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.
Icon beer yellow.gif For previous conversations see the automagic barchives. Winoes.gif

What is going on?

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

To do list

What support I did have for Trump is officially gone[edit]

I cannot take the push for the wall nor the newest set of childish behavior. I tried so fucking hard to give a benefit of a doubt, no more. Even my mom and oldest brother, by the way were Trump supporters, even had enough of the crap.

Welcome to America of 2018 folks! Oh The Humanity!!!! --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 03:44, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Looks like Trump supporters are starting to see the writing on the wall. - Mob boss (Butcher my flaming corpse) 6:04 AM, 11/28/18 EST
Ironically I kinda liked him before he ran for president, when he was just an American Lord Sugar. ^_^ This message is approved by Dysklyver Gears.png Ensign of the Duke of Cornwall.svg (brebmyn) 12:04, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Same here, I supported Bernie before HRC won the nomination, I was actually undecided for most of it. Unsure of who to vote for. - Pinto bean eating motherfucker (Bury me alive in my own feces), 7:19 AM, 11/28/18 EST
I used to fucking hate the guy, nowadays I pretty much don't care about him but I still think he's a jackass. π”Šπ”¬π”žπ”±-π”ˆπ”ͺ𝔭𝔒𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔀𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔑𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔑𝔬π”ͺ/π”žπ” π”₯𝔦𝔒𝔳𝔒π”ͺ𝔒𝔫𝔱𝔰) 15:19, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
I couldn't have said it better myself. Amen.--Don Juan (talk) 15:22, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
If you read Bob Woodward's Fear, one takeaway point is that the good parts of Trump's agenda -- US out of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Korea; dumping free trade deals -- have been systematically undermined by the national-security machine and state capitalism. Trump has turned into an enabler of the worst elements of the Republican party. In 2016, I found Hillary Clinton at best mildly preferable over Trump. She would have been an entirely different kind of disaster, but Trump's failure to stick to his guns is disappointing. Smerdis of Tlân, wekʷōm teḱs. 15:56, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
I seriously thought the childishness was what "you people" liked in the first place. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:59, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I agreed with some of the issues presented. I was not a cult fanatic like the far right. Either way, no more support for Trump. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 21:30, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I have a very very very antagonistic response to that statement, almost immediately, even though your statement is "no more of that" I still feel the need to say "what the fuck" to what you originally believed. Specifically, "agreed with [...] the issues". Pointing at a problem existing is not insightful. "Look, a trade deficit" is mindless. It's banal. Is that really what drew you in? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:59, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
I did not intended to be antagonistic, it was meant for emphasis. As for the issues, I admit I was a sucker- getting rid of NAFTA, better benefits for military and police veterans, using our own oil for gasoline production. Things like that. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:16, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
I too have lost respect for him. And before anyone says "Duh why you respect him at all mindless drone" Is because there was no way to know what would happen if he got elected. Like I knew for a fact the Hillary wasn't gonna do dick. And I wasn't not gonna vote for her cause she has no Y chromosome. But be honest how many of her supporters were open minded. Looking at you @ikanreed. But seriously Trump sucks. TheDarkMaster2 (talk) 00:15, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
@TheDarkMaster2 "And I wasn't gonna vote for her cause she has no Y chromosome." Why does that matter? (talk) 02:22, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
I was making a joke you fucking retard and a misspelling you dumb fuck white knight! I said Hey me not voting for her wasn't because she had an XX chromosome. And that the claim that many people didn't vote for her for that reason. which is garbage. Moron why don't you go back to tumblr. TheDarkMaster2 (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Zombie...why did you try so fucking hard to give Trump the benefit of the doubt? What quality about him (other than saying comical nasty shit about everyone) motivated you to forgive every douchey thing done and every terrible unqualified unhinged unprofessional unhuman thing about him? ShabiDOO 10:06, 6 December 2018 (UTC)


the unspoken truths of "enhancing human brains". This comic encapsulates a lot of what I've thought about transhumanist assertions about the future of humanity in a way that I think is pretty close to accurate. I've already got a mathematics co-processor in the form of a cell phone with wolfram alpha, and it has only improved my insight in the most marginal and infrequent of ways. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:57, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

I thought transhumanism was more about getting immortal than having better insight. -Lankaster (talk) 18:55, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
The ideological core of transhumanism is using technology to improve (or sometimes just change) humanity. It can include such beliefs relating to genetic engineering, biohacking, automation, cybernetics, transgender issues, artificial intelligence, government technocracy, and internet sociology, but also terrible things like eugenics or an unhealthy obsession with measurement of abstract human characteristics in order to assign moral value to them. Immortality just tends to be a common aim in those spheres. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:46, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
I feel like it really does a good job of depicting the relationship between people and technology in the Information Age in general. We already have amazing technology with vast potential (e.g., the Internet), and in general we aren't creative enough to make anywhere near the fullest use of it. Like those "artistic" types who shell out on MacBooks ostensibly to do artistic creative endeavours, but who end up just using them to browse Facebook and check email, like they would with any other laptop. I'd come up with other examples, but, proving my point, I'm not all that creative at the moment. You Won't BELIEVE What Astronomers Found In This Neutron Star! - Number Four WILL Shock You! 02:20, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Nowadays what people in the life extension community are talking about is more in the vein of slowing down the biological processes of aging or reversing them in some ways. Better to die at 90 while having the body of a 50 year old than to die at 122 with the body of Jeanne Calment. I think however that the general attitude of transhumanism is becoming important now that human genetic engineering is becoming a reality. This technology has enormous potential to not only cure all genetic diseases and disabilities, but also to decommission the blind force of natural selection and make humans actually intelligently designed. (Goodbye, extremely vulnerable testicles that hang outside your body!) The danger comes when we involve the government: it *must* be involved to a certain extent to assure that this technology is available to everyone and not just to the rich, but on the other hand the government could easily abuse this. The fact that the current research on humans is being done in China terrifies me - it's not hard to imagine nightmare scenarios where prisoners are compelled to undergo unethical genetic experiments against their will. --TeslaK20 (talk) 21:24, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
honestly in my experience cisgender white male transhumanists are really, really boring. and tend to be the ones with those terrible things like eugenics, because they miss the effing point. whatever sterile ubermensch those assholes think is the ideal is uhhhhh so far from it to be absurd, especially when you could, y'know, a cat enby with fiberoptic glowing fur.
a world scrubbed of 'imperfection' is a world built on genocide. — Unsigned, by: / talk
said the imperfect being... Nah, just playin, I'd keep you. In fact, I was going through an old thought experiment of mine last night that might be worth applying here. If aliens came to earth and said "We are only keeping the human species, everything else is done, exterminated, gone. Problem is, we can't tell the difference between humans and elephants and dogs. We need you to tell us which animals are humans, and we need you to be honest, because we've got a count of what we can take, calibrated specifically to humans, and everything is getting wiped right now and it will not work unless it is every human, and nothing but."
So they go through every creature, and I have to say "human, human, dog, human, raccoon, human, etc." and then they get to Harvey Weinstein. I have to say "human" even though I'm thoroughly unhappy about it. But we're looking at a future that isn't guided by who is objectively a human and who objectively deserves trans-humanist technology. We're looking at very subjective access to this. It's not genocide, but what are the parameters for the claim that someone "is not eligible for trans-humanism?"Gol Sarnitt (talk) 06:57, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
That isn't really the claim per se, it's less that they aren't eligible to be transhumanists and more that their ideal is such a boring power fantasy that, whether they realize it or not, relies on eugenicist ideology. There's enough people in the world that think that something like being queer, or being autistic, or having a certain skin color are defects to be eradicated that I cannot trust that the visions of the "perfect being" that these people often have as the goal of transhumanism are done in completely good faith. If something is inaccessible to the poor, weak, downtrodden, and marginalized, it's a toy, not a revolution.
As far as the thought experiment goes, I'd also say Weinstein is a human to the aliens. He must be judged by humans for his actions. As vile as he might be, to say otherwise gives the pretense to the aliens to eradicate any human, and to dehumanize him is to deny the potential for evil that lies within us all. (talk) 05:56, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

World AIDS Day and PrEP[edit]

Hi all,

I'm the Thinker(unlicensed) and I'm new here.

Since it's the 2018 World AIDS Day, what do you think of PrEPWikipedia's W.svg? Thinker(unlicensed) 11:45, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't work well enough. Good idea, bit crap. The future of HIV resistance is apparently genetically modified Chinese babies. Or not. ^_^ This message is approved by Dysklyver Gears.png Ensign of the Duke of Cornwall.svg (brebmyn) 11:53, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention: "When taken consistently, PrEP has been shown to reduce the risk of HIV infection in people who are at high risk by up to 92%." so it seems to work well. On the other hand, right now everything about preventing HIV by genetic engineering is highly speculative (and, anyway, it would help only future genetically modified newborns, not living people). Thinker(unlicensed) 12:25, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
What about the other 8% though? And more importantly, what about the fact that hereditary transmission is pretty much certain if the mother has the disease? I can see why the Chinese are doing what they are doing, because otherwise Children are unfeasible. ^_^ This message is approved by Dysklyver Gears.png Ensign of the Duke of Cornwall.svg (brebmyn) 13:09, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
I think that criticizing PrEP for an 8% failure is asking too much.
In my opinion, the main problems with PrEP are (somebody correct me if I'm wrong) the following:
1) It must be taken daily (!)
2) It costs a lot
3) It doesn't protect from other STDs, so the use of condoms is still recommended
4) Side effects are not well studied
Consequentially, I don't see many situations where PrEP would be a better approach to HIV prevention than using condoms and reducing risky sexual behaviors. Thinker(unlicensed) 13:49, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Condoms aren't 100% effective either. It's hard to accurately measure their effectiveness because it depends on so many factors (including correct use), but studies give figures of anything from 69%-94% at preventing transmission where one partner is seropositive.[1] So even allowing for the methodological differences, lack of direct comparison, etc, PrEP is a possible alternative or addition (I don't have cost comparisons). (This comment is addressed generally, not just to the previous comment.) --Annanoon (talk) 14:57, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
pretty much wrong across the board.
1)you can start taking it a few days before ya big night out and stop little bit after.
2)its cheap compared to providing (the same) medication everyday for the rest of your life, plus any complications if you catch hiv.
3)probably wise, but if your partner is positive you might want to have some options.
4)complete arse. there are few to none
we probs all should use condoms, dental dams, give up fags, and booze, say no to drugs, exercise, eat your greens and what a wonderful world we would have. back in real life prep works. rates of infection are down across the board [(http://www.newscientist.com/article/2117426-massive-drop-in-london-hiv-rates-may-be-due-to-internet-drugs/], and when you factor in medication making those with hiv unifectious - the vast majority of new infections comes from those unaware of their status, its rank stupidity to be uming and ahing over it. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:08, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
as for genetic modification of babies - its an idiotic argument - the idea that 'prep isn't good enough' (it is). but one day in the future someones child (not you) will have immunity? fanstastic. bring it on. get some teleporters up and running while we at. preps here now, for immediate use. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:18, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
1) Are you sure? I read that you must take PrEP daily for it to work
2) I agree that PrEP is cheaper than HIV treatments, but treating a healthy individual with PrEP still costs more than other HIV prevention methods. Such costs are probably exorbitant to prevent HIV in third world countries
3) That is a case in which I see PrEP as a good option: If one is in a stable relation with an HIV-positive partner. But that's no the general case. Thinker(unlicensed) 16:37, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
1 it really depends on your circumstance. if you continually at risk of infection ie, long term partner, you a sex worker, or you just like to party, you need it in your system. if you just like to go crazy at the sauna once a month you dont - few days bfore so its in your system, a few days after to catch any residues traces. if you are no longer at risk you do not need to keep taking the stuff.
2 this is all kind of dependant on having an effective health system in the first place - thats going be the case on literally every health issue everywhere all the time and you will have to rely on condoms, and its never been suggested that this will end hiv forever. the point on cost is you can stop stop taking prep when you are not a risk. infection means a lfe long commitment of daily medication, hospital visits, and associated health difficulties. if you are at risk and you have the option, prep is there. condoms are still there too. preventing that infection in the first. condoms have not been working, the same way abstainence does not work. it sets impossible standards. everywhere where drives for condoms, 'healthy' sexual practises happen, infection rates initially drop then they creep up and up. and lets be clear, prep is only usually offered if you are at risk. if you are a good boy, are monogamous, never too pissed, hold everything while you find a rubber, make all the good life choices then congratulations you can sleep well in your ivory tower, because you wont ever need prep in the first place - you were never at risk. those at risk - its another layer of protection, an effective one. its a puritanical argument to say, well condoms are fine, how about a bit of self control? it condemns people for human failings, it increases the inevitable drain on resources of infection, and makes infection more common because people get infected when they need not increasing the resorvoir. then suddenly you at risk too because its no longer gays and drug users with it.
3 see point 2. its for those risk. no one is suggesting the virginal mother reilly, whole life in a nunnery should dose up in case she gets a bit frisky on the benedictine. some communities are more at risk than others. some idiviuals. people are human. they have human failings. they make poor choices. they sometimes get dealt a shitty hand. prep helps prevent compounding those problems. if we all could live as saints there would be no need for many things. we cannot, and must face reality. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:24, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
1) If I had to guess, I would say that there is some time window within if you take PrEP you are protected, so what you said would make sense. However I keep finding sources recommending a daily dose, and without knowing how long such time window would be I cannot speculate.
2) The type of health system can help lowering the cost for the single individual, by moving it to the community, but the cost doesn't disappear. This is why I see PrEP not suited for HIV prevention in third world countries, for example.
The rest of what you wrote seems a rebuttal to an argument I never made. Thinker(unlicensed) 17:59, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
i not really sure the relevence of third world countries to cost. if you cant afford it, you can t afford it - the choice has already been made. there are more issues there than prep. for those fortunate enough to be in areas of the world with functioning health systems the cost of condoms vs prep? as a flat price, without regard for the potential costs of their results, the reasons why some results are better than others? sure condoms probably cheaper. at the outset. but you need to look at the outcomes. prep substantially reduces infections. that means substantially less spent on drugs. substantially less of a drain on resources. substantially less of a human cost - then hands down prep wins. the 'argument you never made' is if condoms work why fund prep? you need context to answer that, and that context further answers the more unspoken question of 'why fund a drug so people can party/do things unpalatable to my sensibilities?' - this is an argument that you have made, not so bluntly, but essentially - elsewhere it is made by others more strongly, more knowingly. you cannot answer these questions if you just look at the balance sheet, but it does make it easier to make choices that brutally punish many people for the most human of failings. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:48, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Regarding third world countries I was thinking about projects funded by first world countries to help them. Of course third world countries cannot afford PrEP by their own. "'why fund a drug so people can party/do things unpalatable to my sensibilities?' - this is an argument that you have made, not so bluntly, but essentially" No, I didn't. Feel free to write a rebuttal, but I didn't make such argument.

As far as my understanding goes: For people at daily or at most weekly risk of HIV contagions (sex workers, who has a stable partner with HIV, operators with at strict contact with HIV patients...), PrEP is a good option. For people at occasional risk of HIV contagion, PrEP doesn't seem significantly better than condoms. For massive HIV prevention, like in third world countries, PrEP is probably too expensive and complicate to administer, so that funding traditional HIV prevention methods would be more effective. Thinker(unlicensed) 19:40, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

sorry but yes you did make that argument 'Consequentially, I don't see many situations where PrEP would be a better approach to HIV prevention than using condoms and reducing risky sexual behaviors.' your words. its further made where you state situations where you believe prep would appropriate - drs and nurses, the monogamous with a partner who is postive, sex workers. thats paragons of virtue and thoswe compelled by circumstance into a bleak existance. sex workers aside, the faithful lover and medical professionals seem only at risk from their own selflessness. these are not the centre of massive spikes in infection rates. drs and nurses are not even at risk - they know to avoid needlestick injuries and they can be better dealt with via pep (post exposure prophaltic, in case you assumed a typo). im not sure how you are gauging 'occasional risk' when you compare someone in a stable relationship with someone whose hiv status is known (we know that it is those who are UNAWARE of their status are the ones overwhelmingly more likely to pass on an infection) to your average gay male deep into the party scene multiple partners, cocktails of drugs? this is the at risk group, and its just false to say prep isnt significantly better when its had an overwhelming effect with massive drops infection rates. see the link above. its this group that have been buying prep on the internet before it was even offered on the nhs. its why we even know what prep is. infection rates actually spiked in the murkier part of the gay world before prep hit the scene,now they are lower than they've ever been. and i should stress my examples are generally from the gay world, a particular aspect of it especially at risk because i am steeped in that world. their are other communities with equal amounts risk i just cannot comment on - i can claim no insight in the various ethnic communities similarly blighted or how cultures put them at risk. i know there is an element of coercion - the guy just wont use condoms dont you trust him? (hes been sleeping around). is there not enough risk there? the london experience has provided such postitive effects that you cant just hand wave it away as 'not significant' and a poor assessment of the risks actual real people find themselves in. you need to look a little deeper AMassiveGay (talk) 20:50, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Saying "Consequentially, I don't see many situations where PrEP would be a better approach to HIV prevention than using condoms and reducing risky sexual behaviors" is different from "why fund a drug so people can party/do things unpalatable to my sensibilities?" You can see that, for example, because in the first sentence there's no mention to my sensibilities, while in the second they are central. If you don't see that, then we cannot have a conversation. Thinker(unlicensed) 09:48, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
can you really not see what can be inferred from what you said? I mean, if i've drawn the wrong conclusion from that then maybe clarify. Its a conclusion reinforced by other things you said. Yes, your statement with its reference to risky sexual behaviours is different to mine with its reference to sensibilities. But only in phrasing. they amount to the samething, a point made clearer when you dont ignore what i said immediately before and after, stripping it of context. If you want quibble about semantics, then you are correct -we cannot have a conversation AMassiveGay (talk) 15:21, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
I already clarified: I never made such an argument. If you want that I make it clearer: I'm not going to make an argument based on my sensibilities (Why should I?) Thinker(unlicensed) 16:57, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
The program is not specifically designed for those who regularly engage in reckless sex (though it is an important demographic) but is for any and all LGTB who engage or will engage in men with men sex. Those who participate in the project range from this charicature description of "gay men who party irresponsibly and take the drug so they can ditch the condom", which by the way is extremely degrading and offensive, to those who have a rare slip-up, to those who are always careful and safe, to those who are still virgins and want to take precautions (which is pretty sensible). The prep program is meant to compliment other HIV avoidance programs including distributing free condoms and numerous educational programs (both of which have been very successful). When I hear someone say "I'm on the prep" this doesn't communicate to me "I'm a reckless horn dog who likes skin to skin ejaculation" but says "I'm informed and I'm careful about it" because saying this to a possible sex partner is a great icebreaker and helps bring up the subject for a quick and frank talk about their attitudes towards safe sex. This program has been extremely successful and it has saved millions upon millions in future HIV treatment and definitely some lives. I cannot think of a single reason to not continue with the program in other countries, that is, unless you believe the nasty steotypes of LGTB men who praise the pills as a way to not have to cover up anymore. It happens. It is not however the point of the program. And money aside...isn't it a good thing to avoid the spread of HIV? Even if it did cost more than possible HIV treatment in the future (which it doesn't)? ShabiDOO 21:47, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
i can't say im entirely say im entirely convinced about people not using prep as a reason to skip the rubber. My point is they were skipping it anyway. Condom usage has been declining for years, and australia that decline saw a sharp increase after prep. Condom usage has always declined after the intial upsurge after a campaign. Tutting in disapproval only ever gets us far. My argument has always been its a irrelevant for people to complain about the reasons some maybe taking prep when lower infection rates benefits everyone. It makes everyone safer. I also find it a little rich that when people complain about the promiscuity of gay men. Ifs its such a big deal for them maybe should have let us get married earlier. They never wanted to respect our relationships, then get upset when you dont settle down. Cunts. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:55, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Guys, nobody here is making moral judgements on gay sex. I understand that often people do, but since this conversation isn't the case, I don't see the point of reiterating that the "promiscuous HIV spreading gay"-stereotype is wrong. We are in agreement on that, so let's focus on PrEP.
@Shabidoo "...to those who are always careful and safe, to those who are still virgins and want to take precautions (which is pretty sensible)" In such cases it seems to me that the protection given by PrEP is not worth the effort. I mean, taking everyday an expensive pill, for reducing the already low probability of contracting HIV using condoms on few sex intercourse?
"And money aside...isn't it a good thing to avoid the spread of HIV?" Of course is a good thing, but money are finite. I'm not saying that not a penny of third countries aids should be spent on PrEP, but I'm wondering how much should be spent to obtain the better results. Obviously with the same money we can buy more condoms that PrEP. Thinker(unlicensed) 14:09, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
i honestly dont understand what you want here. You started this thread to discuss prep. We are discussing prep. Discussing prep means you discuss gays and promiscurity, you discuss sex and drugs, what is or isnt moral. Thats it. Nothing else. It all of that. You want to talk about cost? Fine, talk about cost because you will talking about gays and sex. There is no argument on cost that is not fundementally about gays and sex. None. Why, for example, if its too costly why are birth control pills funded? Why are a whole host minor ailments and measures funded? Why is prep not or shouldnt? No answer that does not involve gays and sex. If you say its not cost effective for some groups, then guess what? You will be talking about gays and sex. And there is no sense in talking about the third world and the cost of prep. Its pointless to consider anywhere with spotty healthcare, huge cultural issues and other major issues make its effectiveness neglible. Even in the US, you have to factor in health coverage and massive disparities along racial lines. We can discuss places where infrastructure is in place for prep to be viable. For me, thats london, where a disproportionate amount of cases are with gay men. Gays and sex. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:38, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
You rush to conclusions to quickly. I never said that we don't have to talk about gay and sex, I said that we don't have to reiterate "that the promiscuous HIV spreading gay-stereotype is wrong" since we are in agreement.
Regarding third world countries, I have already said that I'm talking of PrEP funded by first world countries. If a humanitarian project has a certain budget to help a third world country reducing HIV, how much should be spent on condoms and how much on PrEP to maximize the results? I would guess more on condoms. Thinker(unlicensed) 17:07, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
first, lets kill this third world countries. ive answered this twice already. go back, read them both, understand them, look and your question and see why its idiotic. done that? see what i mean? just to be certain, i'll clarify again. the third world, dozens of unconnected countries, beset by varying problems of all kinds, of which hiv/aids is a literally apocolyptic one, countries where healthcare is often inadequate, out of date, or entirely absent, where infrastructure in general is poor or absent, governance ranges from poor to corrupt to genocidal, wars and insurrections are rife, in that context, the relevance of asking 'condoms or prep', your hypothetical dilemma? its only a question for places set up for its effective use. im not coming back to this, that one is done.
and where do we go from here? what is you are trying to get at? at almost every step ive given a view or make point, tried to add context or perspective. i cant say how useful that was because it was flat out ignored because 'thats not what i said!!!' i clarify, i explain what i meant, where your argument led, what else needs to considered, i ask you what you meant, 'thats not what i said!!!' jesus christ, throw me a fucking bone here. i have no clue what your point is here. what direction are you coming from? we are talking about things here that are directly relevant to the lives of my friends and my own, about one of the few things on this site where i feel that i may have actual useful insight from actual direct and relevant experience. a different perspective, or counter argument would be great, necessary even, but you give me nothing to work with. i am literally questioning my sanity right now and this has not helped at all AMassiveGay (talk) 21:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Well, if you think that the usage of PrEP is a only a question for places that are set up for its effective use, and not thirld world countries, that you agree with me that PrEP is not a good solution for third world countries.
Regarding me pointing out that I didn't make some arguments you claimed I made, that's just natural, I don't have problems with your rebuttals, but I had to say it was incorrect to address them to me.
"we are talking about things here that are directly relevant to the lives of my friends and my own, ... i may have actual useful insight from actual direct and relevant experience." About that, in the meanwhile, I spoke with a doctor, and he told me that it isn't recommended to take PrEP a few days before and a few days after a sexual intercourse, as you suggested. He said that PrEP is indeed used as a kind of emergency pill after unprotected sex, but that it is better to take it constantly. Precisely, before starting PrEP one should have at least a month of abstinence and three tests to be sure that he is HIV-negative (because taking PrEP while HIV-positive can make what he called "resistances" to the treatment), and when it's started PrEP should not be interrupted without asking a doctor. Thinker(unlicensed) 07:09, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
not recommended and doesnt work are not the same thing. its not recommended because it adds a greater element of uncertainty. i have no clue at what your talking bout here? whose been suggesting you take as a day after pill or as pep? you say you talked a dr, did you understand what he said? how the minutae of is this at all relevent to was being discussed? we've seen the results. we've seen its effective. all this suggest is that it should be funded so people know how to it take correctly, that they getting it from medical professions and correct advice and not dodgy thai website they had been. again what is your point here? folk should take their pills as prescribed? thanks for that banal piece of information. you dont seem to have a basic grasp of the key issues surrounding prep - that demonisation of certain groups and their activities is the only real opposition to prep that exists when the benefits are so overwhelming. you just keep coming with irrelevant bullshit like this and inane hypotheticals so far removed from reality they are just insulting. so again, what is your point here? there is no argument on cost as its overwhelmingly cheaper. there is no argument on effectiveness as it is overwhelmingly so. no argument for any other strategies we have using - they simply werent enough. and its not an either/or thing - its in conjunction with everything else. it hits all bases.
the experience that i mentioned, which you are so pissy about while being entirely oblivious to what was meant, is of being in an at risk group - the real risky group not the poster boy gay, seeing what people where doing before and what they are now doing. seeing why without prep it was not working. seeing the human beings that are central to all of this. seen through my own prism, of course, and weighted accordingly. if i seem exasperated its because what-ifs are a slap in the face when we can see the effects of things at ground levelAMassiveGay (talk) 00:35, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
"its not recommended because it adds a greater element of uncertainty." No, it's not recommended because it could create resistances to the future HIV treatment.
"whose been suggesting you take as a day after pill or as pep?" You did, you wrote: "few days bfore so its in your system, a few days after to catch any residues traces."
Regarding the rest of your post, yes you seem exasperated because you'd like to argue with a homophobe, but that's not the case. I'm not gonna continue this conversation. Thinker(unlicensed) 17:10, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Actually homophobia manifests itself in unconscious bias. Happens all the time. First, it is not true that people have a tiny probability of contracting STD even when having safe sex. Especially for the passive partner the rate of condom failure is actually quite high and if the active partner has HIV then the possibility of contracting it is higher than you think. Those with multiple partners, yet still safe and protected, climb up the probability ladder and yes, the prep program is useful. In England, post prep program, new cases of HIV transmission was a small fraction of the previous years. The rate of new infections going down has a knock-out effect. If someone is as careful as possible yet still contracts HIV they may pass it on to other people who are also as careful as can be (short of abstinence) because daily HIV tests are also impractical (and expensive). The program is not just effective for those who engage in reckless sex but for those who practice safe sex who have an admittedly small chance of HIV contraction...but by no means miniscule.
I'm not saying this is the case for anyone arguing against the cost of Prep here...but I have most certainly noticed a bias against treatments which are pricey in some countries and yet seem to have no problem with expensive preventative programs with anyone else. If cost was really the issue we'd be talking about something else. It comes from an unconscious bias that manifests itself in many ways. I've known people who even have no problem with non-elective surgery paid for by healthcare and yet complain about the cost of Prep for gay men, the only program they have ever complained about cost and the only medical cost I have ever heard complaints about, in my life. Preventative medicine is quite expensive, screening for rare cancers, vaccines for nearly eradicated diseases etc. Expensive programs for something people are very unlikely to suffer, expensive, and yet no one is much bothered by that.
The cost of the program depends wildly on the country to you live in. Prep is pretty cheap in some European countries because the government negotiates very hard with pharmaceuticals and despite humming and hawing from the Pharmaceuticals like "we cannot afford to bother with your market if the price is lower than this", in they end they do bother with that market with a fraction of their "lowest possible price". It is usually substantially cheaper than what states mostly pay in the US, to a lesser extent in Canada and Australia. If saving money is really at the top list of concerns then I would recommend fighting against high drug prices, government apathy towards pharmeceuticals, buying insanely expensive experimental machinery, and even corruption regarding pharmaceuticals and borderline-cosmetic surgery being covered by a public system. Not a preventative HIV program that has been wildly successful and need not be expensive at all so gay men stop contracting HIV at an alarming rate. Why is this one of the only times people complain about the cost? ShabiDOO 17:28, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
i have little more to add at this point, shabidoo nails argument. no one was being accused of homophobia (not here at least or specifically), but is the end of result of arguments against prep, and certainly the basis for any of those making them.
@unlicensedthinker - you want to not continue the conversation? fine, it was going nowhere. but please do not end by taking what i said out of context to the extent that you have done throughout. i know the difference between prep and pep, i know the difference the recommended advice, why it is recommended and what people have actually been doing, and doing successfully. i have not endorsed nor suggested anything here as 'best practice' just stated what has been happening, with reference to the differing circumstances in which people will be taking them, and proven to be effective - undoubtedly it would be even better with proper medical advice. at no point can anything i said be construed as suggesting prep could be used as pep. that is not how prep is meant to function and is not how prep is meant to function. drug resistance is surely factor - if you are ALREADY infected. starting on prep, coming off, back on and off again, while having HIV, yes that would be an issue. you shouldnt be on prep you should be on medication (a side note - prep, pep, medication - they are pretty much the same drugs. its usage and outcomes that differ) thats why we have testing for fucks sake. and drives to encourage people to get tested on a regular basis. i cant leave my flat without seeing a poster or ad on the side of the bus. more should go get tested but thats true with or without prep, its not like no one is trying to get people tested. and its the same with condoms. More condoms, you cry. there is no shortage of them. you can buy them in any store. you dont need to though, there bowls full of them, free, next to the peanuts at every bar i go into, handed out free at the clinics where you get tested, or you can get them sent free to your home after asking on line. they will continue to be so available, with or without prep. the advice to use condoms, to get tested - is everywhere, hammered into us constantly since 'dont die of ignorance' leaflets were posted through peoples doors, and will continue to be with or without prep. quibbling about medical best practice or calling for things we are already doing is not an argument for or against prep. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:41, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
@Shabidoo "If saving money is really at the top list of concerns" it's not aboust saving money, as I wrote it's about: "If a humanitarian project has a certain budget to help a third world country reducing HIV, how much should be spent on condoms and how much on PrEP to maximize the results?" Thinker(unlicensed) 21:33, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
thats all you have been saying and its been answered three times already. its a useless hypothetical asking a question that ignores how prep is actually being used, ignores where it could possibly, ignores that no one is calling for this, assumes the third world is one amalgamous place with vastly different issues in each country. its a fucking idiotic question AMassiveGay (talk) 21:56, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Pfff. Exactly the response I expected. Let's take it up a little. It's world AIDS day. So many interesting topic to talk about. So much to learn about. Let's talk about misunderstandings on AIDS treatment and its mortality rate, or lets talk about the ENORMOUS percentage of AIDS that people in Southern Africa have (in some places almost 1 in 4) or how about condom apathy in western countries. No. I think talking about the price of gay men using a preventative medical program is the most telling. Hey guys. It's world aids day. Now lets talk about that all too expensive waste of money AIDS prevention program. And no, this is not the only forum where I've seen a discussion on World AIDS day reduced to a pissy dicussion about PREP cost. Thinker perhaps you could just fuck off for one day? ShabiDOO 10:13, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

@Shabidoo How is trying to understand how much should be spent on PrEP, how much on condoms, (how much on other prevention methods...) in order to maximize the results of HIV prevention, a "pissy discussion about PREP cost"? I don't know why it gets you angry and makes you tell me to fuck off. Maybe is it because often in public debate when people talk about the cost of a cure they do that to suggest that such cure should not be used? So do you think that I'm saying that PrEP should be throw out the window? Is this the misunderstanding? Thinker(unlicensed) 16:19, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Because I lost the moderator election, should I scream recount?[edit]

I am probably not the best guy for the job anyways.RECOUNT!! No? Okay --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:21, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

No. Nerd (talk) 01:51, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes.--Don Juan (talk) 09:16, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Don't be lazy, recount it yourself. ^_^ This message is approved by Dysklyver Gears.png Ensign of the Duke of Cornwall.svg (brebmyn) 10:36, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
I was joking. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 15:01, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Sure you were. Cardinal Chang (talk) 20:21, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Are you just going to continue to be an ass or are you actually going to be useful for once?--Don Juan (talk) 23:02, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with cracking a joke. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 22:45, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Bring back the robrail[edit]

The most astute thing to do is get a third party surrogate, like Hillary tried in 2016, and Gore failed to do in 2000. I can't do it cause I was a candidate, too. nobs piss in my ear 03:39, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
  • For the dumb Brit. Can someone please explain what the heck that means? ^_^ This message is approved by Dysklyver Gears.png Ensign of the Duke of Cornwall.svg (brebmyn) 00:03, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

What are your thoughts on Post-Colonialism, anti-"Orientalism," and so on?[edit]

Interested in hearing everyone's opinions of this. Lord Aeonian (talk) 02:07, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

it was funny to hear majid nawaz use anti-orientalism to defend quilliam against a white critic recently. the postmodern neomarxists are such successful infiltrators that even their enemies use their terms... Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 08:43, 2 December 2018 (UTC)e an
It's a complicated problem but I think the answer is somewhat simple.
  • Many are unaware of the continual toxic effect colonialism has on many states which were once colonies, most especially those which achieved independence recently and those problems reverbrate in countless ways today with an incredible amount of suffering all around. The economic, political and cultural consequences are still strong today. It is also the case that our attitudes can still sometimes mirror the far more extreme ones that lead to colonialism. Post-whatever-ists have written works that illustrate the subtle ways how colonialism still linger on including "othering". However some post-stuf-ists take orientalism to such an absurd extreme that there is a backlash today including with humanists, moderate academics and most especially from the right and radical right. Sometimes that backlash is as extreme as is extreme-orientalism.
  • Most post-colonialists hold onto the idea that colonialism is responsible for each and every single problem that exists in developing countries to the point that nothing a tyrranical dictator can do, no anti-human rights culture can do which isn't the result of colonialism. Islamic extremism in Pakistan? Colonialism. Albino witch burning in Africa? Colonialism. Modern slavery in Saudi Arabia? Colonialism. Insane dictator in African country that was barely coloniserd? Colonialism. It is actually quite amazing how easy it is to blame everything on Colonialism to the point that countries no longer seem to have any agency nor even the slightest responsibility for contemporary problems. And for radical post-everything-ists , while colonialism explains just about every problem that exists in say, West Africa, we are still not to judge FGM, rampant sexism, homophobia, modern-day slavery etc because of cultural relativism and other arguments. Two ideas that confusingly conflict. It's another reason why extreme-orientalism has seen some anti-orientalism. ShabiDOO 07:00, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
At some point gotta move on it's not colonists that are blowing people up or committing female genitalia mutilation. TheDarkMaster2 (talk) 02:09, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Blowing people up? Well yes, of course. Some people would argue that we are, in fact, blowing people up. But they miss the point. For you see, my dear friend, our method of blowing people up is civilized, it makes people better for having done the deed.
Observing the trajectory of viscera from the cockpit of an AC-130 or the camera of a Reaper drone provides a more majestic, scenic view of the destruction. It allows for a person to gain a much-needed greater perspective on the termination of human life and the destruction of settlements. Contrast this to the barbaric, charmingly antiquated tactic of the Daesh or Boko Haram insurgent who sets an IED in a school. While both methods result in virtually the same effect, our method comes with the benefit of civilizing the one who bombs the wedding, or the hospital. Therefore, it truly pleases me to say that we, the United States, are spreading the majesty of civilization to the Saudis and Iraqis, who now may blow people up like civilized people. Like Americans.
<end sarcasm>In all seriousness, I concede the FGM point. Though isn't using "But FGM" as a response to "the legacy of imperialism comes in the form of massive political and economic instability in the regions Europeans colonized in the 18th and 19th centuries" is a bit of non sequitur? RoninMacbeth (talk) 05:53, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
I've always seen this "joke" as incredibly stupid. No one is saying that the style of Western war is inherently different from how the groups they fight against operate, and if they did they wouldn't say it matters. They say that the West is fighting these groups to eventually dismantle/disarm them and phase out all sources of violence, which wouldn't happen if the West just left them alone and things would get so out of hand the violence would spill out, destabilize neighboring areas, and end in attacks on the West. I have never heard even the most rabid pro-war person say that drone strikes are fundamentally "more civilized" then IEDs, or that killing itself is 'different' or 'ok' when one side does it but not the other, but I have seen many anti-war people claim this is what they they think. They justify their violence, yes, and it doesn't do you any favors to ignore critiquing their justifications in favor of asinine strawmen no one finds funny. Lord Aeonian (talk) 18:39, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I can't tell whether this is tragic or funny[edit]

Accused man cites state abortion law in sexual assault case To be precise: "he should not be charged with taking advantage of a child because she was actually 16 under a Kansas law that says life begins at fertilization." On the one hand: sexual assault is a horrible thing. On the other hand: didn't see that one coming did you, fundies? Towards-the Unknown (talk) 00:39, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I think we can salute the ingenuity of the lawyer while condemning the act of the child abuser. It's the duty of a lawyer to use any argument, no matter how ridiculous, to get their client off. That said, I'd imagine the chances of success are around 0.0000001% so probably the lawyer doesn't deserve too much praise. --Annanoon (talk) 10:14, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
It is very imaginative, but I think the lawyers on the other side will win with the more traditional idea that age is from birth. I think more to the point is that the intention of the legislature creating the sexual assault law was that ages in the sexual assault law should be interpreted as from birth, as recorded on a birth certificate. In the UK this would be an open and shut case. ^_^ This message is approved by Dysklyver Gears.png Ensign of the Duke of Cornwall.svg (brebmyn) 16:06, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
I can tell. It's dumb. It's real fucking awful and dumb. Don't give statutory rapists credit because they did a half-assed troll of republicans along the way. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:40, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Gracias, I have a wiring problem that makes it difficult to parse social situations. Towards-the Unknown (talk) 23:21, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Born and raised in the flat state of Kansas. Not much of a law buff, but this sounds like Kansas. The education is actually really good, the application is so Protestant your eyes will roll too fast and your optic nerves will snap. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:14, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Intrusive thoughts[edit]

Does anyone have any knowledge of these things? Like, what counts as instusive and perhaps more pertninantly, how do you deal with them? AMassiveGay (talk) 01:31, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

If you mean intrusive, have you considered a prophylactic? nobs piss in my ear 03:31, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
@RobSmith, being a fundamentalist Christian, you probably have mental illness denial, but I would seriously recommend that you see a mental health professional. Politics and religion aside, you have said quite a few outright bizarre things. Bongolian (talk) 08:40, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
@AMassiveGay, I would recommend that you see a mental health professional if you're having intrusive thoughts. It could be a symptom of schizoaffective disorder, which can be treated with appropriate pharmaceuticals. Bongolian (talk) 08:40, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Do go see a medical professional, it can be a symptom of numerous conditions, schizo affective disorder as Bongolian says, or Borderline Personality Disorder. Or simply anxiety. But they only way to know is by speaking to people who will be able to identify if you have a condition and help, in other words, not random strangers whom you barely know on the internet (honestly it could very well be nothing but anxiety. But even if it is diagnosed as a psychiatric condition, they are managable these days with conbinations of mediacation and with BPD, dbt treatment) Cardinal Chang (talk) 15:05, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
My understanding is that intrusive thoughts are typically handled therapeutically with cognitive behavioral therapy. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:22, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
They can be, but it depends on the condition. CBT is useless with BPD, DBT is required. Not sure is CBT is even effective with schizoaffective disorder. Although CBT is brilliant in addiction treatment, particularly alcoholism. Cardinal Chang (talk) 15:28, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

i can appreciate actual professional help is the clearly the correct answer, but would rather not. really rather not. im causng myself actual physical harm, and cannot my judgement in anyway, but really dont want to. to discuss things that would be needed to be discussed. i cannot bare to think these things. to speak them is not going to happen. i was hoping for coping strategies. enough to settle my head a little. to sleep. eat. calm things down a little. can i not just go to my hppy place? AMassiveGay (talk) 22:16, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

But we are just crazy people on the internet, you need someone qualified to tell you want to do. ^_^ This message is approved by Dysklyver Gears.png Ensign of the Duke of Cornwall.svg (brebmyn) 00:02, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
You need to see a health care professional. Self-harm is not a solution. This isn't something that you can fix with pain. Life's hard. If you want to get better, you've got to talk to someone. I know it's gonna suck. I get it. But you need to talk to someone if you're self-harming and having intrusive thoughts. I also get that this is hard to hear, but surprise, if you could fix this all by yourself, I think you'd have done so by now. Talk to someone. Koi "the spelling's on porpose!" development 03:57, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
not actually referring to self harming to be clear, just meant days without sleep, food, hydration taking a toll. i mean, there is self harm of kind, but im not cutting myself or anything like that. its curious that i should would want to make the distinction, that you would think im properly mental, that its that bad. id be ashamed that people would think that, but i am ashamed that it is that bad, and ashamed when i think it isnt, and at every waking thought, and at the sheer horror of vocalising those thoughts and the things i do and why i do them. and it is abject horror - it wouldnt be a difficult to find some help, they always make clear its there should i require it. taking it? it was broached once by the dr. i could not speak. if they had pressed the issue i would have shutdown completely. its not really hard to hear that im not able to fix it myself. ive known that for awhile. the hard part is knowing it and still unable take the help needed. another level of shame for my pity party. just some sleep right now would probably help, but thats something else im unable to do AMassiveGay (talk) 05:07, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
I mean, yeah, these are all signs of being seriously stressed out. And they happen to me, too, and I don't really do anything about them. I just try and ride them out. I have had friends tell me, "if you're so anxious, go talk to a doctor." I can't even always talk to my friends when I'm anxious, it's only when I get cornered about it that I really bring it up. If I wasn't aware of my problem, I'd be mad at them for cornering me in the first place. And my experience with counseling is a bunch of me saying I'm just fine in a convincing way, and my life is pretty functional, I am a leader at my work and I pay my bills, but yeah, the anxiety is bad. I haven't had a haircut in over a year, and it's ok, but the main reason is my hair is so long I don't want to go into a salon and say "cut my hair nice." I will, like usual, go in and say "clippers, cut it all off, I don't care, whatever you gotta do." And it's not what I want, but it's the best I can do in a haircut situation at this point. Does that make sense? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:32, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Carbon tax in France is not making people happy it seems[edit]


I don't know much about this but it does not sound good. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 15:16, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Americans are surprised to see how much higher gas prices are when they travel to Canada. Canadians are surprised by how high the prices are in Spain. People from Spain note the higher price in the UK and British people note how higher prices are in France. In effect (depending on what state in the US you are from) gas costs nearly 2.5 times as much in France than in the US. Most of this is taxes. I remember while living in Canada if we were near the US border we'd hop over to New York or New Hampshire and fill it up (and buy affordable liquor and other goods). The savings were enormous. In any case, imagine how much paying 250% more for gas would affect your life. While phasing out certain kinds of petrol is a necessary evil, Macron continuously goes about a heavy handed and often stupid means to achieve this (short term roll out, no debate, a pittance of help to those who would suffer the most). I can easily imagine Americans protesting if their petrol tax went up the same amount. ShabiDOO 15:38, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Like I said, I don't know much about this. As for gas where I live, only $2. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 15:40, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Some people also consider it regressive taxation since it would have worse effects on the poor. π”Šπ”¬π”žπ”±-π”ˆπ”ͺ𝔭𝔒𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔀𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔑𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔑𝔬π”ͺ/π”žπ” π”₯𝔦𝔒𝔳𝔒π”ͺ𝔒𝔫𝔱𝔰) 16:18, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Goodpost.gif Another thing to keep in mind is that demand for gasoline is inelastic. People still need to move around. I am not surprised that this has something to do with the high costs of living in France. Not that many can afford to live in or around downtown Paris, for example, and the further you live from downtown, the more likely that you will need your own vehicle. Furthermore, the TGV is too expensive for many to use, and its low-cost service, Ouigo, has yet to break even. Both require subsidies. This is really a shame, since France has some of the best high-speed rail infrastructure in the world. And then there is the alarming unemployment rate of about 10%. Nerd (talk) 16:56, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
It is amazing people's ability to attribute to taxes, what is mostly explained by a β‰ˆ15% change in world oil prices. Marcon is an ass, and shaming poor people for responding to the real problems they face is a perfect formula for riots. But low-grade anti-climate change policies are not the problem. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:54, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
The response should be fuel-efficient cars. In the end, gas is a shrinking commodity and the people who need it the most (the poor) will one day or the other have no access to it. The middle class can survive with expensive gas, they will adapt to it by being smarter with fuel efficiency. The rich? Whatever, who cares, they don't need to complain about anything, and they're quite the gas guzzlers. --It's-a me, πŸŽ„LeftyGreenMario!πŸŽ„(Mod) 22:24, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
@LeftyGreenMario One can do better than that: more reliable electric cars and buses and better mass transit, though there is a limit to how much one can invest in transit in low-density neighborhoods. Induced demand only materializes when there is a sufficiently large population. It is quite possible that in the future, parking lots will offer free recharging the way coffee shops today offer free WiFi. Nerd (talk) 23:41, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
As I've said before, environmental austerity is ultimately no different from the other brands. It can only be sustained if people are not allowed to vote on those policies. For all practical purposes it requires an anti-democratic and authoritarian government. Smerdis of Tlân, wekʷōm teḱs. 00:07, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
As in people will always vote against their best interests? I worked long and hard in Nebraska to stop the Keystone XL Pipeline. The legality was dubious, voter pressure was intense, it came down to the threat of eminent domain and the state government which was in full support of the project couldn't push it through. So, I would wonder how this fits your practical purpose narrative. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 06:34, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Talking about taxes, I wonder what will happen the day electric cars are common and gasoline/diesel ones rare. Even with those that have a small combustion engine to recharge batteries, I very much doubt governments will be happy to lose that source of income knowing that electricity is always the same. Panzerfaust (talk) 13:12, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

A wonderful new method to ensure a sustainable population[edit]

Are there too many people around? Are there too few resources to spare? Well don't worry! We've got the perfect solution for you! Divinely-ordained genocide, you see, God had seen that there were too many people in the Promised Land, and wanting to ensure sustainable resources for his chosen people, he ordered his minions to wipe out every single man, woman, and child in Canaan! Isn't that wonderful? I'd bet it'd work wonders too, but let's be ambitious here for a second, why limit your bloodlust to only a specific population, when the whole world can be cleansed of the filth that is the overpopulation of humanity? Give it a try, call 1-800-HOLOCAUST-NOW today.--Don Juan (talk) 07:14, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello Sir/Madam/NB, I couldn't help but notice that you were in the market for practical and affordable anthropocidal solutions. No matter whether for supervillainy, misanthropy, or in the name of your chosen deity, LunaCorp Anthropocide Contracting Solutions is the answer! We offer the finest anthropocidal subcontracting services to any mass-killing business in the tri-system area! Depending on your operating budget, we offer a number of packages to fit any budget! Ranging from our "Li'l Doctor Bioweapons & Plagues DIY Kit," all the way to our deluxe "Hughes Geocide Suite," there's no shortage of options to pick from here at LunaCorp! In addition, we offer our LunaCorp Signature PromiseTM: less than $1 billion spent per megadeath or your money back! Don't miss out on this perfect opportunity to make your anthropocide business the most effective one around! Schedule an appointment with a LunaCorp representative today!*
Website: http://www.lunacorpsolutions.com
Phone: 1-800-GEOCIDE (1-800-436-2433)
*LunaCorp is not liable for any lawsuits/trials/tribunals that result from using LunaCorp products. Megadeath defined as the death of a single individual named Meg. Microsoft Windows 1998 required to run LunaCorp software. Appointment fee of $32,000 non-negotiable. Offer void in Nebraska.
You Won't BELIEVE What Astronomers Found In This Neutron Star! - Number Four WILL Shock You! 22:39, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
What an angsty outburst. #CantComeUpWithACleverSignature 03:58, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
If you're looking for pure, concentrated angst instead, perhaps you might be interested in MISERYTM, a brand-new product by LunaCorp! Our angst is produced by only the moodiest and most dramatic of emo teenagers in joke-proof conditions, assisted by the moaning lamentations of professional funeral mourners. Their hand-scrawled poetry and songs are then harvested and processed in our patented Alt-Right Hate Fermentation ChamberTM to infuse the angst with the purest and most volatile hatred and anger imaginable, which is then bottled under pressure in our patented novelty pressure vessel bottles for distribution right to the consumer! Whatever you need the hit of negativity and unhappiness for, this is the perfect solution! Need to be sobered by the looming specter of climate change? Done! Want to get sadfaced about the erosion of civil liberties and democracy in ostensibly free countries! Here you go! Can't handle that nasty breakup? A perfect opportunity! So drink up, and order today! Our operators are standing by! Don't wait, call now! You Won't BELIEVE What Astronomers Found In This Neutron Star! - Number Four WILL Shock You! 06:42, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Oh, boy, seems like misery and angst are everywhere these days. It feels like all my problems keep getting brought up in the form of questions; stupid, direct, pointless questions that address little. If only I knew how to start an infomercial, and there was somebody or something that could deal with my misery and or angst without just asking if I have it and strawmanning the symptoms! But I, myself, don't have time for that! If anybody has the answer to how to deal with the existential dread I feel every time I hear about the self-described "intellectual dark-web" or the self-described "alt-right" or self-described "incels" or the self-described "Ku-Klux-Klan" that all have active platforms, without me actually having to read or listen to any of it anymore, I'm paying! I mean, I'd pay good money if I had it to not deal with the repercussions of hateful, ignorant speech. I would also pay if I could ask each member of the Eric-Weinstein-nominated "intellectual dark web" if they really like being associated with the term "dark web," a place where you buy drugs and hitmen and child porn, by a guy who happily works for a real human who wants to replace his own blood with children's blood to extend his own life, on a libertarian paradise island. If only there was a service that could meet my needs! If only somebody could take me to the libertarian paradise island! Infomercial go? Timeshare? Anybody>Gol Sarnitt (talk) 06:20, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
And what about the Georgia Guidestones? Anna Livia (talk) 13:00, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


Now I think it is pretty obvious that RationalWiki:What is going on at Citizendium is pretty dead, because Citizendium is pretty dead. Is anyone up for a new WIGO about it's intellectual successor Ponzipedia run by the same Wikipedia co-founder and general nitwit Larry Sandler? ^_^ This message is approved by Dysklyver Gears.png Ensign of the Duke of Cornwall.svg (brebmyn) 12:55, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I say we just nuke it. π”Šπ”¬π”žπ”±-π”ˆπ”ͺ𝔭𝔒𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔀𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔑𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔑𝔬π”ͺ/π”žπ” π”₯𝔦𝔒𝔳𝔒π”ͺ𝔒𝔫𝔱𝔰) 14:59, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
And thus we reach the elephant in the room; Why do we even have WIGO:CZ? RoninMacbeth (talk) 15:47, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Fuck knows. Lets vote. ^_^ This message is approved by Dysklyver Gears.png Ensign of the Duke of Cornwall.svg (brebmyn) 16:18, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Close WIGO:CZ[edit]

RationalWiki:What is going on at Citizendium is pretty dead, because Citizendium is pretty dead. Maybe one or two people have edited it in the last year and it is a bit repetitive following how a new editor joins, does few edits, and then leaves again.


  1. Close as pointless. ^_^ This message is approved by Dysklyver Gears.png Ensign of the Duke of Cornwall.svg (brebmyn) 16:18, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  2. I sometimes jokingly refer to it as NIGO:CZ (pronounced "NYE-go") Nothing is Going On at Citizendium. I don't even see why we created it, it's certainly less relevant than WIGO:Fourth Reich, and we closed that years ago. RoninMacbeth (talk) 16:33, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  3. Utterly pointless. π”Šπ”¬π”žπ”±-π”ˆπ”ͺ𝔭𝔒𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔀𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔑𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔑𝔬π”ͺ/π”žπ” π”₯𝔦𝔒𝔳𝔒π”ͺ𝔒𝔫𝔱𝔰) 16:44, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  4. I personally call it "WINGO" as in "What is NOT going on?" at Citizendium. Anyway, just mothball it. --It's-a me, πŸŽ„LeftyGreenMario!πŸŽ„(Mod) 19:34, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  5. Smash WIGO into powdered algorithms and internet coding. If nothing is going on then get rid of it. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 20:38, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  6. There is absolutely no point in documenting what isn't going on at Citizendium. OK, a few woo-meisters were able to get accepted as serious academics and stuck their woo on it. But it's not really a crank wiki. It was just one of many failed challengers to the mighty Wikipedia that never stood a chance. Spud (talk) 14:50, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  7. Damnatio memoriaeWikipedia's W.svg is appropriate. Nerd (talk) 21:59, 5 December 2018 (UTC)


  1. seems fine as-is: paralleling cz, the page is inactive for a while and then briefly hilarious. at most, archive it like WIGO4R. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 19:04, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  2. Archive it. Bongolian (talk) 23:29, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  3. Leave it as is or archive the fucker. --MtDBogan 20:48, 5 December 2018 (UTC)



I think that a RW page on Dentistry could be interesting, because:

Let me know if it seems an interesting project. Thinker(unlicensed) 13:07, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Sure. Why not? Spud (talk) 13:28, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, absolutely create a page, no one will stop you, and if I can think of anything to contribute, I will. In my own opinion, basically any kind of quackery that exists and is sold to people is an automatic "yes that's a good article idea" on RW ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:27, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
This is a great idea. ^_^ This message is approved by Dysklyver Gears.png Ensign of the Duke of Cornwall.svg (brebmyn) 15:46, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
I just saw that there's already a page on Dentistry quackery, so only the last two points of my list need to be covered. Thinker(unlicensed) 16:12, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Dentists are worse than Chiropractors. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:48, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

So get your teeth into it. Anna Livia (talk) 19:05, 4 December 2018 (UTC) β”Œβ”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”˜The dental woo article can stand to getting split, IMO, just as how water woo was split. --It's-a me, πŸŽ„LeftyGreenMario!πŸŽ„(Mod) 19:37, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

We don't need a dentistry page because it already exists: Dental woo. This can be expanded or split as needed. Bongolian (talk) 23:31, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
There are RW-relevant dentistry topics that aren't woo. For instance the complex scientific debate into flossing (as I understand it, flossing is effective if done by a dentist but ineffective if done by anyone else); evidence-based dentistryWikipedia's W.svg; tooth-whitening (which obviously works but may have serious side-effects); dental phobia; media presentation of dental science; maybe even the link between dental health and heart disease. I guess these could be created as individual articles, but it's sometimes easier to start as a subsection of a larger article. --Annanoon (talk) 10:10, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
@Annanoon Yes, that's the kind of topics I have in mind. I'd like to start writing about that, but many things are still not clear to me. For example, regarding common toothpaste, it seems to me that the only ingredient whose efficacy has been scientifically proved is fluorite. Thinker(unlicensed) 16:43, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

A poll: If you had no choice but to go to a fundie school for a degree, what one would you choose?[edit]

If I had no choice, I would go with Liberty University. Keep in mind that this is meant for mostly comedic purposes. Though this could make an interesting academic discussion. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:20, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I can only mentally frame this question in terms of where would be the most fun to troll. And that leads me to liberty. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:25, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm split between LU and BJU. On one hand, Liberty is the least crazy of the bunch, and is in an area surrounded by better schools. On the other hand, Ye Olde Bob Jones is only a two hour drive from where I'm actually going to school right now, and a number of friends are from Greenville, so going by the above comment's metric of "most fun/practical to troll", I think it'd be pretty fun to pop over, visit some friends' places, go onto campus and wave around a pride flag (which I already have on hand), and then book it and make a high-speed getaway in my car. You Won't BELIEVE What Astronomers Found In This Neutron Star! - Number Four WILL Shock You! 22:39, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
If I had to choose, I'd choose BJU for oral purposes.--Don Juan (talk) 23:08, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
If we're talking oral, then I'd prefer the authority on the matter, Oral Roberts University... You Won't BELIEVE What Astronomers Found In This Neutron Star! - Number Four WILL Shock You! 03:17, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
I'd rather smack you for giving me the thought of going to any of those schools. π”Šπ”¬π”žπ”±-π”ˆπ”ͺ𝔭𝔒𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔀𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔑𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔑𝔬π”ͺ/π”žπ” π”₯𝔦𝔒𝔳𝔒π”ͺ𝔒𝔫𝔱𝔰) 03:28, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
@Nuclear Pasta They're both good places to get oral, IMHO. It's ultimately a toss up.--Don Juan (talk) 14:46, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

If you want some oral action, get a hooker. At least you would spend less. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 20:09, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Depends on the hooker. Watching porn is still cheaper.Tinribmancer (talk) 20:31, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Hey ! I call Censorship![edit]

Anti vaccination folks will be the cause of the next pandemic (maybe)[edit]

Leave a pathogen in the population, the pathogen can mutate. Take Polio- Because there have been new outbreaks, the virus could potentially mutate making the vaccine less effective. Not immediately but over time.

For those who cannot get vaccines due to a medical condition or allergy (I know allergies to vaccines are rare); those people are at greater risk of infection due to anti vaccination folks. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 20:29, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Most of the attention so far has been on rises in diseases like measles, and vaccinations that confer lifelong immunity in children, but the annual influenza vaccination is also very important to public health and antivaxxers have been spreading misinformation about it.[2] A bad flu outbreak in 2008-9 caused 13000 deaths in the UK alone.[3] It should be obvious that discouraging flu vaccinations could have serious public health consequences, and moreso if we get the mutated deadlier flu virus that many epidemiologists fear. --Annanoon (talk) 09:58, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Specifically what antivaxxing causes is endemic diseases, which, if my public health knowledge isn't totally whack, would progress more often to epidemics, not pandemics. But then lay-idiot who thinks he knows what he's talking about and often doesn't -----> ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:50, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Personal attacks again? Really? I know I am no genius when it comes to public health and Microbiology. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:16, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

The arrow was pointing at my username. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:19, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:24, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

To be fair to you, it was a really obtuse was for me to say it. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 03:55, 8 December 2018 (UTC)


I love you all[edit]

This may or may not be because I'm completely shitfaced rn but I'm glad this site existed. around 2014 I nearly went off the rocker and this site saved me from that crank magnetism. People take places like this for granted and I continue to try to contribute when real life allows me to come. Spoony (talk) 05:07, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

We are happy to be here to help my man. Stay skeptical. (talk) 11:07, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Liking it. +1 ^_^ This message is approved by Dysklyver Gears.png Ensign of the Duke of Cornwall.svg (brebmyn) 12:32, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Keep on sacrificing virgins to the Goat Lord, my friend!--Don Juan (talk) 14:37, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
You know, the reminder that real people benefit from documenting woo and conspiracy theories really is worth remembering. I forget that sometimes. Thanks. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:51, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Abolition of Monarchy?[edit]

Please enjoy and discuss. RoninMacbeth (talk) 07:52, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
i'm not watching a youtube. Does it make any suggestions as to what we replace it with that isnt objectively awful? AMassiveGay (talk) 09:37, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
ok i did watch it. kind of. wank. complete and utter. why do people post youtube videos? the are always always shite. the monarchy costs money? big whoop. its hereditary? Yawn. what do you replace it with that isnt fucking awful? no answer there. AMassiveGay (talk) 09:50, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Maybe in the near future we can replace all politicians with cuddly robots. (talk) 10:12, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
As far as I remember, the British monarchy generates enormous sums of money for the government directly and indirectly (especially per tourism and on exports of products relating to British/royal culture. The money part is pretty moot. Queen Elizabeth and her kin are cash cows. If you want to talk about a royal family that spends a lot more than the country could possibly gain, go no further than the Spanish Royal family. They are a lot less visible and have a sliver of the influence QE II has. Several members or in-laws have been charged with fraud (or imprisoned) and their latter history and connection with Franco makes them slightly (ever so slightly) suspect. But if you want to get into the hard core Royal Families who waste money by the cargo-ship-container-full, just look at the king of Swaziland, who consumes an enormous chunk of the poor countries GDP with a personal fortune estimated at half of Queen Elizabeths...living in dripping luxury while people live like peasants and a quarter of the people are dying of AIDS. Despite ruling a country of only 1.5 million (1 million of which live below the poverty line), he recently expected his grandeur to be worth a new royal plane, a340 which is bigger than the plane available to Queen Elizabeth. Somehow, this king is actually loved (so it seems) so good luck getting rid of him. Other cash consumers are the Kings of Saudi Arabia, Brunei, Morrocco and Jordan. Saudi Arabia in particular is utterly littered by minor princes with luxury palaces. True, the average Saudi is comparatively well off, but its not due to the royal family. They'd be stinkin rich if it weren't for the spoilt, crazy insane colony of royal wealthy brats. ShabiDOO 12:58, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Shabidoo summed it up nicely, the British monarchs bring in a massive amount of money. --RWRW (talk) 13:56, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Am I the only person here who actually watched the video? Because it seems like I am. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:03, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
The guy in the video states one of the reasons he opposes the monarchy is his dislike for theme being born into privilege and wealth. Is it any different to normal children born into rich families? He sounds a lot like a communist to me. Looking through his other videos he clearly has hard-left views (and terrible choice in films). He also states that the Queen does have power and he cites the Queen's speech (where she opens Parliament and outline Government's policy). He criticises her for reading out the Conservative's austerity programme. He completely ignores the fact that she doesn't actually write the speech or have any say over it, the government does. If ol' Jezza gets elected, she will have to read out a socialist speech. With regards to money, he claims that because France gets more tourism than the UK, it means that monarchy mustn't be that popular to outsiders. That has to be the worst argument for abolition I have seen in a while. If the monarchy ever does get abolished, it will be amusing to see these people justify the inevitable reduction in tourism. --RWRW (talk) 13:56, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Given that most left-of-center schools of political thought focus on social hierarchy and how to counter it, it seems rather inappropriate to throw around the label of "communist", especially since he isn't advocating anything in this video aside from removing the royal family's official political influence (ignoring that they could still influence things unofficially and/or indirectly) and forcing them to stop relying on the British taxpayers for their income (seems somewhat fair), and all on the grounds that people shouldn't be born into power with a silver spoon up their asses. So it seems to me at least that while there are indeed valid criticisms that can be leveled at this video and it's contents, you (collective, but especially RWRW) have chosen to attack the guy for things he either didn't say, or things that play into a strawman version of the video. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:14, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
the entirety of the video is about cost. so what? nothing that is not known to everyone. to only allusion to 'influence' was the queens speech - something written by the government stating their agenda for the year. nothing to do with the queen. neither is austerity. the suggestion that the queen has any say or even supports this is just bullshit. they do not influence government in any way. ultimately, any argument against the monarchy is just and utter bullshit unless it details what to replace it with - something which no one seems to want to do, not least this chap. im no fan of the monarchy. but what do you replace it with? its not good enough to call for the end of something - that bits easy - and have plan for what comes next. you only have to look at brexit to see how fucking poorly that turns out. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:40, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
I imagine that the plan is a United Republic of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Perhaps constructed along the lines of the modern German Federal Republic, with a theoretically powerful President, but with the majority of the powers residing with the Prime Minister and Parliament? RoninMacbeth (talk) 22:02, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
and how do we benefit from this? how do we benefit by making a ceremonial position theoretically powerful? how do benefit from this newly politicised post, and losing the monarchy's chief asset - it being apolitical? how do benefit from the shit show of another election when its hard enough to get folk to vote for the ones we already have? what does that even look like? what kind of changes to current system is required? even if it were purely ceremonial, elected or appointed = a shit show. what ever problems the british system has, the monarchy is not one of them. i kinda need more than a vague 'hereditary is bad' before i can get even consider getting rid of the one aspect of british establishment that does what its supposed to. trump is not selling me on the idea of a presidentAMassiveGay (talk) 22:59, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Hell if I know, I'm not a British Republican. I just wanted to see what people outside LeftyTube thought about it. RoninMacbeth (talk) 23:45, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Nobody is ever going to be able to abolish social hierarchies, and the effort will always do more harm than good. What you actually achieve when you try is simply removing the ones that are obvious and public (like the British royals) and replacing them with hierarchies that are extremely secretive and hard to trace (like the activities of most billionaires). You don't really want 'meritocracy' either, it turns into a Red Queen's race, it privileges driven people with too much ginger in their arses, and directly harms people who want lives of their own rather than jumping through an endless series of flaming hoops. My opinion is that the British royals are some of the hardest working people in show business. You couldn't pay me enough to live in that gilded cage. Smerdis of Tlân, wekʷōm teḱs. 04:19, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • It's not true that the Royals cost money. The entirety of the sovereign grant (the Royals income) is paid by the Crown Estate, which is basically everything the Queen owns that has been bundled into a company. The Crown Estate is in a constitutional arrangement where it pays 100% tax, and about a quarter of this is sent back to the Queen and family because it might otherwise seem unfair. Basically abolishing the Royals would cost the British taxpayer over Β£12 billion. There's a reason no sane people support the idea of completely removing the Queen. ^_^ This message is approved by Dysklyver Gears.png Ensign of the Duke of Cornwall.svg (brebmyn) 22:29, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
    • I think the idea is that the majority of the Crown's lands would be seized by Parliament and turned into property of a new Republic, thus cutting the Royals off from any of their state sources of income. RoninMacbeth (talk) 23:48, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
      • In fact, he actually says that at around 11:22 or so in the video. RoninMacbeth (talk) 00:05, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
@RoninMacbeth As someone who subscribes to the more leftward schools of thought I get where he's coming from, however the whole thing seems like more trouble than it's worth for a family that is essentially an over-glorified figurehead. If he really wanted things to change he should (in my opinion) focus on shaking up parliament, since that's where the real power is anyway. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:20, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Agreed on all fronts. I think it kind of demonstrates a worrying tendency for LeftyTube to embrace the theoretical aspect of leftist politics rather than its practical benefits. Calling for socialist revolution is understandable, but what's troubling is the lack of concern for what should happen next. They seem to be like Ozymandias in Watchmen, saying it'll work out in the end, only for Dr. Manhattan to remind him that nothing ever ends. RoninMacbeth (talk) 02:05, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
The monarchy, and all its glitz and panoply and tradition and all the rest of it "work" - ditto the Lord Mayor and City of London, Black Rod and kilts "etc, etc, etc" - and most people accept that any alternatives are likely to cost more and be far more boring. Anna Livia (talk) 00:18, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

The worst monarchs in the world[edit]

It's time we end the horrible tyranny of the king and queen of prom. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 04:22, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ikanreed My question for you is the same I would ask for the original YouTuber. Can a British monarch issue a law? To be more specific, can the monarchs pass laws without the approval of Parliament? Because the inverse is most certainly true, and that is an indicator of where the real power lies. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 04:41, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
The English Bill of Rights was issued for a reason, IMHO. Ζ‰ΓΈn Δ΄uan (talk) 14:40, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
That's a lot of weight being placed on the word "can", there. There's a lot of anti-democratic powers british monarchs nominally have that haven't been used in centuries, and the answer would fundamentally hinge on the rest of the government's willingness to follow those orders. It's the same with "constitutional" in the US. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:38, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
@Ikanreed Fair point, though I still hold that the bulk of power resides within parliament and not the monarchy. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:04, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
The British monarch cannot personally issue a law, the constitutional right to do so was removed along with many other nominal powers after a number of statutes like the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and other acts that have chipped away at it, and recently the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011. However the monarch can still by constitution right make treaties with other countries. ^_^ This message is approved by Dysklyver Gears.png Ensign of the Duke of Cornwall.svg (brebmyn) 17:50, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Goofy Goober[edit]

Don Juan (talk) 14:26, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Ah, yes. I remember this. Good times... RoninMacbeth (talk) 18:12, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Spongebob was comedy gold, good times indeed. "Who you callin' pinhead?"--Don Juan (talk) 19:14, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
RIP Stephen Hillenburg. π”Šπ”¬π”žπ”±-π”ˆπ”ͺ𝔭𝔒𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔀𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔑𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔑𝔬π”ͺ/π”žπ” π”₯𝔦𝔒𝔳𝔒π”ͺ𝔒𝔫𝔱𝔰) 20:01, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
"I`m sorry, Patrick, but Squidward, <sniff>, well, he's passing up daisies." Cue Patrick: "Oh, I thought he was dead." But seriously, when I found out that Hillenburg died that truly shocked me, I mean, I wasn't surprised when Stan Lee kicked the bucket, given that he was 95 years old, but Stephen Hillenburg? He was young, only 57 years old. 'Tis a shame.--Don Juan (talk) 21:11, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Who Runs the RW Twitter?[edit]

ShiningSwordofThoughts (talk)

I think ol' @David Gerard runs the RW Twitter, but I might be wrong. It seems best to ask him directly.--Don Juan (talk) 21:12, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
David Gerard is also on Twitter as David Gerard. I recently became a twitterer also fyi. ^_^ This message is approved by Dysklyver Gears.png Ensign of the Duke of Cornwall.svg (brebmyn) 22:17, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
I haven't used Twitter in ages. Anyways, congrats @Dysklyver.--Ζ‰ΓΈn Δ΄uan (talk) 22:48, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Internet outage for Bongolian[edit]

My sucky internet service is out until Tuesday or Wednesday, so I won't be able to moderate too much till then. I'll try to check in once a day though. Bongolian (talk) 21:25, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

May the Internet Gods bless you with a speedy return to service, friend.--Ϊ€ (talk) 21:46, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, @Don Juan. Sorry that I missed the Coop vote on Darkmaster. Good work, my fellow-Sysops & Mods for drawing this to a relatively quick conclusion. Bongolian (talk) 22:12, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
You're welcome, @Bongolian. I believe that we each have the right to a speedy trial, even one where half of the jurors are drunk and the other half are worshiping goats.--Ζ‰ΓΈn Δ΄uan (talk) 23:07, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Neo Nazi compounds should have a disclaimer sign at the entrance[edit]

Have the sign say:

"Welcome to the Neo Nazi compound, leave logic and reason outside please".

--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:06, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Uh, I hate to be the first one to point this out to you, but insufficiently advanced logic and reasoning are not the primary problems people have with Nazis. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 03:09, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
I agree since, actually, the Final Solution was planned with quite a logic. More generally, there are perfectly rational people who perpetrate terrible crimes. It's not the absence of logic and rational thinking that makes monsters, it's the absence of empathy. Thinker(unlicensed) 16:38, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Hitler and his gang were very logical, indeed it was Nazi era Germans that invented much of what is now modern psychology. Rational thought was a cornerstone of Hitler's ideology, it just had rather too much master race cultism and extreme nationalism in there for this to be a redeeming feature. ^_^ This message is approved by Dysklyver Gears.png Ensign of the Duke of Cornwall.svg (brebmyn) 17:42, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
How about this-

"Welcome to the Neo Nazi compound, please leave all empathy and compassion outside". --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:32, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Still seems a bit light-hearted, but that's only a matter of personal taste. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:25, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
From what I understand, and I could be wrong, the "master race" thing is a bit... complicated. The central idea of Nazism was that Germans should work to promote the interests of Germans even at the expense of others. Not in itself because Germans were "naturally" superior, that was a post hoc justification, but rather because Germans were German. Germans had, yes, a few things to be proud of and, yes, had contributed a lot to culture and science and so forth, but there was another group that seemed to contribute proportionately far more and "naturally" found its way into dominating academia and art and so on in spite of adversity; Jews. But if Jews "naturally" found themselves in "control" of everything, that made Jews the natural master race, and if Germans wanted to become dominant in everything... CoryUsar (talk) 06:28, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
The German obsession with "Aryan" science led to the ultimate failure of Germany's wartime scientific ambitions, IMHO.--Ζ‰ΓΈn Δ΄uan (talk) 10:26, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
That the Jews were the 'master race' because they found themselves in academia, art, etc. and so Germany shouldn't have persecuted them is just false. The Jews were a convenient scapegoat for the problems Germany was facing as a result of WWI. After WWI, the Western European powers had been so devastated that they took out, with vengeance, a punishment of Germany; Germany was charged with paying back reparations for all wartime debts incurred and restitution for damages. To make matters worse, the Allies stifled the German economy on purpose to keep Germany down (out of fear of another war like the Great War), limiting the amount of steel that the German manufacturers could produce and the German military, for instance. A desperate economic situation wasn't helped by shortages of everything. Queue entrance for Adolf Hitler. He's a charismatic leader who tells the people what they want to hear (he had this way of saying something and bouncing it off the crowd and then following the line of what he was saying, allowing him to work the crowd and work them into a fervor; ideas that didn't react well with the crowd or get the adulation he wanted he cast to the wayside) and blames the Jews as the source of all the economic troubles, though they absolutely weren't. His rise to power is fueled by promises – promises he's able to deliver – of things that the people desperately want. He rebuilds the German economy, manufactures steel in secret (against the Allies' rules), and rebuilds and strengthens the German military. Hitler's rise is then furthered by the people because he's done so much for them already, so they trust him. This lets him push out other political parties and dissenters and lets Hitler take complete control and power. Hitler's ideas about the 'master race' is another lie that the German people found easy to swallow because it gave them a sense of national pride and it was a unifying factor.
It's far more complicated than simply saying that they lacked empathy or that they lacked reason or that nationalism was the problem. It was a combination of a ton of factors. This is a gross oversimplification of the problems that Germany faced and the variables at play, but the point is that the rise of Nazi Germany isn't due to just one thing. It's not just nationalism, it's not just a lack of empathy, it's not just a focus on 'Aryan science,' it's a combination of factors. As a side note, the Slavs were treated way worse than the Jews ever were. Hitler saw the Slavs as the lowest form of life, not the Jews. #CantComeUpWithACleverSignature 17:34, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Record spinning[edit]

Ζ‰ΓΈn Δ΄uan (talk) 15:11, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
I love this song Π‘aΠ±yΠ›uigiOΠ½Π€ire(T|C) 19:25, 9 December 2018 (UTC)


Ζ‰ΓΈn Δ΄uan (talk) 20:31, 9 December 2018 (UTC)


Ζ‰ΓΈn Δ΄uan (talk) 10:24, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


One of my cats is in heat, and it's fucking unbearable, both for me and (presumably) the cat. I suffer from insomnia so she woke me up at midnight tonight after getting only three hours of sleep. Need advice please. Ζ‰ΓΈn Δ΄uan (talk) 11:57, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Get her speyed - but it ain't cheap: google is your friend -Scream!! (talk) 16:04, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Looks like TRACS has a newly accredited member[edit]


California Graduate School of Theology has received full national accreditation. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 16:05, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

What do you think of PewDiePie?[edit]

I ask because T-series is going to pass him soon. (talk) 18:13, 10 December 2018 (UTC)