".[4] --Annanoon (talk) 10:46, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
I can attest to having sex with a person, and then believing with everything you've got that they are the smartest, most attractive person on the planet. It becomes complicated the first time you hook up no matter who it is. It is kind of a trait of hooking up, how we interpret partners after sex, but it does not line up with how we have to work with our partners. That is the harder route. If it's not intentional, it's not worth much, and if you knew as many people with kids they either don't get to see or pay child support for, you'd get what I mean by intentional. And getting out of the relationship sometimes requires a bit more than the angry breakup we see in movies and on tv. Sometimes you have to explain the breakup for days, sometimes the relationship happens again after a couple of years, sometimes you can't explain the relationship even if you tried. A lot of this is self-criticism. Buddhism, come at me. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:01, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't think anyone uses the definition of false as something that is temporary, we just call it temporary. But the logic is that if you recognize it as temporary then you won't try to fulfill it or chase it because it will vanish in time (the desire). If have tried to apply that to being gay, but it hasn't worked out that well. Probably because I just started.Machina (talk) 06:07, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

The Squad[edit]

Likes: 2.821 Dislikes: 31.899

The mayority of youtube's community seems to be Trumpist/Republican... Tinribmancer (talk) 12:11, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

The more I explore the internet, the more it seems to become apparent that most organic online communities are intensely Right-leaning due to the speed at which their style of rhetoric spreads. However, a big part of being a successful Right-leaning online community is constantly complaining about how their opinions are actively being squashed and censored by the authoritarian Left despite the fact that these communities fester unrelentingly like a goddamn cancer. So despite the fact that they've slowly taken over the internet, they'll always feel like they're the ones fighting against the tide. TheUnderOver (talk) 12:28, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
There is a certain segment of the "right wing" ala Gamergate that dramatically over-represent themselves online. It seems that this lot has have nothing to do with their time other than shill mobvote things they perceive to be Wrong With Society. Communities like r/The_Donald were never the most popular on Reddit, but were always some of the most heavily trafficked. So this clip probably attracted some meme somewhere in right wing shill communities (indeed, Googling the clip URL brings up links from 4Chan and gun forums. To borrow their language, apparently The Simpsons TRIGGERED THE CONSERVACUCKS LOL!) That being said, I will say, the Simpsons has not been relevant since Season 8 or so. (But I could say similar about right-wing darlings like South Park, for actually a much shorter season span.) Soundwave106 (talk) 13:02, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Totally agree that the Gamergate community is way smaller than they appear to be, but I see the same style of false Right-wing persecution, despite all evidence to the contrary, on websites with communities that are very clearly not affiliated with the GG controversy (though I don't deny some sort of contamination effect). My own state's biggest news website ( is a prime example - every single comment section is a massive Right-wing circlejerk yet they're also always complaining about how they can't express themselves because of their opinions. It drives me nuts. TheUnderOver (talk) 13:36, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
In the case of old media commentary sections, I think that's more the retired Boomer sect that also has have nothing to do with their time other than moan about things they perceive to be Wrong With Society. "Back in my day" the fashion was writing letters to the editor and (to borrow a joke from the tail-end of when the Simpsons was actually relevant and funny) yelling at clouds and whatnot. Now they have Fox News. And yes, as the Proclaimers noted in 2001, it seems like everybody in the USA is a victim, those on the extreme-y ends of politics doubly so. Soundwave106 (talk) 15:35, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Most YouTubers I met were Centrist leaning left and Liberal. I have not met very many centrists leaning right and Republicans. Then again, the EAS community is fairly liberal and that is the community I am part of. Plenty of LGBT people in it and people who oppose Drumpf. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 14:01, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
It's got nothing to do with being republicans. It's got everything to do with being really fucking unfunny and terribly written. What the fuck are you on about? People hate it because it's got no charm. People hate it because it completely sterilizes the fairly complex political messages of those women to be "women who scare trump haha". People hate it because just listen to how badly acted it is. People hate it because it's not even a good parody of "In America"(which was a better takedown of racist american culture than this is tbh). People hate it because it's New Simpsons and it sucks ass. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:25, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
I haven't watched any Simpson episodes for atleast 10 years or so, but seen a recommendation video a few months ago on Youtube (for some reason). The title was something like "This Is What Killed The Simpsons" and was 25 min. long. What's the difference between older ones and newer ones? Tinribmancer (talk) 18:23, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Dynamic if simple animation that was hand drawn vs flat animation that's cheap to produce with computers that has no thought put into it, writing with charm vs infinitely recycled visual gags, people who care vs complete apathy, progressive values defining the emotional core of the show vs no emotional core at all, stand alone conceptual episode ideas vs just constantly hinging on "special guests", shades of character depth vs extensive flanderization, a word quite literally invented to describe the kind of deterioration The Simpsons went through, "jokes" built entirely of "[character] has [trait]" that stretch on for literal minutes.
I had the unfortunate joy of taking an international flight recently, and they had new simpsons episodes on their netflixlike service. And man, the stark reality of what I saw. 30 years is just too long for any comedy to last. Simpsons was one foot in the grave when you stopped watching a decade ago. Now it's a zombie, with the face of a once loved one, groaning and hostile. This graph is a pretty good summary. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:12, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm as liberal as they come. Donald Trump is my second least favourite person alive (after my boss). But if I were forced at gunpoint to give that clip either a thumbs up or a thumbs down, I'd have to give it a thumbs down. And that's for all the reasons that Ikanreed has already stated so well. Spud (talk) 05:57, 24 August 2019 (UTC)



One down, a lot more to go Tanker One (talk) 13:51, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the problem is not that of individuals, but of groups. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:05, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I changed it, But its still a victory, however small Tanker One (talk) 14:41, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

how the fuck is some ones death a 'victory'? AMassiveGay (talk) 14:55, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Because he personally has funded more agit-prop that actively hurts humanity than literally any other person alive or dead in human history. It's theoretically possible to overstate the harm an organized, well funded campaign of misinformation centered around climate change denial has done to the world, but it's really fucking hard to do so ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:22, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Mark Twain sums up my thoughts pretty well: "I've never wished a man dead, but I have read some obituaries with great pleasure." TheUnderOver (talk) 15:26, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

The man may be dead, but his ideologies and assets are alive and well, continuing to push in his interests. A hollow victory, at best. (talk) 15:42, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

How long do y'all think it'll be until Charles dies too?Summa Atheologica (talk) 15:43, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

aside from his death not really achieving anything, aside from the repugnance of celebrating anyones death, 'victory' would imply that this was somehow planned, rather than fortuitous accident. its both repugnant and bullshit. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:03, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

its the same level as this AMassiveGay (talk) 18:07, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Death has its uses as propaganda. During the second world war, Yammamoto was shot down and killed was declared a "Victory", even though the Japanese still had most of the Pacific. When FDR died, the Nazis declared this a "Victory". A victory is not just we won, it can be propaganda as well, by declaring victory as they have lost a important figurehead.Tanker One (talk) 19:48, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
@Tanker One your name combined with your statement is worrying. Commie Lib (talk) 21:48, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
@Comeie Lib Are you implying that I am a Wheraboo or a Neo Nazi?Tanker One (talk) 23:55, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
The fact that the Nazis did it is a really good reason to not do it.Ariel31459 (talk) 23:12, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, But I was making a point in that some cases victory doesn't have to involve you planning it, and you can just say that it's good for us and bad for them, claiming victory. But I agree, you should never do what the Nazis did. Or really any fascists. Tanker One (talk) 23:51, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I feel more sad for the crickets and black widows spiders I killed yesterday than this man tbh. БaбyЛuigiOнФire(T|C) 02:54, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

At one point I mentioned a guy who got nicknamed "Abortion Guy". Here is the details of it[edit]

In all honesty when he was murdered, my thought was "good riddance". Dude was fucking insane. I remember his annoying and disturbing protests considering that he protested abortion outside the middle school I went to. He held his gory (and inaccurate) signs showing aborted babies. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:20, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Democratic Candidates[edit]

So, who has a chance to beat Trump? Tinribmancer (talk) 23:09, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I hope it's Bernie, But the politco poll shows Biden in the lead with Sanders behind in second. Tanker One (talk) 00:04, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
It depends on the poll really. For one I wouldn't trust any sponsored by corporate filth. Oxyaena Harass 06:10, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

DuckDuckGo delisting kiwifarms[edit]

Has this been confirmed by Yegg? Are we sure this is being done by DDG and not just Bing doing it and DDG is just inevitably having the same thing happen to it? And does anybody know why only some people are seeing it? I tried searching for kiwifarms and it showed up, but some other people today are reporting that it's not there, so I'd like to know what anybody knows about it.

Also, lol at the butthurt kiwis complaining about how DDG "claimed to be a freeze peach platform." No, actually, I've read their ToS, their privacy policy, and significant parts of their marketing copy. They never claimed to be anti-censorship. They claimed to be anti-tracking. Search engines are inherently content curation platforms, and have to engage in choosing which sites to return as top results and which one to filter out. Pyro (talk) 01:21, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

No one wants to host a forum filled with creepy, sad, pathetic stalkers who have never accomplished a remotely successful thing in their life. БaбyЛuigiOнФire(T|C) 02:53, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Duck Duck Go is good, it's still my search engine of choice. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 05:55, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Not delisted by DDG on my end. DDG piggybacks some on Bing I think, and Bing *has* apparently delisted them. A search on Bing brings up not the forum link... but the Wiki on them, plus the RationalWiki entry, Encyclopedia Dramatica entry, Know Your Meme entry, and Lolcow Wiki (!) entry. Also a link to my local grocery chain, should I be interested in some tasty fruit. Soundwave106 (talk) 13:05, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

RW problems[edit]

What happened?

Earlier RW was unavailable with some sort of varnish problem.

Now at the top of the saloon bar is a message 'Error creating thumbnail: File missing.' Anna Livia (talk) 12:47, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

That happened with the creationism side bar with me. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 12:54, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
The backend webserver, apache4, was down for about 45 minutes (11:13-11:57) due to a hardware issue, described by Linode as emergency maintenance. Then there was a configuration issue which caused the host to stay down for another 10 minutes or so after the hardware issue was resolved. While I was fixing it, there was a brief period (about 5 minutes) in which the site was up but the images volume was not mounted, causing uncached images to be missing, and image thumbnail creations to fail. If you see missing thumbnails, using action=purge should fix them. -- Tim Starling (talk) 13:40, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
It's possible it actually went down as early as 09:30 UTC, I only checked the status of the site when I saw the email notification at 11:13. At 09:30 there was an initial "emergency maintenance" period imposed by Linode, ending at 09:52, but as I say, there was no way the host could have been successfully rebooted since its /etc/fstab was broken. The broken fstab was a mistake I made during the server migration I did in July. -- Tim Starling (talk) 13:48, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Broken images?[edit]

Michael_Coombs images have vanished. Dinosaurs (talk) 14:59, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

See the section directly above, the site was affected by a Linode outage. NekoDysk 15:03, 24 August 2019 (UTC)