From RationalWiki

Welcome BoN

This is a place for general chit-chat about virtually anything that doesn't fit anywhere else.

For previous conversations see the automagic barchives.





People vs. NRA [ edit ]

https://twitter.com/NewYorkStateAG/status/1291397976200548353 l https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/2020/attorney-general-james-files-lawsuit-dissolve-nra

Well, well. As of today (August 6th 2020) New York's Attorney General Letitia James just filed to dissolve the NRA, citing "18 causes of action that violated multiple laws including laws governing the NRA's charitable status, false reporting on annual filings on state and IRS levels, improper expense documentation, improper wage reporting, improper income tax withholding, failure to make excise tax reports and payments, payments in excess of reasonable compensation to disqualified persons" and more offenses... Bigwiggler (talk) 16:58, 6 August 2020 (UTC)Bigwiggler

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ You didn't actually answer my questions, so I'll ask them again. If using the term "Blacks" somehow implies that a person "knows little about the struggle for Black Lives" what does it imply when someone refers to Black people as "black bodies" as you did recently here? To quote, "NCAA is a racket that profits on black bodies." In fact, the NCAA profits from various things related to the activities of student athletes. It doesn't run a morgue. And the second question: What definition of racism are you using such that trying to flood Chicago with guns is racist? Those tangents you went off on don't actually supply a definition of the word under contention. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 11:51, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Ok BoN, lets play then. Did I say "dead Black bodies'? No, I said Black bodies, meaning fairly clearly that the NCAA benefits directly from the labor of Black athletes. The NCAA almost exclusively makes it's revenue from two sports; College Football and College Basketball, sports with feature majority black athletes.[1] Combined these revenues exceed 90%, and they literally pay for every other collegiate sport across all three divisions. Because the CBB tourney was cancelled, it reduced the amount of money the NCAA distributed by 63%. Second, the NRA/GOP doesn't give a single shit about Black lives, because they allow guns in every part of society. Illinois actually has pretty strong gun laws, Indiana however does not, and most of the guns used in Chicago can be traced to straw purchases from Indiana. This allows the NRA/GOP to both 1. Blame Democratic Mayors/Governors for not controlling violence, even though they actively seek to undermine the actions that limit gun violence and 2. Continue to prop out the bullshit that Black on Black violence is worse then the systemic racism the NRA/GOP seek to protect. There is no one that cares about Black lives, Black empowerment, or Black success that refers to Black Americans as "Blacks". Take it from me, a Black person living in America.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:37, 21 August 2020 (UTC) “Did I say "dead Black bodies'?” You said “black bodies” lowercase. “meaning fairly clearly that the NCAA benefits directly from the labor of Black athletes.” Incorrect. The NCAA gets its money indirectly from the activities of athletes. It gets money directly from things like ticket sales and television/marketing rights. But in any case, you chose to characterize the student athletes that draw the crowds as “bodies” rather than something like “people” or “students” that would imply agency on their part. And how is it pertinent that many of the students in the most profitable sports happen to be black?. “There is no one that cares about Black lives, Black empowerment, or Black success that refers to Black Americans as "Blacks".” The point of the above line of discussion was to prompt an acknowledgement that the thing that implies an understanding of something or its lack is not the specific words used in a discussion about something, but how those words are used. “Take it from me, a Black person living in America” You are not personally in charge of the English language. What do you think of the Association for the Study of African American Life and History’s use? “Second” And you still haven’t answered the second question despite more tangents. So I’ll repeat it again. What definition of racism are you using such that trying to flood Chicago with guns is racist? To make it clearer, I’m looking for a definition here. But here’s an interesting tangent: “Illinois actually has pretty strong gun laws, Indiana however does not” And Illinois has more violent crime, both gun and otherwise, than Indiana. As if violent crime correlates inversely with the ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves in random encounters. Criminals are capable of performing cost-benefit analyses and altering their behavior in response to risks. Like my above comment about armed guards and police. Now, what were you saying about the NRA? 192․168․1․42 (talk) 17:58, 26 August 2020 (UTC) It seems like you are intentionally choosing not to understand so let me be very clear; The NCAA profits directly from Black athletes. Ticket sales and television rights are driven by the athletes. This is not a difficult concept, the athletes are Black, they are why people watch. Though we have created some illusion that the "student" part of "student-athlete" is the most important, the attempt to bring college sports back exposes this for the bullshit it is. I don't particularly give a fuck about your argument regarding proper description. Go to a group of Black people and refer to them as "the blacks", let me know how that works for you. You're continued failure to understand basic concepts regarding gun policy and race are also pathetic. The implication above, and implied by racists like Rob, is that Black people are inherently violent, and as such letting them kill each other with guns is OK. Additionally, the NRA frequently uses dog-whistles, bordering on fog-horns, to describe "urban violence", a handy trope to describe POC, and that guns are the only way to protect their "invasion". The standards for enforcing gun laws is also blatantly racist, the NRA bitches and moans about gun restrictions, but when lawful Black gun owners are murdered, crickets. Phillando Castillo was a legal gun owner, murdered by the police. Breona Taylor was murdered by police breaking into her home, and her boyfriend lawfully defended them. Bye every metric, the NRA is an organization that openly supports white nationalism at the cost of Black safety. Maybe poke around the site, and read some of the info regarding the NRA or Racialism.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 21:44, 26 August 2020 (UTC) “Go to a group of Black people and refer to them as "the blacks", let me know how that works for you.” I see you’re moving the goalposts there. Perhaps you found the usage by the ASALH too obviously inoffensive. But let’s move a bit further. I have a quote for you to consider. “Good education, housing and jobs are imperatives for the Negroes”. Do you think the person who said that knows little about “the struggle for Black Lives”? “the athletes are Black” Some are, while others are not. There are not racial criteria in selecting student athletes, and the NCAA profits from them regardless of their race. So why frame the issue specifically in terms of “black bodies”? “The NCAA profits directly from Black athletes” directly | diˈrektlē, dīˈrektlē | adverb 2 with nothing or no one in between Student athletes draw crowds and viewers. These crowds and viewers buy tickets and merchandise, and watch licensed programming. There is an intermediary layer of commercial organization between the activities of student athletes and the NCAA getting money. As such, the NCAA does not DIRECTLY profit from the activities of student athletes (of whatever race). In most paid employment situations, labor is not directly profitable to anyone but the laborer, as the employer usually makes profits from indirect actions like selling things to a third party. A contrast would be things like a street performer getting money directly from viewers. Definitions matter. Clarity of language enhances clarity of thought, and muddying definitions impairs both analysis and communication. So with that in mind, I’ll repeat the question yet again. What definition of racism are you using such that trying to flood Chicago with guns is racist? You’ve gone on a number of tangents expressing disapproval of the NRA et al, but “racism” is not just a generic catchall term to describe things you don’t like. What is the specific meaning you intended to convey by using that word above? I can quote what a dictionary has to say about it if you want another example of what I’m looking for. And I’ve been here since 2.1. I’ve poked around already. If you’re going to make an argument, you should be prepared to support it yourself. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 12:15, 31 August 2020 (UTC) You are just going to refuse to take any answer huh. Firstly, you seem to lack understanding of context. Your quote is from 1964. Negroes was the correct vernacular then, but I'm quite sure Malcolm X would be able to update the way he refers to Black people. The NCAA profits from two sports, Football and Men's Basketball. If you bothered to read the link I produced above, you would see that these sports are 80% Black. They are the reason fans buy tickets and merchandise. They are the reason why companies pay to sponsor games. They are the reason companies pay billions for rights to show the games. Your entire premise that because that not every single player isn't Black means the profit isn't derived from their labor, but the overwhelming majority is Black. At the next level it's even more extreme. So get your fucking Argumentum ad dictionarium out of here. Do you want examples of racism from the NRA? How about this? Or this? Maybe this? Not enough for you? What if you consider that when they talk about "violence in the inner city" it's a dog whistle? And that a great way to perpetuate this, is to challenge any and all form of gun regulations, to guarantee the profits of arms manufactures and still convince white people guns will protect them. In summation, fuck off.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:30, 31 August 2020 (UTC) “Firstly, you seem to lack understanding of context.” Nice of you to concede the point that the implications of word use depend on how they’re used rather than the words themselves. If you have nothing to add to that, the first point should be resolved. “Your entire premise that because that not every single player isn't Black means the profit isn't derived from their labor” Not even close to what I’ve been saying. Maybe reread what I wrote if you want to follow that thread. “Do you want examples of racism from the NRA?” I want a definition, as I mentioned before. You seem rather interested in various tangents, but I really am looking for a definition. For the fifth time now: What definition of racism are you using such that trying to flood Chicago with guns is racist? 192․168․1․42 (talk) 23:56, 4 September 2020 (UTC) Can I ask, because I dunno what you're talking about, how you would define racism? I mean, in a city with disproportionate levels of security (i.e. housing, food, education), say, via capital, what... I guess separates or, worse, excuses your question from addressing reality? As it stands, I think you're asking for a non-sequitur response. Nobody can give that to you. That doesn't mean your premise is airtight. Like, let's take this question "What definition of racisms are you using such that trying to flood Chicago with guns is racist?" Five times you've asked, are you gleaning a definition of racism or are you refusing any definition that isn't cut and dry? Does your definition have nuance? What are YOU fucking up, if you have to ask the same question five times? This is when you would offer your definition of racism, so that the conversation could be had. Ducking behind "you haven't explained racism to me" admits you aren't considering racism as a point, but not much else. Are you asking how an established power dynamic can be enforced or exacerbated by weapons? What are you actually asking? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 08:38, 6 September 2020 (UTC) “Can I ask … how you would define racism?” I’ll quote my dictionary for you: racism | ˈrāˌsizəm | noun prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior: a program to combat racism. • the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races: theories of racism. The gist is that racism involves using race as a categorical basis for action or judgement. Considering the negative connotation, I would also add that for common use it applies only to situations where race is NOT a legitimate basis for such things, though in a technical sense those would qualify. “What are you actually asking?” I mentioned above that clarity of language is important. The inability to talk precisely about things impairs discussion and finding solutions, which makes it more difficult to actually solve problems. “Racist” has in some circles today become something of a generic catchall term to describe things the speaker doesn’t like, and this seems to be how RipCityLiberal used it above. I therefore issued a challenge to produce the definition behind that use. Something like the dictionary definition I gave would show that it clearly doesn’t apply, and that the use was improper, while admitting it to be a mere expression of disapproval would remove the invocation of moral condemnation associated with the concept. Attempting to stretch the dictionary definition to fit would be obviously ad hoc. RipCityLiberal seems to be attempting to steer the conversation along various tangents to avoid having to confront this, which is a legitimate rhetorical technique, if one which is simple to counter. The point of all this is an attempt to improve norms regarding the quality of discourse by calling attention to where it's gone wrong. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 19:14, 6 September 2020 (UTC) Well, I guess that's fine, but then what do you want to call inbuilt and practiced structures of society that were originally predicated on race differentiation? Like, I'd call it an anachronism if it weren't for the fact it's still going on. If you aren't a racist, great. Nobody is asking you to be one. Do you think there are any causal relationships between your dictionary definition of racism and what people live with today? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:54, 7 September 2020 (UTC) If you’re talking about racism by institutions, that used to be called institutional racism. But not all things “originally predicated on race differentiation” are racist, institutional or otherwise, so be sure to say precisely what you want to discuss. As for causal relationships, do you mean something like “racism” being defined in a certain way, “racism” being considered wrong, therefore those certain things defined as “racism” being targeted by policies while ignoring other things that should also be targeted? Or is your question about the relevance of the definition I gave to what people experience today? 192․168․1․42 (talk) 20:37, 7 September 2020 (UTC) Well, the question was more along the lines of whether you personally wanted to separate the definitions of prejudicial racism and institutional racism. I don't really see how making the difference the point is functional except in defending institutions or political stances as less racist than they used to be. You can define the two ideas separately, but why would you actually have to? Like I said, nobody is asking anybody to be a racist. There are structures and systems that are inherently racist, and I suppose it's a good idea to remind people of what prejudicial racism is, exactly, but it's not a good idea to excuse taking part in those institutions without also critically thinking about how they are based in all of the definitions of racism. What is the functional benefit of stratifying racism as personal, political, institutional, or inevitable? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:47, 9 September 2020 (UTC) “separate the definitions” “two ideas separately” “stratifying racism” You’re misinterpreting the situation. They aren’t separate. Institutional racism is a subset of racism, which is a more general category that includes a lot of different things. Institutional racism still involves using race as a categorical basis for action or judgement, it’s just that institutional racism specifically involves legal/organizational/cultural actions or judgements rather than those by other entities. The term was coined because racism by institutions was perceived to be both important and useful to consider as a conceptual category. For example, Jim Crow laws are a rather different sort of racism than a restaurant owner refusing to hire Irish people, and opposing them takes different techniques. New terms in general come about when someone finds a situation where a distinction or description would be useful, but the existing lexicon is not up to the task. “There are structures and systems that are inherently racist” Like what? Please be specific. That “it's not a good idea to excuse taking part in those institutions without also critically thinking about how they are based in all of the definitions of racism” bit doesn’t mean much without specific details of what you’re talking about. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 03:47, 12 September 2020 (UTC) This is a special situation, because I don't think I disagree with you on amy of that. So, let's say under that point, we entertain the idea of "the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" Well, that rhetoric isn't up for debate, we know that originates from the NRA, so who dp they use as an example of a good guy (the suburban mom, the meek white grandpa, the perfectly law abiding policeman) if you aren't familiar with NRA magazines, unfortunately I am) and who is the bad guy (Obama, middle-eastern king gun-taker, but that's a little outdated, I've been taking shits in the same work bathroom since 2010). So, what do we have to do to call out racism, if it isn't EXACTLY defined? And who gets to call it out if they don't have your exact and specific definition? I mean, again, I agree, it's a bigger thing, and I'm not upset calling that bigger thing racism. I'm glad you're not stratifying as a necessity, but look at who is. They aren't exactly bastions of racial equality. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:54, 12 September 2020 (UTC) “so who dp they use as an example of a good guy (the suburban mom, the meek white grandpa, the perfectly law abiding policeman)” You mean people representative of typical NRA members? Marketing to one’s customer base is ubiquitous. “who is the bad guy” The saying is more about “bad guys” in general. Criminals mostly, but authoritarian politicians can qualify too. Criticism of Obama or his policies is not inherently racist, and if you want to make an argument that some criticism is racist, you’ll have to actually support it. Can you imagine any reasons why the NRA or its members might not like Obama other than his race? “So, what do we have to do to call out racism, if it isn't EXACTLY defined?” Not every problem in the world is racism, or due to racism. If it’s not a use of race as a categorical basis for action or judgement, it’s not racism, and calling it racism obfuscates the issue. This makes the problem less likely to be fixed, not more, despite the attempt to tie the moral criticism of racism to it. So restrict attempts to call out racism to things that actually involve racism. If there is a problem that doesn't involve racism, address what is actually wrong. “They aren't exactly bastions of racial equality.” Can you identify any policies, publications, or other works by the NRA that are actually racist? To my knowledge they accept everyone interested regardless of race. They don’t ask about or track their members’ races, and their political activities are not about racial issues. Do you think that trying to flood Chicago with guns is racist? If so, how did you reach that conclusion? What definition did you use to judge that it qualifies? “we entertain the idea of "the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"” As a practical matter, that’s certainly the most effective way to do it. Politicians, celebrities, rich people, and others who want protection from “bad guys” have armed guards. Banks, government headquarters, and secure corporate facilities have armed guards. Do you think that the politicians advocating for gun control want to give up their armed guards? Can you imagine why someone in Chicago might want to have one? 192․168․1․42 (talk) 07:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC) It looks like your issue isn't with "people in Chicago," but a very specific cadre of people who coincidentally advocate for gun reform. I think you've taken a specfic point from a cadre of people who are very interested in keeping people armed and have been dogwhistled to bark at anyone who disagrees. Everyone has reasons, but you've engaged "the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" as a "practical" ....Not solution, but, what? I'ma try and get there, because I'm not for gun reform for funsies. I mean, "good guy shoots bad guy" doesn't have much empirical evidence, bad guys with guns kill people. More often, it's the person(singula) with a gun that kills people(plural). I would do everything I can to remove the killer weapon as a factor before I started spouting off about good guys and bad guys, but that's just me. If the argument is something stupid like any criminal is going to get a gun anyway if you criminalize it, then I have this question. 04:18, 18 September 2020 (UTC) Who do you think deserves to own a gun? And, of course you wouldn't know my history on it, I've said sportsmen and game hunters, sure, and I would still say a gun club membership would be a prerequisite for that ownership, and gun club storage would be the ONLY ubiquitous legal recording of guns. For brevity's sake, yes, this means police would not have guns. I think that's more "practical" than "If I have a gun I'll shoot the bad guy when I see him." But that doesn't even answer my own question. Who DESERVES to own a gun? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:18, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

13 Year old kid with Autism gets shoot by police in Utah [ edit ]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/08/linden-cameron-police-shooting-boy-autism-utah

https://www.gofundme.com/f/linden039s-medical-bills?d=zd8hBGRBtA8v%2BIRBNyKFkAg0nP4VbRp0NXDWJkBNtrE%3D

Anyone mind if I post it's fundraiser here? I tried to do it on a discord channel, but they didn't want to, because they think it's a scam. 2A02:1812:2C66:D000:4435:52DF:7AD:8C77 (talk) 19:48, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

It's hard to walk the line between victim blaming and giving advice to prevent this in the future, but don't ever, under any circumstances, call the cops on anyone you care about. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:54, 8 September 2020 (UTC) Yeah “welfare checks” put people in way more danger than if they’re just left alone. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano Make a Reservation 20:07, 8 September 2020 (UTC) Situations like this are the perfect example for why: People shouldn't call the police There should be more mental and behavioral health professionals taking 911 calls Most peace officers should be unarmed But why imagine a new way to do public safety when we can just accept that the police kill 1,000 people a year and waste billions in payouts for excessive force settlements.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 21:42, 8 September 2020 (UTC) @Duce Hardly. Police saving lives rarely makes the news @Rrip I agree with some of this. If every police department needs a SWAT team for dangerous missions, they need an unarmed "orderly" team for mental health and such. CoryUsar (talk) 02:46, 9 September 2020 (UTC) The point isn't about them saving lives, it's about the system being corrupt enough that shit like this honestly isn't shocking. The phrase isn't "a few bad apples and the rest are okay," it's "a few bad apples spoil the whole bunch." And that ignores other, structural critiques I could put out, such as that the police enforce the power of the state and ruling class, they do not protect the general public, for one. Oxyaena Harass They do protect the middle and lower-middle classes, even if those cases aren't a priority. After all, the police themselves are generally from lower-middle class backgrounds and in the middle class themselves. The underclass tends to be treated like shit, but that's because everyone treats the underclass like shit. If you don't think those classes receive police protection, well, just who do you think benefits the most when muggers and car-thieves get locked up? CoryUsar (talk) 13:24, 9 September 2020 (UTC) I'm not gonna get into what I would describe as over zealous generalizations or assumptions about socio-economic status and motivation. What is clear, is that the idea that lethally armed officers are going to solve the many problems that American society has decided to dump on police, is false. Though my particular feelings on police are rather extreme (#ACAB), I think it is clear to everyone public safety needs to be re-imagined with less of a focus on punishment and force, and much more on rehabilitation and deescalation.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 16:48, 9 September 2020 (UTC) Just going to say that most police shootings involve an armed suspect and shots fired. There's suicide by cop there too. Citing sheer numbers is just going to make police apologists say this and deny there's a problem. Instead, focus on the unarmed shootings and check out the percentages. It's disproportionately people with mental health disorders, particularly because these people tend to have trouble understanding and complying with demands and act unpredictable on top of police lacking good training for dealing with them. If we're going to do something about the police I also suggest tackling the disastrous idea that everyone should own guns. Private gun ownership is the overwhelming reason that police kill 1,000 people. --It's-a me, Lefty Green Mario ! 17:55, 9 September 2020 (UTC) Except that's not nearly the only problem with policing. Oxyaena Harass I didn't argue it is. I'm referring to just that one statistic that acab types like to share and that it's an easy-to-refute one, and I'm suggesting to look at percentages rather than sheer numbers. --It's-a me, Lefty Green Mario ! 18:41, 9 September 2020 (UTC) 100% LGM, private gun ownership is a critical factor. But again, if the police had actual consequences for killing people/ using force, there would be less of it period. There are plenty of examples of police using excessive force usually don't grab headlines, but are arguably more harmful.-

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I keep saying; collective punishment of police departments when someone is killed. Something minor, but enough that no good officer would protect the bad ones. CoryUsar (talk) 00:50, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Really bad idea that's going to get police killed and possibly more as suspects can and will try to take hostages or use body shields. What to do if such a law is implemented? Again, the majority of police shootings involve an armed suspect. Check out a number of any recent police shootings, not just viral ones, you'll see pretty quick..--It's-a me, Lefty Green Mario ! 23:28, 13 September 2020 (UTC) End qualified immunity and make corrupt cops accountable for crimes they commit. The current system is a joke and police reform is desperately needed. Letting crooked cops off the hook creates civil unrest and distrust in government. --Possible Goat (talk) 16:14, 14 September 2020 (UTC) Really big thing, and a minor change; If police just didn't kill people. Currently it is accepted that police kill people, if we as society made clear that is not an acceptable outcome, that would massively change interactions with police.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 18:33, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Philosophy seems useless to me [ edit ]

https://markmanson.net/why-we-all-need-philosophy?utm_content=bufferb27cd&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=facebook-posts&fbclid=IwAR0ScH7fAXxVsKwhUBuLwjRANlrRos-o4LnV3YVV0k4GSpypJLug5_FwPEU

It sort of popped into my head as I was reading this and wondering if we were talking about the same Philosophy (practice). As far as I know the same debates in philosophy have been raging for thousands of years and no one has gotten an answer. It seems to me like philosophy is less about truth and more about validating what you already believe in. It doesn't give or help with meaning, in fact it does the opposite. Even in terms of morality no one can agree on what is the right thing to do or how one should live. Honestly the whole article reads like someone utterly ignorant of what philosophy eventually leads to, which to me looks like nihilism.Machina (talk) 23:35, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not going to write out a whole spiel about this for the 10th time. Parts of philosophy (just like parts of historical research, political science, psychology and even physics) is garbage, especially the post-modern kind. A lot of it is extremely useful. I will simply list extremely useful philosophy that affects your every day life. I am sick to fucking death of people slightly versed in philosophy and ignorant of most of it dismissing it.

Critical thinking and fallacies (note that a large portion of this website is dedicated to this extremely useful field of philosophy)

Formal logic

Theory of artificial intelligence

Bio-ethics

Legal ethics

Philosophy of emotional experience of art

Philosophy of non-belief

Theories of consciousness

That is just a highlights of the list. Knowing the historical development of western-thought is also extremely invaluable even if much of it is now obsolete, just as knowing the historical development of any field is useful though I'd say in philosophy it is even more so. After all, the philosophical systems of Plato, Decartes and Kant profoundly affect the development of the culture you live in and your world view. ShabiDOO 00:43, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

As much as I love to burst bubbles everything you listed is irrelevant to my daily life, except legal ethics.Machina (talk) 03:00, 9 September 2020 (UTC) Perhaps not directly, but they will all have indirect effects - and some of those will be very important. The medicines you or your kin use, the adds yo'all get on social media, the smart phones and computers you use, the arguments/discussions you have with believers/non-believers, the ethics of corporations, governments and individuals you deal with - all these are affected or derived by/from various aspects of philosophy. Just that most of those effects are removed from your conscious knowledge. Aloysius the Gaul 03:50, 9 September 2020 (UTC) It doesn't affect the medicines I use, or the ads I get, or the smart phone or computer I use, or my arguments with believers/non (because I just don't, the existence of lack of God doesn't affect my life), same with everything else. Ethics is founded on our biological drives after all because at the base level no one can say anything is good or bad, hence it doesn't affect me. Stop trying to convince philosophy majors they didn't waster their money and time.Machina (talk) 17:07, 9 September 2020 (UTC) Also no one agreeing on anything is exactly why we need philosophy. It helps you frame ideas, interpret knowledge, discern sound and unsound reasoning, and come to meaningful conclusions about what their differences actually entail. Without philosophy, you'd still have some people arguing that morality about rules while others argue it's about results, but you'd have no idea how they came to those conclusions, or even that that is their fundamental disagreement. You want answers, you should want questions. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 00:50, 9 September 2020 (UTC) No to all of that. If there is one thing I learned from studying philosophy is that two people can end up talking their mouths off and end up saying nothing at all. It doesn't lead to meaningful conclusions, they can't even agree on definitions. I mean any philosophy has to start with axioms they can't prove. In fact I would argue that philosophy is the reason why no one can agree on anything because it dilutes clear and decisive points into abstract and vague nonsense to the point that no one ends up anywhere. In all my years things only got muddier when I studied philosophy. If I never touched it I would have been spared a lot of headaches like nihilism, solipsism and a bunch of other stuff.Machina (talk) 03:00, 9 September 2020 (UTC) Yes people CAN end up talking nonsense - but it is a mistake to conclude from that that all people talk nonsense and therefore nothing useful is ever gained from all these things. A basic logical error that you might have avoided with a little more thought ....tee hee hee...Aloysius the Gaul 03:52, 9 September 2020 (UTC) When you speak to enough philosophy majors you'll see it's not really a mistake or logical error. Also why would I want questions? Questions are useless to my daily operation. Most animals don't need them and do just fine so what should I want them? Especially when they do more harm than good.Machina (talk) 17:01, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

@Shabidoo That's a weird fucking list if you're trying to sell it in terms of utility to the general reader. The world would be a considerably less troubled and stupid place if most people could just combine simple applied ethics with some basic grasp of epistemology. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 02:30, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Are you insinuating that the people here reading on this salon are dullard general readers who cannot figure out the importance of philosophical work on artificial intelligence theory, consciousness or formal logic? Shabi DOO 02:49, 9 September 2020 (UTC) Shabidoo

Forgive me for asking, but you get strangely grandiose and say some odd fucking things when the subject comes up. I suppose what I'm really trying to find out is whether you're just a bit bonkers, or overcompensating for some reason. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 23:26, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I have a Bachelor and Masters in Philosophy from Leuven University (one of the world's most prestigious philosophy institutes). What about you? Tell me what's so grandious and I'll back up what I say. My aesthetics prof is a consultant for a French movie studio, Waltzers just war theory is used as a template for the war policy of countries including Belgium. There's nothing grandious about that. Also saying that somethings a weird fucking list isn't mild criticism. Talk about being bonkers HBC. Take a lookin the mirror. ShabiDOO 04:36, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Bit bonkers it is, then. Bonus bonkers points for "Grandiose? Moi?!" right after "one of the world's most prestigious..." You'd struggle to get that one past a script editor. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 02:09, 11 September 2020 (UTC) I'm sorry would you like me to hold that mirror up to your face for you? I mean considering the only philosophical text I've seen you quote was terribly written hackwork I can only imagine you're an armchair enthusiast hiding behind a wall of disparaging snark and smug bad-ridicule. But that's always been your modus operandi on the wiki...to accuse others of the very thing you are an expert at. Shabi DOO 02 24, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Ah, yes... the "hackwork" that you immediately identified as the work of an "undergraduate", when it was clearly the work of a philosophy of maths subject specialist. And which, for additional comic effect, you proceeded (and apparently wish to continue) to disparage, rather than simply owning the fact you said a Dumb Thing In Haste. You really should consider the logical possibility that I'm mocking you because you totally deserve to be mocked in this instance. Learn & grow, man. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 00:20, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

That was a garbage article written in the quality of an undergraduate, I don't give a shot if the writer is faculty and you should be embarrassed to have ever have linked it. The only thing that Machina was right about was that there is had philosophy out there and that was a prime example. I can only conclude you yourself are an undergraduate trying to maintain the air of knowledgehood by shitting on others and making no arguments to defend in the process. Take a look in the mirror and learn to grow up first before lecturing others to do so. You HBC are the ultimate pet-asshole here only you're no ones pet. Just a snarky substanceless asshole. Shabi DOO 00:31, 12 September 2020 (UTC) Go home, Shabi. You're drunk. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 01:05, 12 September 2020 (UTC) Helena Bonham Carter, when will you realise that both of us are just putting up a front to hide our burning raging desire for one another? It's just a matter of time until we get into a raging physical fight breaking all the furniture until it evolves into a passionate weekend long love fest. Stop resisting. The sooner we give in, the more we can enjoy our ignited romance. Shabi DOO 01:19, 12 September 2020 (UTC) Did we just go from "You are condescending Shabi!" to "Me? I am Educated, you peasant!" followed by "Go fuck yourself." and finally "Helena I hate your fucking guts, please have passionate sex with me"? Mkay then... (still a better script then that shitty movie Helena was in. Fight Club, or whatever it's called.) - Rairyu75 ( Talk ) 01:48, 12 September 2020 (UTC) Yes that is an absolutely completely 100% accurate description of everything that was said and a proper reflection of undeniable truth. I'm sure that Kant, Kierkegaard and Flippen-floppen-gugen-witz would all completely agree Shabi DOO 02:20, 12 September 2020 (UTC) Yikes. Drink plenty of water before you go to bed, man. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 02:55, 12 September 2020 (UTC) That's such a pity. We really could have had something there HBC, just think about when Brad Pit and Angelina Joelie completely destroyed their house in Mr. and Mrs. Smith in a rompous shoot out turned mad make-up scene. Another time Lyrithya. Shabi DOO 03:01, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘In truth, I regret googling Lyrithya and finding your Uncyclopedia contributions. Given your sloppy opsec on the Shabidoo handle, the worst of your "bad taste" shite should be considered an ongoing professional liability. I'd attempt as deep a burn as MediaWiki will allow. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 03:05, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm really flattered you'd make such an effort to chase me around the internet. You know a couple days ago I would have been interested in your acidic rage which is really flirting but after turning me down the first time I'm just not interested anymore HBC. But thanks. Maybe some time in the future. Hugs. Shabi DOO 06:48, 13 September 2020 (UTC) OK, Hemingway. It's your hostage to fortune, and you're welcome to it. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 23:54, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Philosophy of consciousneses amounts to garbage to me, same with artificial intelligence (we aren't going to get to the point where it becomes a problem). Neither of the two are relevant. I don't need to look at what consciousness is or how it got there or why.Machina (talk) 03:00, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I mean, you don't need to learn or understand anything. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 03:04, 9 September 2020 (UTC) You're a fool if you think that those topics don't affect your daily life. You don't have to actually know the bloody theory for it to reach deep into your life, zheesh. Every single one of the topics I listed are relevantwhen you browse the web or watch a film on your computer. Deep learning is already present in your daily life (a component of artificial intelligence research) and it's ridiculous to think that the study of artificial intelligence (and the theory it is based on) isn't one of the most critical studies happening right now that will shape the future. I'm sorry you took a shitty philosophy class or two or don't have a "nonsense filter" to drown out the bad stuff. I'm sorry you cannot study a philosophical concept without becoming obsessed with it and allowing it to instill irrational existential fear in you. No one is obliging you to study it. Can't handle it? Don't like it? Don't read it. But don't pretend it's all a pile of junk when you are clearly so immensely ignorant of it you don't even realize to what extent it shapes your life. LMAO Shabi DOO 03:10, 9 September 2020 (UTC) The problem is that there is no "bad philosophy" since anything in it can be made to sound legitimate and there are no hard and fast rules (because even the rules can be questioned). Also shapes my life? It's had very little impact in the way I live and see the world. Philosophy of AI is quite useless as the more pressing concern is surviving our environmental disaster, we aren't close to the point where AI will be a problem. It's not critical. It sounds more like trying to rationalize that the time spent reading it was not an utter waste. As was mentioned the same debates have been going on for over 2500 years. At least science moved in that point. ikanreed said it very well, you don't HAVE to understand anything. It's a tough concept because philosophy isn't taught very well, basically you won't see it in western schooling unless you specialize in a subject or look for it yourself. The idea that "so what, you can't see this anyway" is kinda glossed over, and I think it's a really important question. I don't think your questions or comments are worthless, and I don't think the answer is something you could just pull out of a book. The idea that any possible solution to a question is found from a list that can be recalled and recited, well, that's basic AI. So, where would you differentiate basic AI from human intelligence? We already have AI that calculates algorithms of patterns and weighs those solutions on algorithms of probability of successful outcomes. It's not like it's slowing down. The idea that it "will never be a problem" relies on some ideas about consciousness that other people might not share. If an AI were to have a better explanation of why it. itself, had more agency than you because it could pull all the information ever recorded and act on any single instance due to that ability, would you be necessarily compliant with any decision it arrived at? Even if it didn't have information that you had, but had never recorded? Me, I don't know, but that's why we talk about it. And sure, maybe my ideas aren't going to stop some Skynet or whatever, but it's not worthless to weigh the ideas and the potentials. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:11, 9 September 2020 (UTC) If you think that philosophy is useless to you then it probably is. But that just tells me something about you. Philosophy is actually very useful in many endeavors which have been mentioned.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:45, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Uhhh, the problems in those many endeavors are due to philosophy, same with ethics. Also AI is not an issue at the moment, still just another bid by philosophy majors to attempt to validate their years of study.Machina (talk) 17:01, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Gol I studied philosophy at three different universities in Spain, Belgium and Canada and for the most part it was taught exceptionally well (minus the two postmodernist professors I had had). Probably the most important subject one will study is the "intro to critical thinking" and I agree that it is truly best that you have a very good professor for this one. I think it will make or break your academic career and interest in the field. The seminars were also truly excellent (if you have good classmates the discussions are great), they were usually in super specific topics like "emotion and art" (think the science behind how movie studios manipulate audiences through psychology and an understanding of western narratives), "just war theory" (Waltzer's extremely influential work on rules of engagement for modern warfare) and Poppers Open Society (Popper's extremely insightful argument that the most fundamental strength of democracy is not so much to represent the will of the people but the possibility to remove bad, menacing or dangerous governments). I had a great time studying it and my non-philosophy studying friends who came to sit in on some lectures thoroughly enjoyed them. Shabi DOO 15:58, 9 September 2020 (UTC) That's awesome, that's great. I'm more speaking to your point that "critical thinking" is very important. I agree with that 100%. I'm all public schools in the American midwest. I'll admit I dropped out college because I couldn't afford it anymore and I was stuck in a well of prerequisite rehashing of high school level rehashing of middle school level information into the second semester my sophomore year. I think it's cool that you got to go to multiple colleges in multiple places and pursue philosophy specifically. I'm glad you did it. It's unusual. I was lucky that I grew up in a home that engaged in critical thinking. My mom is a third generation public school teacher and I benefitted from that. I had lots of teachers that let my bad habits like never having my homework on me slide because I actually engaged in class. I got a full ride to a small private Christian college that promised ties into journalism. I had a Machina moment, in an early college class "Ethics in Film" where I posited that personal accountability can't exist, because the future is based upon the present and the present is based upon the past. The teacher didn't just brush me off, she looked at me like I was a monster. I thought it was because I had an airtight argument. I took another class with her, and I started to fail because she required everyone to take notes. I dropped it before the cutoff, and she kept me after class. She asked if it was because I was required to take notes. I said "well, kind of..." and she cried. I had really miscalculated that a Christian college might slant their education. I transferred, had to pay for my sophomore year myself, got all of my credits wiped as electives, and had to start my college career over as a sophomore with 36 credit hours of electives. I wouldn't say I've self-educated as rigorously as I could have got a formal education, and I really try not to pretend I have. But at no point have I struggled to label every part of a cell or write a history paper, reciting information is very easy for me. I've struggled to pay my rent and pay for school. I've gone past credit lines. I've taken my savings account down to 16 cents to get bread and salami to last me for days. I got back up, I'm well fed now, and rationalwiki has really helped with self-education, over the course of almost a decade since I found it. I've, as your non-philosophy friends may have, really enjoyed discussion. I appreciate your insights, regardless of our different backgrounds. Thanks for sharing, I do believe you've had a great education in philosophy and I'm really glad you're sharing it here. I'll take anything I can get, you know? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:31, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

But that somewhat proves my point about philosophy, all those topics are useless. The debate over what can be considered art and why, just war (there is no such thing and rules of war don't really apply at all), and you pretty much listed one of the major flaws in democracy.Machina (talk) 17:01, 9 September 2020 (UTC) Machina, you are an intelligent person I don't know how you can be so ignorant of how essential these topics are to your every day life and how flippantly dismissive you are about shit you know little of. If you've ever watched a Marvel super hero film then you should know the amount of work that goes into manipulating the audiences emotions (it comes down to an actual science) and the work that goes into western narratives. Of course it's bloody relevant because the film industry relies on this research. Go watch a Marvel Film, what do you think the writers just pull this shit out of their asses when making a 200 million dollar (or much higher) budget film? Just war theory has been incorporated into several Nato countries military engagement policy. I don't see how these theories are irrelevant if those policies are actually used by countries in practice. What more do you bloody want from an academic discipline? There are rules to war and when countries break those rules there can be geo-political consequences. You're ignorant if you think otherwise. If you think that the ability to kick out a bad government is a weakness of democracy then you know next to nothing about the history of democracies in the last 150 years. You talk dismissively about philosophy and philosophers trying to justify their garbage academics but all I see is a person drowning in metaphysical concepts that he cannot psychologically handle and just dismissing an entire field as an intellectual self-defense mechanism. That is obvious to everyone considering your obsession with solipsism and inability to listen to anybody and their highly rational responses to your issues with the topic. I'd say the same about your approach to many other topics. You complain about philosophers babbling with on another and not listening, but when I think of philosophical conversations here on this wiki I've seen many insightful comments and you pretty much never listening to anything anyone has to say. Perhaps when you are describing your criticism of philosophy you are just describing yourself. You can keep saying "ugh this stuff is just all irrelevant" all you want, it still seriously affects your life. If you want to cover your ears and eyes and go "lalalala this is all irrelevant" and wade in intellectual ignorance...so be it. ShabiDOO 17:14, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Then you are woefully misled. The Marvel movie plots do seem like they just pull it out of their asses. As I said there is no such thing as a just war, that just proves my point about philosophy being used to rationalize what you want to be true or already believe. You are ignorant if you don't think countries break rules in war, they just avoid getting caught. It's like saying the parties in the US don't spy on each other, they obviously do they just don't get caught. How ignorant can you be? And "bad government" is a matter of opinion, which anyone can spin to make it appear as such (no thanks to philosophy). You'd need only look at America present to see how far democracy got us, a popularity contest where emotions rule (in fact that is why they said democracy was terrible). Also no one posted a rational response to solipsism, mostly because they haven't experienced what it's like to get caught in it. They were useless, all that it amounted to in the end was "you just have to not believe it" which doesn't mean a lot. The solipsism thread was of less use than nothing at all. It's not a defense mechanism, I've felt like this about philosophy before. All it has is questions and no answers, which again is....nothing. All the big questions and it's still got nothing. So then one must ask...why bother? Seems better to just say "F it" and go about your day. Philosophy kind of reminds me of a treadmill, I'd let that sink in. Everyone else can waste their times hitting the dead ends that philosophy is full of. I still think philosophy tries to justify it's existence with these big questions that don't ultimately matter, but they pretend it does (I mean someone has to). It can't answer solipsism, nihilism, ethics, AI, any of that. It truly is good for nothing. Better yet read this, it summarizes my feelings: http://faculty.fiu.edu/~harrisk/Paper%20Assignments/Articles/Philosophy%20is%20a%20waste%20of%20time.htmMachina (talk) 04:40, 10 September 2020 (UTC) Yeah Machina and the sky is blue and the world is flat. You're just an extreme intellectual nihilist who thinks everything is stupid, false, impossible and pointless. I can't discuss anything with someone who just denies everything. That's what's so ironic here because you pretty much parody the pessimism and "fuck you" of Nietzsche. In any case, Good luck with that. Shabi DOO 04:45, 10 September 2020 (UTC) Hmm, I like philosophy. I'll add three reasons why it's critical that I didn't see in the above argument. There is irony in using philosophical argumentation to argue against philosophy. Without a philosophical base, one cannot judge the utility of any situation. Philosophy gave us math and science. It is a nursery of sorts for new ways of understanding the world. Logic and observation, a.k.a. math and natural science, are the absolute best tools we have for sorting between what is true and what is not. I suppose you could in theory go through life without this ability. And political philosophy. I do not think it is possible to successfully navigate politics without engaging with political philosophy. It is indeed true that the animals do just fine without philosophy. Humans who want to live as animals call themselves primitivists. Tulpa001 (talk) 04:29, 10 September 2020 (UTC) You just added three reasons why it's not critical. Even with a philosophical base you can't judge the utility of any situation. I also wouldn't give it math and science because those actually work unlike philosophy. It's also not a nursery of sorts but rather a smoke bomb and that intentionally confounds any simple concept or understanding and questions everything to the point of oblivion. Political philosophy is also not the relevant in the modern world.Machina (talk) 04:43, 10 September 2020 (UTC) "Intentionally confounds"? Again you are describing yourself. Shabi DOO 04:49, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Machina, I want you to explain your experience with Buddhism. You can edit my userpage, or you can put it on my talkpage, that's more normal. I would really like to get some points, and you don't have to do it here. But it sounds like you have some shit to say, and I don't think I get it, but I also want to know about that Buddhism you left behind. I'm off for the night, but seriously , if Machina edits any of my shit, leave it. Permission granted. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:12, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

No I'm describing philosophy. I'm not the only one whose life was worse off after taking it, and there are others who can see how it just muddies things up with tons of questions with no answers. Ethics becomes more about making you feel bad rather than what is right or wrong, so it just boils down to emotional appeals (which is why it's been stuck for thousands of years). It's true what people say, philosophy is more like glorified opinions. It doesn't teach you how to think but what to think, but then again it hasn't settled any of it's debates since it started. As for my experience with Buddhism well lets just say it was bad.Machina (talk) 19:55, 10 September 2020 (UTC)





I get that, you don't have to tell me about it. I just want for you to have a space to wreck up like you deserve to. I know it doesn't work if I invite you to do it. But I also read the things you write, like I actually read them. I did a thing, at that Christian college I wasted a year at, when I got so fed up with bullshit. I had gone home for Christmas break, came back and my was told everyone in my building was getting an $80 charge because somebody who stayed over the break had sprayed the fire extinguishers all over the halls. Everybody knew who did it, but nobody was going to tell on them, so the whole building got a charge I literally couldn't pay except for my Christmas money. So, with my Christmas money gone, I literally Solid Snaked my way into the boiler room, I dunno what else to call it, the locked room with all the water heaters and some janitorial shit, the door had a vent, I unscrewed the outside vent and kicked in the inside vent, then just climbed through it like a dog door. I closed the direct lines, the cold water. I left the lines that went through the water heaters open. I screwed the vents back in place and went back to my room. Y'all can have water, but it's gonna be hot. There must have been 6 water heaters down there. There was not a shortage of water, just imagine if every time you wanted water you could only turn on the hot. It took 4 days to solve, it was me, MUAHAHAHAHA, that school fucking sucked, and that dorm fucking sucked. My roommate wanted to watch old VHS tapes of his high school football games. Little bit of irony there, me complaining about that. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:16, 12 September 2020 (UTC) It took four days before they solved the problem. Four days of scalding showers and brushing your teeth with steaming hot water. All I did was shut of a couple valves, should have been easy. At least people here are responding to YOUR misanthropy. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:22, 12 September 2020 (UTC) That's a bummer you had a shitty dorm. It's such a lottery who you end up living with and how well you get on with them. What I don't understand is why you didn't actually sabotage the dorm room of the guy who sprayed fire exinguisher everywhere. I mean you could have just prayed shaving cream foam all over his mattress, books, carpet, clothes and window! 05:30, 12 September 2020 (UTC) I don't get it either, except I felt like I was the only one who was angry. There was something so funny to me that I had to brush my teeth with the hot water too, like, I didn't get along with a single person there, I didn't have anyone in that dorm that I cared about. I went into that room a few times, since I figured out how I could. But I never reconfigured the water lines, I was really happy with how it turned out. Freshman class had maybe 500 people in it. You'd be surprised how hard it is to find a friend at a Chrstian college of under 1200. And I gues a point missing is I didn't tell anybody, I didn't do it for clout, I just did it because I was pissed off at them. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 06:45, 12 September 2020 (UTC) Lemme be fair to the experience, ther was another dorm building, and I made friends well there, but I was in the athletics dorm. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 07:22, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Just my two cents [ edit ]

Seems like the complaint here is that "bioethics doesn't influence my life directly therefore it's useless garbage", correct me if I am wrong. Well, I disagree. Bioethics does influence your life in significant ways if we add all the small parts to it. Bioethics deals with how the food that comes to you everyday might not be contaminated with rare metals or how the meat that one consumes (assuming they're not vegetarian) didn't come from am infested slaughterhouse that denigrates animals, their welfare and our public health. Or how bioethics deals with designing ethical experiments so that we can test medications on animals and, if it succeeds on other trials, on humans. I also don't think you need to live in an isolated cabin in the woods of Siberia to be isolated from the topic of bioethics; after all, environmental concerns dealing with the populations of elk or rodents would also fit in that (and they would be adjacent to your life in the Siberian cabin).

Eh, rant over. But I like philosophy and I think, as Shabidoo said, postmodernism and the other stupid far-left stuff is pretty useless and taints a lot of humanities. I do really appreciate ancient Greek philosophy though, everybody should at least know a tiny bit about Parmenides, Heraclitus or Epicurus. I at least enjoy it. — Godless Raven talk stalk walk balk 🌹 04:46, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, the biggest recruiting drive for philosophers at the moment are government health departments and hostpials directly hiring consultants to help develop a countries or hospitals medical policies on, for example surgeries and dealing with questions like parents denying their children treatment, the use of medicines, operating with limited consent, euthanasia, how clinical trials are run, patient privacy and confidentiality etc. I wish I actually had specialized in bio-ethics. Nice salary and a big demand for them now, not to mention it is an extreeeemely interesting topic. Shabi DOO 04:56, 10 September 2020 (UTC) As a biologist, bioethics was mandatory discipline to cover in our curriculum (required for laboratory work), and I really enjoyed it. One of the most fascinating lectures was called "What is a disease?", where we discussed how that label is very "common sense" based rather than scientifically. And it is really hard to pin it down if you think about it. — G o d l e s s R a v e n talk stalk walk balk 🌹

You sort of prove my point how philosophy purposely muddies things for no good reason. I also think you're wrong on the hiring for philosophers in those areas because I have plenty of family members in those fields and they say that isn't true at all. And again you show how bioethics doesn't impact my life at all. I wouldn't consider meat not being contaminated bioethics, sounds more like just business. Same with the conditions of the animals, I mean if people get sick and die from your food they can't exactly buy more of it. As for animal conditions, who really cares? I could go on but you aren't exactly proving your point here. Also I had to laugh at that Philosophy of the Emotional Experience of Art.Machina (talk) 19:51, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Machina nobody can take you seriously here. Almost your entire contribution to the wiki has been posting and asking for commentary (and ignoring that commentary) on nothing but philosophical questions you are really concerned about the answer to. And now suddenly you think those questions are useless? I guess that means you'll no longer post articles or questions on "can we know things for certain"? (Posted only last week) a dozen on solipsism and countless others on clearly philosophical questions. I guess that's sort of a good thing considering you never listen to what others say in response. Shabi DOO 02:33, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

It only serves to underscore my point on how useless philosophy is and how it does more harm than good. My brush with solipsism along with a few others I have talked to. Even discussions like this:https://forum.philosophynow.org/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=9340&start=30 They all leave me convinced that philosophy only serves to either rip joy from you by questioning what makes you happy or to muddle things to the point of stagnation. I mean they can't even define good and bad let alone agree on what is or is not either option.Machina (talk) 01:51, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Might I suggest then Machina, that you get over it, never pick up a philosophy book again, never attend a philosophy lecture, not watch philosophical videos and perhaps GO DO SOMETHING ELSE!? Best of luck in whatever non-philosophical intellectual endeavor you engage in. Shabi DOO 02:25, 12 September 2020 (UTC) As someone who attended one semester of philosophy (bachelor) at the University of Brasília, I can attest that some philosophy courses are shit. The professors are passionate, but the funding is very low and the place is decaying. Which is not the case at all with STEM fields. I really enjoyed my lectures in ancient Greek philosophy, but I decided to go for biology rather than philosophy. Maybe y'all have different experiences, but the financial environment for philosophy seems quite underwhelming. But the subject is vast and I have no doubts some people really enjoy it. — G o d l e s s R a v e n talk stalk walk balk 🌹 (I am not trying to confirm Machina's point, I enjoy philosophy, at least as a "hobby"). — G o d l e s s R a v e n talk stalk walk balk 🌹 I only have one fellow graduate I know of who didn't end up in a nice job after graduating. Many of my friends went to work in civil service jobs (some fantastically paid EU work, political lobbying and several corporate jobs). One friend works in jurisprudence, another in AI (he had a join degree). A few friends went into theology (gross). Several are also in communications (a philosophy degree is a very good start for comms). A couple went into NGO management. One is a human rights specialist (she did her thesis on the philosophy of human rights). One friend works for a major production company. A few do advocacy work. Several are now teachers or professors themselves. One went into human cognitive development. A couple acquaintances are well published journalists. One friend is a junior diplomat in the Spanish foreign service now. It is, a raving myth that the job prospects are low in Philosophy. Though it is very true that for the first few years after graduation things go slow. For some rather slow. Appart from my buddy who is now in construction work, I don't know a single person who is complaining or regrets what they studied. Shabi DOO 05:54, 12 September 2020 (UTC) Don't take it personally. It honestly really really is a total lottery who you end up with. I had awesome dorm mates in the two residences I lived in in Leuven and my erasmus year in Spain. Endless parties, awesome fun friendly people. Got along with just about everyone. Like funnest happiest years of your lives. And then I spent a year in New Brunswick Canada and, while I made friends easily on campus through class, my dorm mates were in general boring whinny dicks. Not a single fun party. Miserable unfriendly people. I honestly don't think many people liked many other people. There was just a cloudy atmosphere in the house. It's a bummer you didn't have a blast. I think everyone should have their party days in their 20s! Shabi DOO 07:04, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

It's not a raving myth that the job prospects are low for philosophy, many people I knew had to get another degree because they couldn't land a job with their philosophy majors. Civil service sounds awful from what I heard. Even if you knew a couple people that went on to better things I'm willing to bet that much of their current jobs have nothing to do with philosophy. In fact, much of the jobs you listed don't have much to do with philosophy at all and you can land them with just about any degree. So in other words the skills you get from them don't make you much better than someone who studied a more "useful degree". At let medical school teaches you something useful, same with an engineering program, or even just a degree in business. They might not tell you personally they regret it, likely to convince themselves as well, but they are just as replaceable. Hence philosophy is still a useless degree, it's even an in-joke at my university and to several recruiters I've spoken to. So once again you end up with a degree whose skills aren't relevant to daily operation.Machina (talk) 00:05, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

This is a prime example of you not paying attention to shit people write. I just told you every single fellow graduate but one has a very nice job. And you reduced it to "a couple people". You don't listen machina, you skim and then repackage what people say and dismiss stuff you don't like. You also just dismiss and disparage shit you don't know anything about. "Civil service sounds awful". But of course those are the jobs of millions of people doing literally thousands of different things. And it all just sounds "awful" to you? Your ability to sweep away an enormous category of things you know little about is legendary by this point. And its based on what? Your career as a civil servant? Working for a ministry? In the foreign service? As a policy researcher? Of a small evironmental agency? Of a small group that helps people? The reason some of those people were recruited for their various jobs was because them studying philosophy gave them rigorous critical thinking and analytical skills which can be applied to a huge variety of jobs and yes those skills are highly valued. It's something you've likely completely missed or looked over because you're so busy obsessing over the most abstract metaphysical questions you've missed the bread and butter of the subject. But you're so adept at dismissing shit I literally think there is nothing I can say that you won't find a way to disparage so, lets say, this is my last post on a subject you "dislike so much" but cannot stop talking about or obsessing over. Good luck Machina. I hope you find something else to do. Shabi DOO 07:11, 13 September 2020 (UTC) i rather like a civil service job, even though thatcherite fucknuts have made them less attractive and far from secure these days. i liked the ones i had within that whole sector. i liked earning my crust where my focus was essentially being useful to people and world at large rather than breaking my back making some other cunt rich. happier days AMassiveGay (talk) 08:28, 13 September 2020 (UTC) Yeah. In fact, I don't know about the UK, but in Spain and Belgium, a civil service job is the dream for a lot of people and an EU job is the ultimate victory. Guaranteed life work, inflated salary, serious labour regulations, long lunches and, of course depending on the ministry and job, interesting work (though if you don't like work...lots of easy uninteresting work if you prefer which some obviously do). My friends in Madrid get jealous anytime someone snatches up a life-long civil service job. Shabi DOO 08:39, 13 September 2020 (UTC) In fact I made it to the second interview of an EU job in Brussels, 58,000€ (virtually tax free) in a beautiful office building with nice people. Lost out to it to another guy. Biggest career tragedy of my life. After the second interview the guy sponsoring my application took me to the employee restaurant for lunch. I wish he hadn't. Somehow the ministry snagged a french chef. Three course lunches and wine for 5€ for employees. The lunch alone made it a devastating traumatic loss. Shabi DOO 08:47, 13 September 2020 (UTC) (ec) once upon a time it was so in the uk. now its all contracts, and business needs and efficiencies after efficiencies, while elements in press vilify civil servants (a hugely broad term - driving instructors are civil servants for example. are nhs staff civil servants? its not all walking corridors of whitehall is what i mean) as lazy and wasteful and begrudge you getting paid a fair wage. used to be the lower pay than the private sector was balanced with job security now just the lower pay, and services get more and more stripped back and understaffed, suddenly those people complaining about paying your wages find the services provided are broken and thus justify their antipathy. ive only ever been in positions of drudgery, mind. still preferable to drudgery in private sector. its nice to feel useful and not just out for yourself, or whoever it is reaping the rewards of your toil. AMassiveGay (talk) 09:06, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Look...once upon a time I thought I loved philosophy when I took it in high school. But then more I got into it the less I could make out what people were saying. The language or terms people use just confused me and the parts I could make out shocked me. It was nothing like I thought it was in high school.Machina (talk) 01:48, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Cartesian epistemology is fucking useless to me. Pragmatism is the only needed philosophical view. Pretty much everything was called philosophy before it became useful. Metazero 14:13, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Donald Trump nominated for Nobel Peace Award following Israel-UAE deal [ edit ]

The proof–Tuxer (talk) 15:38, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Being nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize is not really notable, since anyone from members of the Maltese parliament to university professors of law can nominate for it. Even the Secretary of State could probably nominate Trump, since Cordell Hull nominated FDR in 1938.

President Trump has made a vast number of accomplishments in foreign policy and thus deserves the Nobel Peace Prize. LTMay Dataclarifier be well! 18:51, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Destroying the US empire and internationally isolate America is a great accomplishment.–Tuxer (talk) 20:12, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

This award was a joke since Obama won it. Why anyone takes it seriously is beyond me50.86.22.101 (talk) 13:29, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Best title? [ edit ]

Which title would be best in your opinion (for a page on discrimination against Muslims)? Feel free to add options if you have alternatives.

Islamophobia 25 Vote Anti-Muslim bigotry 2 Vote Anti-Muslimism 19 Vote

— Godless Raven talk stalk walk balk 🌹 05:30, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Why are you asking us for advice on your own, completely separate wiki? Ask the editors there. — Oxyaena Harass 02:33, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Islamaphobia is an inaccurate term as it refers to a religion and not the people. One choses to be a follower of Islam, (The worst religion) they don't chose to have skin melanin. Anti-arabic bigotry works best but of the opinions shown Anti-Muslim bigotry is the best.50.86.22.101 (talk) 13:27, 14 September 2020 (UTC) Points for managing to be racist and islamaphobic in the same breath, kudos.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 15:25, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Big Sad [ edit ]

So, I just discovered today that my crush has a boyfriend. Just... Really sad. I've been rejected three times already. I was really looking forward to like, doing things together and telling stories. I love to tell stories. Metazero 19:11, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Not that it makes the underlying problem better, but have you thought of blogging? Good storytellers attract a crowd, I'm sure there are people who'd love to hear what you have to say. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 20:03, 12 September 2020 (UTC) That really sucks. Even the best catches out there get rejected three times in a row (or more). I hope that heavy feeling goes away sooner than later. I agree with The Blade, you should totally tell your stories. Write it down and post here a link to it! Shabi DOO 20:28, 12 September 2020 (UTC) Never say never. It may seem impossible now, because you've been rejected so many times, but I've found that it's actually quite unlikely for anybody capable of introspection (so, not incels) to be single for their whole lives. Find what's good about you, find what's bad. Put forward the good things that make people like you and work on the ones that drive people away. And, the more you get rejected, you'll start to notice behaviors indicating which women/whatever-you're-into are and aren't interested, streamlining the process significantly. But if you want a tip, people who like you will want to be around you and talk to you more. It gets really obvious, actually.-Hastur! (talk) 21:00, 12 September 2020 (UTC) Rejected 3 times? Even if you are Brad Pitt, you are going to be rejected more often than not, just a part of life. Best thing to do is just meet someone else and ask them out. Protip; the "Friend Zone" is actually a great place to be. Why? You get introduced to her friends, and can date them instead. CoryUsar (talk) 01:49, 13 September 2020 (UTC) buddy if you have a crush on a youtuber then you really can't be in the friend zone Metazero 14:33, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I am now a Christian... [ edit ]

Checkmate Atheists!

If Atheism is true, how come the ice cubes in the tray fit perfectly?

If Atheism is true, what keeps Australians falling of the globe?

If life came from water, why is there still water?

Checkmate! — The 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 talk stalk 05:21, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I was going to say that video was a bit of a tired old joke, Then I saw it was made in 2007. It's striking that, 13 years later we've had two Conservapedia clods use the phrase "Checkmate, atheists!" in all seriousness on this site in the past week. Spud (talk) 07:18, 13 September 2020 (UTC) I think the best argument is, "If evolution is true, why are there still fish?"Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 11:23, 13 September 2020 (UTC) Then how did God exist? Metazero 14:32, 13 September 2020 (UTC) Prove that he did. Checkmate!!! Cardinal Chang (talk) 21:29, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Aggretsuko [ edit ]

I've stumbled across a strange yet helarious Japanese animated series (a cute little bear and her nervous working life interspersed with her love of screaming death metal music when she reaches her rage limit). I think some users here might really dig this. It's on Netflix or easily pirated for those who live in countries where pirating is common and you have no scruples about doing that. Made me laugh out loud once or twice every episode and I give props to the usually unpredictable story-lines. ShabiDOO 07:46, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Actually, Retsuko is a red panda, which despite the name ain't a bear. (If nothing else, I know anime.) But the rest is pretty correct. The character (and later anime-- both versions) was created for Sanrio, of all companies. Sanrio, by the way, is best known for it's number one property-- Hello Kitty, which might help explain the art style during the more sedate moments of an Aggretsuko episode. And where almost everything else in Sanrio's stable of characters is designed to appeal to a generic sense of kawaii, as well as a general fantasy-like backstory, Retsuko is an office lady (the female version of the salaryman) in a large corporation, dealing not with dreams of the ballet or fairy-tale like surroundings but office politics and romantic desperation. It's pretty much Sanrio subverting itself. Kencolt (talk) 08:08, 13 September 2020 (UTC) Thanks for the background info. How do you like the series? I'm halfway through the second season. Though I found the first season a lot more hilarious and unexpected and even eye-opening. Shabi DOO 08:50, 13 September 2020 (UTC) It's actually one of the most realistic depictions of regular life in Japan. Well, not dating a slacker Elon Musk, and most people don't end up involved in J-Pop, but just about everything else. Also, the J-Pop is spot on though, even if getting the main character involved is a bit forced. There's actually a trend of young overworked Japanese women that go to karaoke to scream death metal. You learn WHY Ton (the pig) still has a job in spite of being an otherwise horrible boss, and why he got to be the way he is; he's actually my favorite character in spite of being an asshole.CoryUsar (talk) 14:35, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Ben Shapiro 2: Electric Boogaloo [ edit ]

Abigail Shapiro. I guess it runs in the family. Metazero 14:30, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

404 on this link? I find myself equally fascinated and disturbed by her singing voice. Bigwiggler (talk) 15:46, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

How to add images from WP? [ edit ]

I saw it is possible to load images from Wikipedia. But it doesn't work with the movie post of Cuties.Pam (talk) 16:08, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

You can add images, sound files and videos from Wikimedia Commons to pages here in exactly the same way that you can add them to pages on Wikipedia. All files on Wikimedia Commons are supposed to be in the public domain. Fair use images used on the English Wikipedia, such as posters for recent movies, are not on Wikimedia Commons. They are uploaded locally to Wikipedia and that means we don't have access to the same image here. See Help:Images for more information. Spud (talk) 01:07, 14 September 2020 (UTC) Thanks. The movie poster is a fair-use image on Wikipedia [2] and I think it should be legal to upload it here on RW. But I tried and it seems that I can't, probably because I'm a new user.Pam (talk) 08:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

What's a good Batman comic to read? [ edit ]

I've read TDKR, Year One, The Long Halloween, and several others. Do y'all know of any? — Oxyaena Harass 20:21, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Doing uni shit when tired [ edit ]

Hello there. I have to do just so many assignments and learn HTML etc over the next couple weeks or so. I’m stressed because my brain makes it very hard to focus unless I’m taking some kind of stimulating drug (but I don’t have a prescription or consistent access to those) and, additionally, over the past week or two I’ve been pretty consistently needing to sleep overnight for 12-14 hours and then have another 2-6 hour nap in the day, while feeling exhausted the whole time I’m actually awake. This makes things difficult. Any advice? 203.111.4.57 (talk) 09:43, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

It’s also very important to me that I do well, bc I have started and then stopped uni with different things like 5 times over the past couple years and I really really want to stick with it. I don’t have enough experience etc to get ANY job (didn’t get one in high school so now there all like “why should we give you an adult wage when you don’t have adult experience). Means testing also means that I can’t get any social support for the next 2 years bc of my parents even tho I don’t have a good/significant relationship with them. So this is basically my only chance, and also the only thing I have to occupy my time. I can’t quit but it’s so fuckingn hard and I’m really stressed. 203.111.4.57 (talk) 09:47, 14 September 2020 (UTC) If a doctor/psychiatrist won't prescribe you a stimulant like Ritalin (or if you can't afford it), I'd shoot for coffee. Make yourself a little pot of turkish coffee, revs me up every time. Throw in a few extra spoonfuls just to be sure it's strong enough. Although if you're sleeping 14-20 hours a day I'd definitely try to see a specialist-Hastur! (talk) 10:26, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

That amount of sleep per day (16 hrs) is medically unusual. I'd see a doctor. Stress can mess with your metabolism, so interim advice may be to make sure you're eating enough high energy foods, as lack of food can cause extreme tiredness. Tulpa001 (talk) 11:33, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Best way to talk to an antivaxxer? [ edit ]

So I managed to start a conversation with someone who was trying to convince me that vaccines are evil science experiments essentially. I'm not falling for it, but they keep engaging me and I didn't want to be a jerk so I'm actually trying to see if maybe I can actually clear up their misconceptions about vaccines. Kill 'em with kindness and actual scientific evidence was what I had in mind. It might not work, but I wanted to at least try. Does anyone else have here have experience doing this? And when will I know if I'm just wasting my time? WhatIsAGoodUsername (talk) 11:58, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I've heard several people talk about this topic, best rhetoric to talk someone out of anti-vaxx. But it's a big topic and somewhat subjective. Your approach is probably as good as any. What will generally work on a person is highly individualistic, so different approaches will work on different people. Most people try to combine multiple strategies, as this is almost always more effective. Some general strategies include, don't tell. Ask questions. If they say something themselves, they have a harder time arguing against it. Cover emotional appeal. Create a moral narrative. Something like, if you don't get vaccinated, the children will die. Something you can back up with data. Don't push hard, that usually leads to raised barriers. Don't be afraid to laugh at silly stuff. Conspiracy minded thinkers crave knowledge that is secret. I don't know how to turn that into a strategy. If you don't know something, say that you'll think about it. Appearing to know what you're talking about can backfire if you don't. Tulpa001 (talk) 12:29, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Alright, main points of value.

Vaccines are for herd immunity. They are necessary to protect immunocompromised members of society who can't get vaccinated.

Vaccines are tested to hell and back, primarily to ensure that they are the safest medical products on the market.

One discredited study found that vaccines are linked to autism, dozens of others found the exact opposite.

Vaccines don't do 100% immunity, and they don't have permanent effects. But it's a statistics game. One third increase in immunity can be the difference between the plague, and the extinction of a disease.

The primary legacy of anti-vaxxers has been diseases, often really bad ones, coming back from the brink of extinction. -- If they had been extincted, then there'd be no more need for the vaccines.

Getting vaccinated usually reduces the severity of an illness if you do get it.

Most of the unhealthy chemicals anti-vaxxers complain about are no longer used in vaccines. But they also complain about perfectly safe chemicals.

People (and children) die from illnesses. People can rarely get mild flu like symptoms from vaccines. (and exceedingly rarely, nasty allergic reactions) Which is why you should hang out at the hospital for 15 minutes after getting the shot.

Tulpa001 (talk) 12:40, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Don't forget, Andrew Wakefield filed a patent for a measles vaccine less than a year before his fake study. If the MMR vaccine was "proven" to be unsafe, he'd stand to make a small fortune. CoryUsar (talk) 14:48, 14 September 2020 (UTC) But also remember trying to convince the person you're talking to on these points is frequently a wasted effort. You don't get into conspiracies because you're a rational person swayed by sound argumentation. There's usually a psychological need that the conspiracy provides. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:16, 14 September 2020 (UTC) Thanks for the advice. They seemed interested with engaging with me at first, but after a few messages back and forth they started to ignore me. Oh well. I wasn't that hopeful to begin with, but it still sucks that I couldn't change their mind. WhatIsAGoodUsername (talk) 18:38, 14 September 2020 (UTC)– I actually have that psychological need to some extent, but I'm more of a hyper-conspiracy theorist. That is, I am prone to believing that the conspiracy theory, is itself a giant conspiracy. Vaccines cause Autism? Nope, it's a conspiracy by one intelligent but sociopathic man with the backing of some big corporations to discredit a safe procedure in order to make boatloads of money GMOs inherently unsafe? Again, no, it's part of a wider conspiracy by Big Organic to reduce the food supply in order to jack up the price to extreme profits. 9/11 Truthers? That's just one small part of the Russian's (and China's and a lot of others, though not unified) plot to undermine the US by delegitamizing the US government in the eyes of its citizens in order to facilitate a breakup of the US as part of a divide and conquer strategy. Others include Kennedy assassination theories, MLK assassination theories, and so forth. Meat and so forth bad for you? Re-read our article on Art. Specifically, Art used to be something that was exclusive to the rich with the middle class only barely able to afford anything and only on the most special of occasions, but once Art became cheap, the rich responded by making Art ever-increasingly obscure. Likewise, humans always ate animal products in some form, but fresh high quality meat, and not just meat but specifically the muscle tissue instead of the intestines and other organs, was for rare occasions while the wealthy could have meat daily if they so wished. Today, meat is so cheap and common that poor people usually eat meat on a daily basis. So in order to make food once again something for the rich, Veganism was invented. A purely Vegan diet was impossible for primitive humans, and today requires special knowledge of nutrition and more money than poor people have available, so it's the new elitism. Part of the reason Vegans sneer their noses at lesser people is because that's the core of the culture. Not sure what kind of person holding these views makes me. CoryUsar (talk) 16:28, 14 September 2020 (UTC) It makes you an idiot. Strawman of veganism noted. Try talking to actual vegans for once and hear what they have to say. Oxyaena Harass Going back to the original comment - 'Appeal to Wikipedia' - 'You are in favour of the top picture here.' Anna Livia (talk) 20:05, 14 September 2020 (UTC) I have talked to vegans. Some of them were into the whole "not harming living creatures" spiel, but most of the ones I talked to were the evangelical holier-than-though types. They aren't the majority, but they are the loudest and because they intentionally go out of their way to interact with others, are the ones most people, well, interact with. Those people don't care about animals, they care about you knowing how much better they are than you. It's about elitism, not ethics, and when they and others like them such as PETA publish bogus "studies" claiming meat or milk is inherently unhealthy, it doesn't come across to me as "the ends justify the means so if we have to lie to get people to eat less meat, let's do so", it comes across as snobbery.CoryUsar (talk) 23:03, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘We already had a section on this on the Antivax page: Anti-vaccination movement#Convincing people to vaccinate. Bongolian (talk) 07:36, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

A banned Styx fan asks: Should Rationalwiki have an official Youtube channel? [ edit ]



I think so because then you'd actually have to respond to criticism leveled your way.50.86.22.101 (talk) 13:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC) This is a common question. And the problem is "who owns the channel and does all the work making videos"? We have multiple users with youtube channels here, though. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:40, 14 September 2020 (UTC) Fuck no, you don't want to be looking at our mugs as we respond to the nonsense already clogging that bleedin site Cardinal Chang (talk) 16:04, 14 September 2020 (UTC) Personally, Youtube is responsible for an awful lot of nonsense doing the rounds these days, more so than facebook and 8chan. THis https://www.nytimes.com/column/rabbit-hole is a fantastic series on just how poisonous certain ideologies have become in recent years, thanks to unforeseen consequences of the "keep watching" algorithm. Cardinal Chang (talk) According to Sarte, one does not have to do anything, as there is always a choice. Now, as to whether RationalWiki should create a YouTube channel so morons like Styx can drum up content via reply videos and feuds (don't lie, I can read your IP's edit history) the answer is a resounding no. ☭Comrade GC☭ Ministry of Praise 17:53, 14 September 2020 (UTC) Hi TDM2, bye TDM2. Oxyaena Harass

I noticed a rise in the amount of Biden-Harris signs in peoples yards [ edit ]

Although I live in the heart of Trump country (which sucks), I have noticed the increasing amount of Biden supporters. Maybe it is a sign that people have come to their senses and realized that Trump is a good for nothing pseudoscience promoting racist con artist. --Possible Goat (talk) 16:10, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

One thing that has unfortunately become apparent in recent years, election results are not predictable by any previous indicator. Look at the last US election, Brexit, Australian Independence vot, UK general elections over the last 3 years, Irish general election. THe opinion polls and pundits got them all wrong. We all hope Trump f**ks right off with a humiliating defeat in November but his core voter base from last time are still as ribald and have raging hard ons for his victory. Cardinal Chang (talk) 16:20, 14 September 2020 (UTC) uk elections and brexit were entirely predictable. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:23, 14 September 2020 (UTC) I can recall a pundit promising to eat his hat if he got it wrong. Hat remains unsalted and whole. And in the recent Irish General Election no one, not even Sinn Fein, could have predicted the swing towards Sinn Fein in the voting Cardinal Chang (talk) 18:34, 14 September 2020 (UTC) I recall Brexit polls being very close, but Labour in the 2019 election at least had been behind by a fair margin for the last few months before voting day. Corbyn is kind of like Sanders-outside of his core base of admirers nobody really expected him to actually win.-Flandres (talk) 17:56, 14 September 2020 (UTC) THey were indeed, but it's beside the point, the core point I was trying to get at, and it seems, failing, was that in the current political climate of micro targeting and highly sophisticated proliferation of candidate propaganda, it's no longer easy to see who will win an election from even 2 months before an election these days. THen again, didn't Fuckface Von Clownstick say he'll get 8 more years, and extra 4 because he had such a hard time during this term? Cardinal Chang (talk) 18:34, 14 September 2020 (UTC) The only people who didn't see Trump winning in 2016 were being willfully ignorant, and generally ignoring historical trends. And that failure has created and overreaction in 2020 to conclude that despite the plethora of information available, Trump will somehow defy gravity again. I find this tiresome, and frustrating. Sure work hard to elect Biden/Harris, assume everything is wrong and bust your ass. But at the same time; recognize Trump is historically unpopular, his record is historically among the worst for an incumbent, and his general attacks seem not to be working. These two thoughts are not contradictory.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 18:44, 14 September 2020 (UTC) The historical trend was that the party with more fundraising is the party that wins, and Hillary outspend Trump 2 to 1. It wasn't willful ignorance that led to people thinking Trump didn't have a chance, it was the inability of pollsters to account for the people that openly stated they hated the guy but secretly tolerated or agreed with him. The "Silent Majority" was an actual thing in this case, sort of. CoryUsar (talk) 21:06, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ You have sprinkles of truth in this nugget of shit. While conventional wisdom would say spending more would equate a victory, historically it's a better indicator to look at who won the past two elections (Dems) and assume the other party wins the next. American's tend not to vote for the same party three times in a row (the exception being GHWB in 1988, FDR in '40 and Truman '44 - '48) It also isn't a majority that supported Trump, the majority supported HRC. Trump however won undecided voters that hated both candidates and chose late. Trump is presiding over a recession (which doomed GHWB), has a net loss of jobs during his presidency, and has never once gotten above 50% support from the general public. I'm not saying he's doomed, but it doesn't look good.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:23, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

So I bought a gun... [ edit ]

It's not much for fighting, moreso for fun. Just curious, are there any other firearm owners here on Rationalwiki? Bigwiggler (talk) 17:21, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

fun? Fowler (talk) 17:30, 14 September 2020 (UTC) It's an American thing. CoryUsar (talk) 17:42, 14 September 2020 (UTC) Also an innuendo thing. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 17:59, 14 September 2020 (UTC) Jesus fucking leaping lizards. Shabi DOO 17:59, 14 September 2020 (UTC) Yes, as a member of the SRA I am a proud firearm owner and user. No, that does not make me a mass murderer. I was robbed a month or two ago, hence why I got a gun. Oxyaena Harass Firearm ownership is a constitutional right here in the US, and in many cases it just makes sense to have one for personal defense. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano Make a Reservation 18:27, 14 September 2020 (UTC) While I respect the Constitutional right to own a firearm, I personally dislike them, and wish we could reduce their availability.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 18:46, 14 September 2020 (UTC) I don't trust the state to begin with. Hierarchical power structures always allow for fascism to creep in, and so at least some semblance of an insurance policy in case it all goes to hell is needed. Oxyaena Harass Guns are a medieval technology. Preventing people from having them would require that they be prevented from being able to conduct industry. You can make a gun from inexpensive components you can find at most any hardware store. This isn't as bad as alcohol prohibition (which is neolithic), but it's not viable as a policy. Consider who will and will not be affected by attempts to limit the availability of guns, and whether that is the desired effect. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 18:55, 14 September 2020 (UTC) When there's a market there's a way, so to speak. Prohibition always has the opposite of the desired effect. Oxyaena Harass I find the effectiveness of protection to be on the same realm of putting mines in your home. Yeah, it can defend you from robbers. You're just more likely to just step on one though. If a state wants your hide, they're going to have you own a gun while they remove actual insurance and health protections and keep your income stagnant to keep you buying guns that feeds the gun lobby. --It's-a me, Lefty Green Mario ! 18:57, 14 September 2020 (UTC) I know there's resources out there for left wing people who want guns(not me) and don't want to back right wing shitshow arms dealers, but I've only ever seen them as ad-hoc internet posts and never anything comprehensive and useful as a reference. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:10, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

What about crossbows this gives a summary of the situation in the UK. Anna Livia (talk) 20:09, 14 September 2020 (UTC) By western standards America is a very violent country and adding more guns into the mix is fucking lunacy. It's simply another case where the rest of the civilized world watches baffled and flabberghasted that people think "more hand guns in people's hands means more safety" make sense. A simply survey of the number of murders, accidents and gun-suicides would suggest that it doesn't make sense. Constitutions can be changed. But its obvious people don't want that to change because they see it as some right etched into the constition in unerasable ink. Because people like having their toys and a false sense of security. So perhaps if you honestly live in a super super dangerous neighbourhood where there is honestly a high chance of someone coming into your home and murdering you with a gun...it might make sense having one, cause few people want to see any meaningful change to gun culture. But in the big picture, none of it makes sense. It's the god damned twilight zone. ShabiDOO 20:34, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

The solution to gun violence isn't "take away the guns", it's "take away the poverty". Won't stop all the crime, obviously, but it will eliminate the bulk of it. CoryUsar (talk) 20:57, 14 September 2020 (UTC) Going through the military service twenty years ago had the double effect of making me a pacifist and causing a Pavlovian distaste for ever firing a gun again. The pacifism came from the sheer idiocy of having to endure being bossed around by some self important prick with all the conceit of someone few months older than me with extra six months of military ex