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.
Laughing.gif Puke.gif For previous conversations see the automagic barchives. Beer.gif

What is going on?

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

To do list


Netflix is "Marxist Propaganda", according to 8Chan's /pol/ section[edit]

http://8ch.net/pol/res/12642118.html

Do these people ever leave their basements? Tinribmancer (talk) 21:08, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Why is this a shock? nobs piss in my ear 21:32, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
It's a first post notoriety fighting a best post culture. But I have to manage these kids. They are brilliant improv comics, and half of them will do work, but occasionally I beat them in an improv nonsense conversation. They know Alex Jones is trash, they know Shapiro and Crowder are trash, they don't know why.
I also manage my own millennial generation. They are also brilliant improv comics and most of them do work.
These Gen Z kids know what a roasting looks like, they know how to do it, and when they hit the workforce they are our darling Gen Z savages. Gens X and Y taught them the only important skills you can ever have are roasting and trolling. Gen Z never gives it a rest. They will do normal human labor if you tell them to, the world is not ending. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:28, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Well, Alex Jones and Roger Stone reported in real time 21 months ahead of CBS 60 Minutes that the FBI & DOJ sought to remove Trump by the 25th Amendment. No wonder there's efforts to silence Jones & Stone. nobs piss in my ear 06:18, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Except of course the FBI did not attempt to remove Trump - discussion how hte 25th works is not actually an attempt to remove the President, no matter how much of a doofus the President is. Alex Jones' fantasy remains nothing more than his wet dream. Aloysius the Gaul 22:35, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Dershowitz says something quite different. nobs piss in my ear 00:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Yeah he's making exactly the same mistake as you - in the article linked to the link you give it explicitly says there were discussions at the Justice Department on potential scenarios to remove President Trump from office - discussing political scenarios is NOT actually attempting to remove the president. Actualy you expect justie officials to discuss scenarios - they SHOULD have a clear idea of what the process should look like!! I don't expect Trumpets to understand the difference.Aloysius the Gaul 03:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
It was an attempted coup. nobs piss in my ear 06:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
That's right snow flake: language is violence.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:24, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
To be entirely fair to nobs, it's easy to see it as an attempted coup. Given that I'm not sure if it can be a coup if it is being conducted through Constitutional means, and the various legal questions still hanging over Trump, I kind of have to wonder what conversation we would be having in an alternate 2019 where Hillary Clinton won and it came out that, at one point, General Mattis discussed getting her Cabinet to invoke the 25th Amendment. I mean, it's definitely not perfect, but with that in mind it's easy to see how, at the very least, it looks kind of like a coup, though I don't think it actually was one. We have yet to see any evidence that Rosenstein et al. actually tried to get Trump removed from office. RoninMacbeth (talk) 17:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Nah it's not - there is no scenario where discussion of perfectly legal provisions of the constitution is a coup. Heck even if a cabal DID get together and roll the orange-utan using the 25th that is still NOT A COUP - it is perfectly legal process using the established constitution. Trumpets of course don't think in those terms - to them anything that belittles their messiah is fake news, or a coup, or something else illegitimate because they don't want to face up to the fact their hero is a spineless narcissistic alleged sexual predator and muppet. Aloysius the Gaul 23:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps, then, I should restate my position; the optics were such that it is very easy to spin as a coup. If it weren't, we wouldn't be having this conversation. RoninMacbeth (talk) 23:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Why be fair when the proposition is completely dishonest? The E. Britannica states: "Coup d'état, also called Coup, the sudden, violent overthrow of an existing government by a small group. The chief prerequisite for a coup is control of all or part of the armed forces, the police, and other military elements." That doesn't sound a lot like discussing whether a provision of the constitution should be invoked. Ariel31459 (talk) 19:49, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
You guys need to step back and look at the issue: The FBI does not decide who should or shouldn't be president. This is a serious constitutional mess America is in right now, which is hampered by ongoing investigations that supposedly are designed to find wrongdoing, but rather thwart Congressional inquiries and protect career civil servants.
For more than two years I've stated the need for a independent Commission to re-examine the structural changes to the intelligence community made on recommendations by the 9/11 Commission. Time and again we've seen these investigations used to cover up wrongdoing by career bureaucrats and elected officials, rather than get to the heart of the matter.
When Mueller wraps up, the report will not be made public, and the public will go on speculating about various aspects and conclusions. And the report can't be made public - that's exactly the reason Comey was rebuked by Rosenstein and the Inspector General for violating departmental policy. nobs piss in my ear 23:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps you haven't heard of our venerable founder B. Franklin who said "Three men can keep a secret if two of them are dead." Mueller will be called to the House of Representatives where he will most certainly answer every question: the facts of treason can not be top secret. And by the way, that's piss on your shoes.Ariel31459 (talk) 02:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Consciousness is REality?[edit]

"The Vedic view makes more sense to me. Whether you accept it or not, it's logical and consistent, and in principle verifiable by personal experience.

The basic concept is that the the ultimate reality is consciousness, and the whole universe is a virtual construct within consciousness. Matter only exists virtually within consciousness.

So is the universe real? Both yes and no. It's a virtual construct, so in that sense you can say it's not real, but since consciousness is real, everything based on it is real.

Analogies help to clarify the ideas, though they have their limitations.

Analogy 1. Are the objects and locations in a computer games real? Both yes and no. No - because they only exist in the virtual space of the computer game, so in that sense they are illusionary. Yes - because if you are playing the game, you can't take the attitude that objects don't exist. They exist for all practical purposes within the game, and follow certain 'laws of nature' within the game. You have to treat them as real. You're not going to win the game by doing nothing and saying that it isn't real.

Analogy 2. Consciousness is like the ocean, and individuals are like waves on the ocean. Each wave has its own limited structure, individuality, and scope in time and space, but ultimately all waves are just perturbations of the ocean. The innermost self of all beings is the self of the universe, and because it's all consciousness, individuals have free will.

Analogy 3. Another analogy is that individual consciousness is like white light passing through a glass of coloured water. The light passing through takes on qualities according to the reflecting/refracting medium. The individual consciousness is simply the universal consciousness reflected through the brain and body (which are themselves virtual constructs within consciousness). So any change to the brain results in a change of consciousness, like changing the colour of the water in the glass changes the colour of the reflection. But it is possible to refine the brain and body to reflect the pure white light of universal consciousness, and that is enlightenment."

"The sole reality is the infinite consciousness which is omnipresent, pure, tranquil, omnipotent. ... Because the substratum (the infinite consciousness) is real, all that is based on it acquires reality, though the reality is of the substratum alone.

One cannot say that [the universe] is real or unreal, but one can only say that the substratum alone is real. The world exists in Brahman only as a word, an idea. It is neither real nor unreal.

The infinite consciousness is unmanifest, though omnipresent, even as space, though existing everywhere, is unmanifest. Just as the reflection of an object in crystal can be said to be neither real nor entirely unreal, one cannot say that this universe which is reflected in the infinite consciousness is real nor unreal. Again, just as space is unaffected by the clouds that float in it, this infinite consciousness is unaffected and untouched by the universe that appears in it.

Just as light is not seen except through the reflecting agent, even so the infinite consciousness is revealed through these various bodies. It is essentially nameless and formless, but names and forms are ascribed to its reflections.

Consciousness reflecting in consciousness shines as consciousness and exists as consciousness; yet, to one who is ignorant (though considering oneself as wise and rational) there arises the notion that there has come into being and there exists something other than this consciousness. To the ignorant this consciousness appears as the world-appearance; to the wise the same consciousness appears as the one Self.

This consciousness is not created, nor does it perish; it is eternal and the world-appearance is superimposed on it, even as waves in relation to the ocean. In that consciousness, when it is reflected within itself, there arises the ‘I am’ notion which gives rise to diversity.

In that infinite consciousness there is an inherent non-recognition of its infinite nature. That appears to manifest as 'I' and 'the world'.

In the mirror of infinite consciousness countless reflections are seen, which constitute the appearance of this world. These are the individual consciousnesses. Individuality is like just a little agitation on the surface of the ocean of Brahman; or just a little movement in the flame of a candle in a windless room. When, in that slight agitation, the infinitude of the infinite consciousness is veiled, limitation of consciousness appears to arise. This too is inherent in that infinite consciousness. And that limitation of consciousness is known as the individual."

The above was something that someone said to me when we came to the discussion about an ultimate reality. I think it is based on Hinduism, because there is the idea of a "one consciousness" aspect to the whole thing. But it literally makes no sense to me and kind of smacks of either idealism or solipsism. He says it's logical and consistent, but from what I read it just sounds like nonsense. I honestly have no idea where they get this stuff from, if it's based on meditation then that has it's own set of problems (since we find that meditation's realizations are really just the byproduct of when happens to the brain during it,this has been lab tested). It also assumes there is an infinite consciousness, it actually assumes a lot of things that make no real sense. How do they know it is infinite? I don't know. Analogy 3 assumes too much to really be a logical explanation.Machina (talk) 03:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

There's a bunch of different ideas in there. One is obviously something along the lines of idealism (all reality – physical matter/energy included – is ultimately/fundamentally mental). And then add to that, there is also an idea of monism (all is one; plurality is an illusion.) Maybe, if one wants to evaluate the position, rather than trying to evaluate it all at once, one could start with just one idea, and make up your mind about that, before moving on to the next? So, start with idealism – is that a coherent position? Do we have any good reasons to believe it is true? Do we have any good reasons to believe it is false? How does it stack up against its main competitors? i.e., materialism (in its various forms, e.g. reductionism vs eliminativism), various forms of dualism (substance, property, hylomorphic, etc), neutral monism, etc. And then idealism itself comes in several different varieties ("subjective", "objective", etc), so do the answers depend on which variety of idealism we are talking about? DepressedAustralian (talk) 05:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

You ask a lot of these pseudo-profound philosophical questions[edit]

And, more than wanting to answer your questions, I increasingly want to interrogate you on your own epistemological framework. Everyone can speculate on all sorts of "deep" stuff, but if you do enough of that, you really need to go back to fucking basics and ask "What is knowledge, how do I understand what is true and what is false" and arrive at a serious answer, otherwise you can just end up bouncing from one half-assed answer to a poorly phrased question to another. There's no insight to be gained from that. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:36, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Now We're Philosophising![edit]

I'm a little unsettled by the jump from the described reality to the substratum. I mean, if we're living in a substrate, and Brahman is the superstrate, that's... OK, I guess, but it's not describing anything that's described here. We're living in a substrate that can perceive a superstrate? I doubt it, but in that possibility, infinity squared is kind of a fun theoretical math thing, and it exists as much as it doesn't. Aleph Null is enough to make my head spin, I don't like to touch it.

The problem comes down to physics, which I'm no ace at. I'm trying, but if I look at too many numbers my eyes cross. There are plenty of well spoken ideas about human physiology and determinism and free will, and it's frustrating because since I dropped out of college they are now available everywhere. I would argue that because free will cannot reasonably exist in our substrate, our superstrate is only valuable if it informs our substrate.

So, if I am to agree with the argument, I would like to know how we evaluate the information coming from this superstrate to our substrate. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:06, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Is the true self one that involves clearing everything away?[edit]

http://browardmeditation.org/what-is-meditation/overview/

I mean they don't really say why it is false though, my guess is that it is something that is built up over time as we experience life and the like (or subjectivity). But it's not like we control whether we like or dislike certain things, it's not like I decided to like pop music one day or country the next, it just happens. What makes any of that false? Because I wasn't born with it? It just seems like an awful amount of the proof behind the claim is based on meditation, but that kind of leaves me saying "eehhhhhhh". Especially since experiences with meditation vary among people and the experience someone has doesn't really show any sort of truth about the world, rather it's just the result of the practice. Kind of like how that one case where a man turned aggressive after a rail spike went through his head. Thoughts people? I CAN accept that people change over time and we aren't the same people we were when younger. But I don't think that's what they mean.Machina (talk) 23:34, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

The reason why we have opinions on things is that as we are exposed to more information and gain more experience in the world, we tend to develop certain attitudes and opinions on certain topics, or change our interests as we are exposed to things that we currently find more interesting than what we were previously interested in. And this change is again influenced by past experiences and notions of what you would be interested in. It doesn't "just happen". And as for the case you mentioned where the man's personality dramatically changed after having a rail spike go through his head (Phineas Gage?): When the brain is damaged in such a way that the parts of it that control your personality and memories are destroyed but the parts that you need to survive and function are left intact, then of course your personality will change. It's just neuroscience; nothing woo-woo about it. --Goatspeed. Watch meCircularReasoningSteal my ideas 23:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
The underlying idea is the same as has been presented thousands of times over in all sorts of other contexts. It's effectively a form of No True Scotsman with the self to lead you to the desired conclusion: your "real self" is defined (perhaps vaguely) as X, and anything which does not accord with X must therefore be "false." Did you achieve Enlightenment/find God/realize that you should give me all of your money? If not, then something is holding you back and you should try again until you achieve Enlightenment/find God/realize that you should give me all of your money. The logic behind the mechanism - what makes bodily experiences "false" but meditative experiences "true" - is irrelevant, because all you need is the rhetorical flourish of telling people that they can reach Truth and Happiness if they close their eyes and breathe just the right way. If you don't feel the overwhelming sense of oneness with the Universe described, then there are classes which can be conveniently found to help you develop your technique so you can do it right. --Mabian (talk) 23:57, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
It's the whole "who you really are" which they take to mean the universe and not a self or this body in the picture world. If you look that the other tab about meditation you'll see the list of the steps. I think that since this sense of self is developed of time and not something you are born with then it is "False" or not who you are, but that doesn't really say WHY it is false especially since our likes and dislikes seems to be true enough. But then again, humans don't finish developing until later on. At most I can logically boil it down to you are a body that has experiences. I'm guessing the universe experience comes from meditation which is really just the result of brain activity. In fact most mystical awakenings then to happen when the body is stressed and the mind too, which seems to me is what the result of "throwing away" does. But that doesn't seem like it gets at "who you are" so much as it just destroys you. It's like saying a house is false just because it was built.Machina (talk) 00:41, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
I disagree. This is asking me to pay money to learn how to not care about possessions. This is easy to spot garbage, low-level palm reading/fortune telling level. They don't want to create a cult, it's not scientology. They just want your money. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 06:10, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Fearmongering News[edit]

So my phone has a newsfeed that it shows me. It's got the usual blend of decent journalism and novels about how Kim Kardashian is #goals, but there's an annoying amount of total fearmongering. British rag "The Express" seems to be the kings of this, but rags of all (faded) colors love doing this. What's odd about this is that it's not the standard "Takn' yer Jurbs" fearmongering, it's more... Hollywood. It's all about the asteroid hitting earth TOMORROW or the STRANGE NEW PLAGUE that SCIENCE CAN'T EXPLAIN! Somehow, life goes on despite these constant threats to civilization. To give you an idea of how crazy this gets, the good folks at the express were kind enough to make an "asteroid" category. Every time the word "asteroid" slips through NASA's lips, these people jump on it. Lo and behold, the asteroid category:

http://www.express.co.uk/latest/asteroids

Some of my favorite headlines:

-NASA asteroid tracker: LOOK OUT as three giant asteroids skim the earth TODAY

-NASA warn 'APOCALYPSE asteroid' Bennu WILL appear in the sky this Valentine's Day

-Asteroid WARNING: NASA admits killer asteroids threaten humanity with 'global DEVISTATION'

-NASA asteroid threat: New spacecraft to SMASH INTO asteroids and SAVE EARTH

-Asteroid which wiped out dinosaurs contains alien metals which could CURE CANCER

-Asteroid Apophis: Will 12,000ft asteroid named after god of CHAOS slam into earth in 2020?

-NASA asteroid WARNING: Former astronaut demands defense against CITY-KILLER asteroids

-Bible's Sodom and Gomorrah destroyed by 10 MEGATON asteroid explosion, archaeologists say.

And finally, my personal favorite,

-ASTEROID WARNING: Centaurs from Neptune and Jupiter could DESTROY EARTH

All of the caps, formatting etc was by them. None of these were satirical.

An ordinary human man (talk) 18:26, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Asteroids? More like AsTERRORoids, amirite? DuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 18:29, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Hmmm. Maybe a giant asteroid magnet. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 19:18, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Sadly, here in the US, we no longer really have such a paper. About the closest we do have is such upstanding examples as the Enquirer, which are less about Astronomy That Will Kill Us and more about Celebrities That We Want To Kill (and to a lesser extent, right-wing political support, ignored by most readers in favor of whatever the fuck the Kardashians are doing this week).
We used to have the Weekly World News, but alas, the days of the BatBoy and the like are over... Kencolt (talk) 19:30, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
The Express articles I see besides asteroids are Yellowstone supervolcano scare stories. Example-
http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1086097/yellowstone-volcano-fears-scientists-monitoring-rising-magma-spt/amp --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:28, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
My favorite thing about all this has to be the caps. Like, do they think their readers are so stupid they won't get the idea of the articles? What's funny about this is that they don't only do this for world-ending news. Here's one from today: "REVEALED: The next TWO countries who will quit 'EU cult' as Brussels fears UK success" That's a dire, world-ending headline about... an economic union? An ordinary human man (talk) 14:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Any headline with the word DESTROY in all caps is invariably followed by useless drivel. Also any headline with numbers in it, e.g. "5 things you didn't know about A", "Top 10 reasons why you should get B", "20 best places for C", etc. Millennium Scallion (talk) 20:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Don't forget asking a "question" with a heavily implied answer. When a tabloid asks "Was an alien superweapon responsible for faking the death of Elvis?," they aren't promoting critical thinking, folks! An ordinary human man (talk) 15:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
And here's a combo plate: Do aliens exist? Is Elvis still alive? Top 30 commonly believed myths REVEALED. Millennium Scallion (talk) 19:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

RIP Opportunity (2004-2019)[edit]

Its lasted dozens of times as long as expected, but we all knew it would have to come to an end someday. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 04:05, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I demand a rescue mission! But seriously, it did its job well. RIP, mate! Nerd (talk) 04:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
RIP, little rover that could. An ordinary human man (talk) 14:12, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps this place could 'twin' with the locality.
Why can't the terrestial equivalents last as long as Opportunity and the Voyagers (and a few other such constructs)? Anna Livia (talk) 17:25, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
@Anna Livia What "terrestrial equivalents" are you talking about? Also remember, that we are talking about space probes here. They have some of the finest engineering in the world going into them, and a lot of redundancy as well. A lot of things can go wrong along the way, and NASA cannot just send in people to fix things. Nerd (talk) 17:29, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Various of the expensive projects (computer systems etc) which develop problems within a very short space of time. Anna Livia (talk) 17:58, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Such as? Remember, these space probes had undergone extensive testing before getting sent into space. Nerd (talk) 18:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
The NHS computer system, Universal Credit and various of these]. (Crossrail has to contend with the Romans - whatever they did for us - plague pits, the legacies of Joseph Bazalgette and other inconveniences created by 2000+ years of history.) Anna Livia (talk) 18:08, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
RIP, indefatigable traveller of the endless Martian deserts (and wasn't for that fucking dust storm it would have kept going on). May you rest someday in a Martian museum. Panzerfaust (talk) 14:44, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Space Bat[edit]

Why does that remind me of this? Palaeonictis Fossil beds 13:12, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Trump 2020[edit]

Will he win?

On this odds checker site Trump is at the top of the list. Thinker(unlicensed) 13:56, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah he will win. Then hell will freeze over, releasing satan, who will start a MAD nuke fight which will cause the extinction of mankind and most life on Earth, as global warming boils the oceans away and solar flares singe our atmosphere and reserve the poles, causing the moon to impact the Earth and break it into bits which then float into deep space as the sun goes nova, wiping out the solar system. Dysklyver 14:11, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Look at the recent State of the Union. When Trump boasts about the job creation and the massive increase in human trafficking arrests, the Democrats are motionless. When he talks about the new Democrat Congresswoman, the Democrats erupt in celebrations. People will see the Dems are more interested in their own careers and prestige than they are about ordinary people. —RWRW (talk) 14:40, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Well, yeah, of course they were motionless when he mentioned jobs. It's not like someone's going to shout in the middle of the State of the Union "Most of those jobs are part-time jobs and independent contractors meaning that less wealth is being passed down to the ordinary people. Also, because the business cycle is, like, a thing, a recession is going to come soon, and we have no monetary means of correcting it, meaning that we will have to resort to fiscal policy, but because the government deficit is so huge the loans market is lowered, meaning that any fiscal policy we make isn't going to be as effective as it could be." Doesn't quite roll off the tongue. RoninMacbeth (talk) 14:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
As for the question UT posed, it's too early to say. Considering the way Trump arrived on the scene, I think the whole election punditry and bet-placing thing before, like, September 2020 isn't really helpful. RoninMacbeth (talk) 15:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
agreed. only an imbecile would call it 2 years in advance when a week in politics is a long time. we dont even know who hes up against. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:05, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Were you watching the same SOTU I did? The impression I got was that Trump just learned what D-Day was and wanted to brag about it to the entire country. RoninMacbeth (talk) 21:43, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Granted, talking about D-Day was a waste of time since nobody under 35 knows what it is, but comparing the War on Cow Farts to defeating Nazis isn't exactly getting off on the right foot, either. nobs piss in my ear 21:49, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
"...nobody under 35 knows what [D-Day] is..." Gee, thanks nobs. Your faith in me and my generation is appreciated. RoninMacbeth (talk) 21:56, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Never underestimate the ability of the democrats to field a centrist whose personality everyone detests in an easy to win election. 2000, 2004, and 2016 were not flukes, 2008 was the fluke. But also, if you get your information on what is true from betting sites, you're giving way too much credit to dumb people with money. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
There are times when you wish there was a 'none of the above' option on the voting paper. 17:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Not for me. There are times where I definitely like one candidate better the other, but shoving everyone who voted in the primary for that candidate into a blender would be ideal. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:12, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Trump probably won't win, God I hope he loses. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 20:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
@Rationalzombie94 in the past you have claimed to side more with Republicans than Democrats. Would you rather an extremist Democrat (say, Bernie) become President if that means Trump is defeated? --RWRW (talk) 21:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@RWRW Things change. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

That's fair enough, and I can understand having a personal dislike towards a politician. But what about policies? Would you be comfortable with a President who wants to abolish ICE and hike up everyone's taxes? --RWRW (talk) 09:19, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Back to basics. To beat Trump, you need a candidate. Tulsi Gabbard looked good until she won the coveted David Duke endorsement. nobs piss in my ear 21:35, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
I am reasonably impressed by most of the declared Democratic candidates. The only really unacceptable ones are Booker -- no way I'm voting for a goddamn vegan cultist -- and Gillibrand, whose shameful treatment of Al Franken helped hand over the Senate to the Republicans. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 11:39, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Opinion Poll[edit]

Because opinion polls are always accurate, right? --RWRW (talk) 21:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Ignoring personal preference, who do you think will win the 2020 Presidential election?

Donald Trump20Vote
Kamala Harris3Vote
Joe Biden2Vote
Elizabeth Warren6Vote
Other23Vote
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez4Vote
I added Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to the poll, but I think that doing so the previous votes have been compromised. Does someobe know how to fix it? Thinker(unlicensed) 07:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Nope, you're just going to have to learn to live with the outcome of your actions!! Cardinal Chang (talk) 12:39, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
It'll be those pesky Russians for sure... --RWRW (talk) 09:20, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
its 2 years away and we dont even know the candidates. whats the point? AMassiveGay (talk) 11:20, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Also Cortez is too young to run for president. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 13:30, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
@AMassiveGay I don’t know, I’ve always enjoyed speculating and punditry
@Bigs well, I guess America has dodged a bullet there. —RWRW (talk) 13:45, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
We don't even know who the Dems are gonna run. A better poll question would have been "Will Donald Trump be reelected?" DuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 14:03, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I love how the Trump vote keeps going up to equal the Other vote. It’s very 4chan. — Unsigned, by: 24.91.159.57 / talk / contribs

Ocasio-Cortez won't be eligible until the 2024 election, so her votes should go to "other".Ariel31459 (talk) 02:02, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Mentioning Logic&Such is an instaban offense[edit]

A national emergency (U.S.) is now in effect......[edit]

The "Emergency" is a fucking wall. What else will Trump can Trump do to make a mockery of the United States? Kill a Bald Eagle? Use the Bill of Rights as a napkin? How about using the American flag as toilet paper?

I am just frustrated about the whole thing. Sorry if I am going off the deep end. How would you feel if someone ran a country and disregards everything your country stands for? 😡😡😡 --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 03:00, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

These days?
Sadly, I might well feel European. Or South American. Possibly East Asian in many cases. Or Near Eastern-- albeit without much of the religious aspect, since even Trump isn't going to try to put liturgical laws in place (no matter what much of his base would desire). Not sure about Australian or it's nearby neighbors, but then of late I'm not sure of anything from that quarter. The thing about Trump is (a) He's here in the States and directly affecting the residents thereof, and (b) We US citizens haven't got the experience that those in many other nations have with would-be strongmen imposing (Or trying to impose} their pet ideas on the nation, hang what reality says, and we have a better chance than many of resisting. But I think it does sting a bit more because we're not used to it, unlike much of the rest of the world. Kencolt (talk) 04:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm personally worried that the general apathy the American people have is the perfect hotbed for Trump to set up an autocracy. The Atlantic made an amazing article on this, and loads of people don't seem to understand how much info they put out there that outs them as political opponents. Would Trump mass murder every opponent he has? Unlikely, but expect hardships if the worst happens. Spoony (talk) 11:20, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
They impeached Johnson for less explicit violations of the constitution. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Lawsuits will stop it from actually happening. Congress not agreeing with you does not constitute a national emergency, by any definition. If it was a real emergency, action would have been taken on it during the 3 years that Republicans controlled all branches of government, and the solution wouldn't be a decades-long public works project. Even if for some crazy reason the courts don't strike down the entire "emergency", future governments will stop the project: there things take decades. The Secure Fence Act of 2006 isn't fully implemented yet because of the sheer difficulty of getting people who live on the border to give up their land. Hannasanarion (talk) 17:42, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • It seems that Trump is drawing $8 billion out of the defense construction and drug enforcement budgets to build his wall as part of this. I can't say I am surprised. Dysklyver 16:10, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
    Clear and compelling evidence that the DoD is massively overfunded. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:22, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
If the 'processes, planning and purchases processes' have not yet been started half way into the Trump presidency, and there are no 'buy this bit of back of beyond and the government will pay you megabucks to acquire it' scams yet, then what are the chances of anything actually happen? And what is the likelihood of earthquakes/plate tectonics/climate change etc causing problems? Anna Livia (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
The only climate change induced possibility (and it's a remote one) is that the Rio Grande continues drying up to the point where it's no longer a natural border crossing barrier. Oh, and if that happens, we'll have more serious things to worry about than illegal immigrants. Millennium Scallion (talk) 19:59, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
What's everybody in a tizzy for? This bill is a compromise. The wall funding was put into a Pentagon reserve funding to provide deniability, in exchange for amnesty. If you don't like how sausage is made, don't watch. nobs piss in my ear 23:03, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Or become vegetarian :)
Could the 'multiple part-ownerships of pieces of land' set-up be used to thwart undesired development projects? (Depending upon the situation using 'major investment companies' or involving sovereign pseudo-law know-it-all citizens to clutter up the legal system.) Anna Livia (talk) 23:27, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@RobSmith Trump refused the compromise. What do you think happened? --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 16:45, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Bull. Trump signed the bill with the provisions not to separate children, etc. nobs piss in my ear 21:15, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

What is "Good Enough" for the Survival of Humanity?[edit]

We know the sun will eventually die. I say die, because we all say batteries die.

If Homo Sapiens intend to continue their existence in this universe, which I fully support, what do we have to do? Our legacy CAN outlast the life of our sun.

Is launching a probe to nowhere a good enough legacy? Is an AI android good enough? Do we have to send living humans in a diaspora? Can we send AI as nannies to human DNA?

What level of permanence does humanity really need? I'd like as many probes as we can launch to take Tardigrades everywhere. If there's alien life out there, at least our water bears won't be a horror sci-fi disaster if they find them. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:54, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

It's useless to speculate about this. Earth will continue to be habitable for hundreds of millions of years. We could send space ships across the galaxy and back hundreds of times with today's technology before Earth became uninhabitable. We have no idea what humanity's options will be when it comes time to leave the earth. Hell, I don't know what my options will be to commute to work in 100 years. Anything beyond that is a great big question mark as far as civilization and technology goes. Hannasanarion (talk) 15:06, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
The luminosity of the sun increases by around 1% every 100 billion years. This will eventually lead to there being too little CO2 in the atmosphere around 500 million years from now. Plant life will then become unsustainable and life on earth will be over. Fortunately, intelligent life is a self limiting phenomenon. Whatever survives us, if anything does, is unlikely to be in a position to do anything about this. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 19:41, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Unable to save the earth, probably, yeah. But unable to do anything? that's a stretch. I continue to hold that this whole discussion is silly. Homo Sapiens evolved 200,000 years ago, and human civilization started 5,000 years ago. We have 500,000,000 years before the natural destruction of the earth. This is like a one-hour-old baby fretting about retirement. Hannasanarion (talk) 22:10, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/31/books/review/seveneves-by-neal-stephenson.html Cardinal Chang (talk) 13:00, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

what would be the point of 'survival' via human dna sent out in space if actual living human beings dont survive? thatb is isnt survival in any sense. i couldnt give a shit about genomes. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:52, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
And if Homo sapiens sapiens and Homo sapiens futurus then Formicidae/Xestobium rufovillosum/tardigrade/nematode sapiens sapiens will do so. And these beasties will 'switch off the lights' as they leave. Anna Livia (talk) 23:38, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

As the sun grows bigger, the goldilocks zone extends further out into the solar system. While Earth becomes uninhabitable, Mars becomes marginally more inviting as it's no longer permanently below freezing and solar power becomes worthwhile. More importantly, Jupiter's moons become possibilities for permanent habitation, and as anyone who's ever played Kerbal Space Program for long would understand, the lower gravity combined with all the other moons right there makes space travel far cheaper. Eventually, of course, humanity must seek out a means of interstellar travel. No matter what people say, we do not have the tech for it at this time. Space is an extremely hostile environment, and we would be unable to produce anything that'd be capable of traveling for thousands of years without ever being taken to the shop for inspections and repair, let alone store the fuel and supplies needed to keep a small group of humans alive on a sort of "generation ship" where the great great great great grandkids of the original astronauts tell their grandkids about how their great great great grandkids may one day walk upon something other than the overly cramped tin can that is the only world in the universe as far as they are concerned. We may have the technology in the future, but I'm not holding my breath. CoryUsar (talk) 07:16, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Dungeons & Dragons is a lot like religion[edit]

See here. Besides the Fundy thinking scheme of that something featuring dragons, deities even if fictional ones, and of course devils and demons must be by force Satanic, I think the author has a very good point, knowing how all what the former have to justify their BS is just a book, and once it's removed they're pretty much SOL -same as for their hate of evolution, BB, etc-. Panzerfaust (talk) 23:34, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

This is a weird conclusion as I came in thinking Dungeon and Dragons foster cult like behavior and promote delusions like a religion does and kept reading the article until I found that point but didn't find it. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 04:38, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
You mean like anything large groups of people are passionate about? Palaeonictis Fossil beds 08:07, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Dungeons & Dragons is designed to work off religious themes. It includes a lot of pagan iconography, as well as neo-satanic themes. Dysklyver 13:19, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Actually, it's more correct to say that D&D works on fantasy themes... primarily drawn from Tolkien and Vance, to be specific, although there's stuff from all over (Howard, Lieber, et al... ). Fantasy may often have some echo of religion, but it frequently has little to do with any real world religion, pagan or no. That was part of the problem with most of the Moral Panic regarding the game in the first place-- it weren't Jews, it weren't Muslims, it weren't Christians, and it usually weren't really anything that correlated to the modern religious landscape-- must be Satanic, or at least suspect.
The article in question is a good three years old, and to my mind, wasn't that accurate then and isn't now. Unlike religion, after all, D&D has a set of definite-- and mathematically definable-- rules. Religion has rules, but they are far more open to interpretation-- which is where "heresy" comes from... Kencolt (talk) 08:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Almost anything that people believe passionately in can - in some ways - be like a religion. But clearly this is not the same saying anything can actually be a religion.Hubert (talk) 11:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

THIS LAND IS MINE!![edit]

GOD GAVE THIS LAND TO ME!!:

Palaeonictis Fossil beds 12:29, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

this is better

AMassiveGay (talk) 12:59, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

This is not better but it is an Esperanto adaptation of the above song. I never thought I'd get an excuse to share it.

Spud (talk) 16:07, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

tear gas and wars[edit]

tear gas is ok for quelling rioting civilians, and ok enough for civilians to use on each other (in the form of mace and the like) in some regions. why is it not ok to use tear gas during actual wars? AMassiveGay (talk) 18:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

BeCAuSe oF ThE gREAt WaR. Dysklyver 19:52, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, the chemical weapons treaties. It is kind of odd in a way because it's one thing you can't legally do to soldiers in war that you can do to civilians. Soldiers generally have fewer rights than civilians. Bongolian (talk) 20:45, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes and no; often times when a soldier kills there is no investigation or coroners report. nobs piss in my ear 21:09, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Unless the person the soldier killed was a civilian, usually anyways. Palaeonictis Fossil beds 09:59, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Arctic, global warming and states[edit]

With all the retreat of artic ice that could lead to new land being exploitable, companies and states are going to want to exploit them, but could some of the territory become habitable too ? Could that, in time, lead to the expansion of northern states or the creation of new states ? I don't know much at all on the subject so I have no idea whether or not something like that could happen. Diacelium (talk) 20:03, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Russia for example is doing this and has great plans to do more to develop their northern region both economically and for habitation. Dysklyver 20:45, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Hmm, interesting. Who has claim to the land? Are squatters rights applicable? nobs piss in my ear 21:12, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
There isn't any land. The arctic is an ocean. The handful of islands that exist in the arctic circle have been claimed, or even inhabited, going back over a century. Hannasanarion (talk) 22:04, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Yahbutt claiming the land isn't sufficient enough. What about squatters rights? and who adjudicates?
This question really applies more to the Antarctic; gold hasn't been discovered there yet, but when it is, the rush is on. And Chile is the only country that has sent pregnant women to Antarctic to have anchor babies, AFAIK. nobs piss in my ear 22:27, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Squatters rights have nothing to do with it, because there is no unclaimed land. The northernmost piece of land on the planet is already inhabited by Canadians. Russia has done nuclear testing on their parts of the arctic. Norway hosts a massive seed bank on their largest arctic island. There isn't any room for disputes or new claims, the receding ice won't reveal anything but water. As for the antarctic, mining is banned by treaty and all signatories of the Antarctic Treaty agree to treat it as common heritage of mankind, like the seafloor, or outer space (regardless of what claims they may or may not have), and there is little reason to expect that to change in the forseeable future. Hannasanarion (talk) 22:52, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Inhabited? Hahaha! population density was 0.0 people per square kilometre. nobs piss in my ear 00:11, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
In my state, I knew a guy who had several acres with squatters on for years. When he wanted to evict the squatters so he could sell the land, the judge ruled it wasn't his land anymore. Since he made no use of the land, and no attempt to remove the squatters, the law reads it's their land now - the people who actually worked to develop it. nobs piss in my ear 00:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
This would cause a major geopolitical issue. While Antarctica would be habitual, almost all island nations would be sunk. You have many island nation governments competing for Antarctic land. Plus South American and South African nations competing for Antarctic land. Don't forget, the major world powers would attempt to revoke the Antarctic Treaty so they can lay claim. Undead EAS Productions is invading --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── What you people forget to realize is that the ice is not going to melt all away, even the Arctic will have seasonal sea ice. The Antarctic Ice Sheet is in a far better state than Greenland's, and the ice caps have been through periods of warming like this before and made it out intact. Palaeonictis Fossil beds 10:03, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Ok. Maybe the universe entered some disequilibrium phase causing the earth to tilt off its known axis by human measurements and understanding, causing the Arctic icecaps to be exposed for longer durations to the sun, and the melting of polar icecaps is not anthropogenic. nobs piss in my ear 00:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
@RobSmith so are we going to ignore basic chemistry and physics? Carbon Dioxide traps heat. Now, cars and factories pump out Carbon Dioxide. There are over 7 billion people on the planet. I could go on but that would go in one ear and out the other. Mind picking up a science book not written by a creationist or climate change denialist? 😉😉 --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:28, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Aristolochia cover story nomination[edit]

I have recently nominated Aristolochia to be a cover story. I invite everyone to read it if you haven't recently done so. Please add your comments to the talk page regarding the nomination. Also, take a look at Category:Cover story nominees and Category:Silver-level articles to see if there are any articles that you think that you can work on to help move them to cover story. Bongolian (talk) 05:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Belated birthday celebration[edit]

I started this page just over 10 years ago. A pity that the landmark went uncelebrated. Genghis Khant (talk) 13:11, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Shit that was a long time ago. Anyways, it's good to see another of the Old Guard here, @Genghis Khant, you're always welcome at RW. Palaeonictis Fossil beds 13:16, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Jussie Smollett attack[edit]

http://edition.cnn.com/2019/02/16/entertainment/jussie-smollett-attack/index.html

"Two law enforcement sources with knowledge of the investigation tell CNN that Chicago Police believe actor Jussie Smollett paid two men to orchestrate an assault on him that he reported late last month. [...] Smollett told authorities he was attacked early January 29 by two men who were "yelling out racial and homophobic slurs." He said one attacker put a rope around his neck and poured an unknown chemical substance on him."

The story keeps changing. First the attack was true, then it was fake news, then the attack being fake news was fake news itself, now it changed again... Thinker(unlicensed) 13:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Do note that it's the law enforcement officers changing the story, not Smollett or even the suspects. It's a classic case of poisoning the well, and serves to spread doubt about Smollett even if what happened match his account. Think for a second: why would someone pay someone else to fake an attempted lynching? Visibility? It wasn't at a protest or event. Kink? If he has the money to do that, he has the money to hire an escort. Suicide? Acetaminophen is a couple dollars and someone looking to die won't try to make it a spectacle. The police's claim makes little actual sense. 24.120.253.250 (talk) 23:04, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
The whole story is B.S. and is being used by the likes of CNN and others to regain some semblance of credibility after the McCabe-Rosenstein-Mueller coup attempt, i.e. Trump-Russia. nobs piss in my ear 00:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
judging by your post history both involving that subject and in general, you're jumping on the fact that one of the people in the DOJ involved in discussing the possibility of invoking the 25th amendment to legally remove the president from office is named 'rosenstein'. you are making sure you mention that name as much as possible. hmmmm, I wonder why? *thonk emoji*
also since it's through legal channels it's only a coup if guaido's attempt to depose president maduro is also a coup. both attempted through legal means, because military force is not necessary (though often invoked) in a coup. 24.120.253.250 (talk) 00:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

It has now been accepted the whole thing was staged. Commie Lib (talk) 19:00, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

@24.120.253.250 "Think for a second: why would someone pay someone else to fake an attempted lynching?"
That's a really bad way to handle any kind of accusation. People lie for infinitely many reasons. The job of the police is to listen to what is reported and to investigate if it is what actually happened.
@Tabula Rasa "It has now been accepted the whole thing was staged."
Do you have some source? It seems to me that recent development are all pointing to a staged attack, but I prefer to proceed with caution. Thinker(unlicensed) 10:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Request for design feedback[edit]

Please take a look at RationalWiki:Main Page testing area and tell me what you think so far of the design. Dysklyver 13:32, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Overall, it is a more pleasing design than what we have now. It think it might look better if there was some color on the top banner rather than just the text and grayscale brain. I think it would be better to put the featured article above WIGO. This is because the featured articles have been heavily reviewed by multiple editors, whereas the WIGO is more likely to have unreviewed information. Bongolian (talk) 19:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
I completely agree with Bongolian about the featured article not being displayed prominently enough and also think it should go above the WIGO. I'd also agree that a bit more colour wouldn't go amiss. Maybe make that bar beneath the welcome message the same light green as the panel on the right with the featured article and WIGO in it. Also, capitalization should be consistent. It says "Random featured article" but "Portals and Articles" and "What Is Going On?" personally, I'd prefer it to be "Portals and articles" and "What is going on?" Spud (talk) 04:40, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I think it's effective from a navigation standpoint, but it's not very aesthetically pleasing. The value of the aesthetic design dependes on whether or not people's first impressions of the site are based off the main page or one of the more significant articles. RoninMacbeth (talk) 05:21, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree with what @Bongolian and @Spud said. Furthermore, I think the portals should be listed in alphabetical order. Nerd (talk) 05:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
The WIGO section is very large and verbose for what it provides. There also seem to be a lot of lists and text. Putting some of the content (WIGOs or portals) horizontally rather than vertically would break it up. The Participate section at the bottom looks asymmetrical and too left-centred, maybe rearrange it too. And more images instead of blocks of text. --Annanoon (talk) 09:38, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Ok thanks for all the feedback, I will see what I can do. Dysklyver 11:13, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid I've only got non-constructive criticism, it looks way worse, like one of those ugly web 2.0 infinite scrolling pages, but it's finite. But I don't know how to not make it look like that. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 22:16, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

remind me again with the problem with the current one? AMassiveGay (talk) 23:19, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

It uses tables, which because of progress must be removed. However, once the tables are removed it is impossible for it to look exactly the same as it does now. Dysklyver 01:58, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

About the Alt-Right section on our site[edit]

Does this only have to include alt-righters/alt-right groups from the US/UK/The internet or can alt-righters/alt-right groups from other countries be added aswell?

If so, I suck at making pages and I don't have SPOV (snarky point of view) so I thought someone could help me with this, since I really want this asshole here and I think most people would be astonished by this guy and his group. I don't know how many english websites covered him, but I do know that he's been mentioned on Infowars (which for some reason the people that made this reportage (the show is called "Pano" that covered him), called infowars a right-wing website, and not an Alt-right conspiracy website (for some reason, no one ever mentions the word "conspiracy" in my country (or hardly), not even stand-up comedians...) & that he appeared on Red Ice TV. After I saw that reportage, I decided to look up that name and it turned out that we have an article about those clowns.

And, yes. This is definitely part of RW's mission. Tinribmancer (talk) 15:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

There's absolutely no requirement for RW content to be in English or primary about Anglocentric topics. It just happens that most editors here are either American or British and speak English. Dysklyver 15:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
If you use the AP definition of alt-right it is a generalized concept.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Tyrone[edit]

You know, I sorta impulsively threw a gauntlet as his face after seeing his rather disgusting work then went on vacation for a weekend and now, wow. I don't need a recap of what I missed but I didn't have a chance to say anything. Was just interesting. Zero (talk - contributions) 17:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

In a good way, or a bad way? RoninMacbeth (talk) 17:49, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Neither, I guess. Not having to justify my actions was oddly refreshing (for the record, I demoted him because his edit history was so short and contentious, added the revocation because of the personal attack). Also for the record? I'm probably more in shape than I have any reason to be right now and lighter than any time since college. What's with people? Zero (talk - contributions) 17:31, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
They're dicks, by in large. RoninMacbeth (talk) 18:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

An update on the so-called national emergency.[edit]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/coalition-of-states-sues-trump-over-national-emergency-to-build-border-wall/2019/02/18/9da8019c-33a8-11e9-854a-7a14d7fec96a_story.html?fbclid=IwAR3g-qx1eutWs_GcVwGQCFtiGvX1Aq3-HFL5HP_iiQXcarKyx8l2HJhvmgc&noredirect=on&utm_term=.82479699cee5

Drumpf is being sued by 16 states and multiple independent committees over the constitutional authority of this declaration.

This just keeps getting more interesting with each passing day.

I know nobs, I will get the far right rhetoric. I wonder how I even could even call myself Republican in the past. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:36, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Maybe you were confused or high. :P Tinribmancer (talk) 12:33, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
As a non-US person - to what extent is 'the national emergency' actually the face-off between Trump and 'the rest of central and local government'? Anna Livia (talk) 13:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Pretty much all of it. Congress is likely to accuse Trump of violating the Congressional power of the purse, thereby rendering Trump's actions unconstitutional. Palaeonictis Fossil beds 13:32, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
It's also an intra-Republican war in a sense. The conservative pundit split on this issue has been rather stark: the talk-radio / populist crowd (Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, etc.) howled when Trump didn't get his wall and encouraged the executive order runaround, and the more Beltway/business conservative pundits are the ones now that are currently howling. (EG: the National Review Online is taking time out of its busy schedule bashing liberals to bash Trump on this decision, or at least say stuff like this is a bad idea in the long run for political reasons (Jonah Goldberg)). Currently the (cough) "nativists" in American conservatism have the upper hand, so I'm honestly not expecting strong resistance from Republicans in Congress. However, I expect quite a bit of resistance from border states, even conservative states not joining the above lawsuit -- there's still some eminent domain disputes being fought from the previous border fence act in 2006.Soundwave106 (talk) 13:58, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
The court battles will be interesting. Any attorney worth their salt will say, "Look, here's my legal dictionary. Here's the definition for the word 'emergency.' Here's why Trump's declaration of emergency is not legitimate based on what an emergency actually is." The SCOTUS loves shit like that because it allows them to cheap out and make a small, non-precedent-creating ruling. The funny thing is, I'm not even sure this is gonna be a partisan issue on the court. Allowing frivolous national emergencies creates an awe-inspiringly bad precedent going forward. A Democratic president could just as easily then declare a national emergency over healthcare, gun violence, or anything else. An authoritarian president who is actually, y'know, not an idiot could use the power to do some very destructive things. DuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 14:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Elephant in the room[edit]

Having a complete idiot for president highlights how stupid and anti-democratic national emergency laws are. They should be repealed. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:28, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes. At least revise the regulations to require congress to confirm the existence of an emergency. The present ambiguity is not acceptable.Ariel31459 (talk) 15:46, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Honestly, the first Democratic presidential candidate who promises to dismantle the imperial Presidency would significantly rise in my esteem. Unfortunately, without several reforms to the Congress as well, the executive will, almost by necessity, remain immensely powerful. RoninMacbeth (talk) 16:14, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm hypothetically prepared for the eventuality that the center-right, antipopulist nature of the democratic party takes root so firmly that the republicans beat them to this position in like 40ish years when 80% their current voters are dead and they're free to re-invent themselves or be replaced by a new party. That's too late for certain more urgent problems, so I gotta hope the left seizes control of the dems, and wins 2 branches of government. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:11, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
As a patriotic American, this declaration of national emergency is total bullshit. I 100% agree that this is abuse of power. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:41, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
With regard to the important problems, William Weld, former Republican governor of Mass. and newly declared independent candidate, is currently trying to engender support for the importance of climate change problems. Maybe a little encouraging.Ariel31459 (talk) 18:24, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
"Trying to engender support" is decades fucking late. Sensible, informed people have been doing that since the 70s. Sane, not completely fucked up politicians since the 90s. Immediate, "crazy", and "unreasonable" action is what's warranted now. It's too late for cap-and-trade, low-level carbon taxes, or renewable incentive programs. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:31, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
As a jaded and not particularly patriotic American, so are all the other standing ones. Why do we have indefinite sanctions on Iran without a fucking law or treaty saying so? Why isn't seizing the assets of drug traffickers a law? Why isn't the blockade of yemen a law, or better yet not a thing at all, as it's killed tens of thousands? The difference about all the other abuses of executive power to subvert the legal process is that they don't affect Americans. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:31, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
A court case has been set up.
Is this an example of 'a would be irresistible force encountering an immovable object (ie Reality in General)?
There is a case for emergency powers to deal with unexpected major situations (not necessarily disasters)/starting off actions that will require complex-multi-participant involvements.
And this is how 'Grand Fenwick' rose to world dominance, as the USA was putting one more brick in the wall and the European Union decided to exit from the UK. Anna Livia (talk) 18:50, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
I have two questions. 1. Are these 4 lines somehow related to each other? 2. What do any of them mean? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:53, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

The first one - [1] refers, the second relates to long discussions previously on RW, the third is a general observation - and the last is an obscure reference - some obscure minor country will date its rise to power from the US and the EU being otherwise distracted. Anna Livia (talk) 19:05, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. The context helps. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:43, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
I know the United States has problems but Trump is simply unacceptable. My loyalty to my country is a big reason I want him out. Do your part as a patriotic American and impeach Trump --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:16, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

What is a Turing Test?[edit]

What's a Turing Test? I've heard about it but what is it? Titofrito (talk) 17:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I've got two answers for you, one that is what everyone thinks of when they hear "Turing test" and one that is slightly different that was Alan Turing's proposed idea.
  1. Popular conception: when a computer pretending to be a human can fool humans into thinking it's human by having a conversation, it's "sufficiently advanced AI to be called real AI".
  2. What Turing actually proposed, a controlled experiment called the "imitation game". It involves a subject pool of reviewers, and a pool of men and women who we'll call conversationalists. Reviewers get broken into an experimental and control group. In the control group, the reviewer has two text conversations, one with a man pretending to be a woman, one with a woman being herself. In the experimental group, the reviewer has two conversations, one with an AI instructed to pretend to be a woman, one with an actual woman being herself. The experiment would find a "real AI" if more computers than men could trick the reviewers into thinking they're women by a statistically significant margin.
Now, if the latter sounds like it makes a lot of assumptions about the innateness of gender, the importance of lying, and the power of human intuition to make meaningful deductions compared to more rigorous methods, congratulations, a lot of people agree with you. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:21, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
I think you might be forgetting that Turing was a genius when it came to the creation and use of early computers. Commie Lib (talk) 19:03, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
No? I'm pretty sure I'm not forgetting that? I respect his contributions to the field, but there are specific, identifiable problems to the imitation game experiment that him also inventing the mathematical model of an idealized computer doesn't fix.
To be clear, there are specific, demonstrable examples of how some of those problems are not just present, but critical. One of the still most successful examples of passing the imitation game version of the turing test was loading an otherwise dumb chatbot with a list of extremely horny stock phrases, and letting the human stupidity of the reviewers do most of the work. It didn't demonstrate real intelligence any more than Nigerian scam emails created by bots demonstrate financial genius. It was a simplistic experimental design that didn't really take into account some important things. Being a genius isn't the same thing as infallibility. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

The problem with the Turing test is that it depends very much on the naivety or gullibility of the human at the other end. In other words you are not testing the putative AI but you are in fact testing the humans. Or to put it another way - the more well-versed the humans are with AI or chatbots, the harder it is for the AI to be intelligent. (So it's not a good AI test.) Hubert (talk) 20:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but it was an interesting thought experiment. It was supposed to address the "How will we ever know if we've made real AI?" philosophical argument, by shutting it down with simple pragmatism. And if you go "yeah it doesn't actually work as a real world experiment" you're back to the philosophical question of "how will we know?" ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:32, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
As we know very little about what makes humans intelligent, deciding on whether or not a machine has human-like intelligence is going to tough. (Apart from this I think we should first develop artificial stupidity before we work on artificial intelligence. And, yes, I know it's an old joke. But it's all I've got.) Hubert (talk) 20:51, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Ha ha. Titofrito (talk) 23:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Intelligence is a difficult quality to generally describe. In living creatures it seems to be species-dependent. The concept of AI is independent of any known species of entity. That's what makes its intelligence so difficult to define. The Turing Test has a lot to do with testing the technology able to mimic human behavior.Ariel31459 (talk) 00:11, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Which is why it's mostly ignored by most AI researchers. The "mimicking human behavior" thing is so embedded in culture that it's hard for AI research to get out from under it. It doesn't help that the name of the field is so bad: everything humans do is "artifical" and "intelligence" is practically meaningless. More than a few prominent people have recommended changing it to "computational rationality", which is much more descriptive of what AI researchers actually do: use computational methods to devise systems that accomplish goals in a logical fashion. But then again, if the name of the field were actually descriptive, we would probably get less money and recruits, so the name sticks. There's a reason every startup in the last ten years uses "AI" in their advertising whether they're selling robots or bananas. Hannasanarion (talk) 02:45, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
yes, but how long till my computer can love?

AMassiveGay (talk) 03:29, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry but nobody believes Phil Oakey is a human being. --Annanoon (talk) 10:53, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Computers will pass the Turing test when they start looking at images of 'decorative computers', complain about humans taking their jobs and that there is nothing to watch tonight #yet again#, and they want a pay rise. Anna Livia (talk) 12:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC)