RationalWiki:Saloon bar

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.

edit

Dear Patrons! Your feedback is always appreciated.

• - There are no pages marked for deletion
• - and 2 pages marked for demotion.

On the "Celebrate Pride or Else" mindset.

Warning: Nutpicking ahead!

The Compassionless Pandering of Corporate Pride

This part doesn't have to be collapsed, but it's a topic that irritates everyone for the same reason. No matter how you cut it, corporate Pride is compassionless and sterile pandering that is definitely not genuine towards inclusivity and mutual acceptance, and in the worst cases is straight up tokenism. It's just corporations doing what they've been doing for centuries, maximizing profits over everything else. Any examples of irksome corporate pandering over the course of June that you'd like to share here? TheEternalOutsider (talk) 09:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Arab Jews: An interesting topic with little information

I have been trying to read about Arabs who practice Judaism as I think that the concept of Colored Jews (I believe that is the term) is interesting. If anyone can point me in the right direction I would appreciate it.

Note: I hold no hate for Jews or Israel existing. That said I believe that both Jews and Palestinians can live side by side if leaders would get their heads out of their religious nationalistic asses. Religious nationalistic beliefs get innocent people killed. --Trans Fem Agenda 16:51, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Arabized Jews.

Basically, outside of the Arabian peninsula, there aren't a lot of ethnic Arabs (beyond general intermarriage and all that), but rather, millions of people who "converted" ethnically to Arab. The Syrians, Egyptians, Libyans, etc, are actually made up of various ethnic groups, but they've basically adopted Arabic as their mother tongue and all that. That's actually the biggest reason for the Persian/Arab conflict; Persians have always viewed themselves as the guardians of civilizations, and it was the barbarians from the west (the Arabs, not "The West") who conquered them, whereas the Arabs despise the Persians for not giving up their culture, language, identity, etc. CorruptUser 20:14, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Given that races are statistical constructs from a modern perspective, one might ask what you think an Arab Jew is? Most Jews in Israel are not "practicing Jews." It is, for them, an ethnic identity. That is a "because I say so" identity. Arabs are not a race. They are just folks that live in North Africa and west Asia and share cultural attitudes. UncleKrampus (talk) 21:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Judaism is classed as an "ethno-religion" that one can convert to. If someone had an arab parent or both parents were arab, and the mother was a follower of Judaism, then their child would be considered Jewish. Also, races are not, really "statistical" constructs. The whole point in refuting racialism was that racial groupings are not statistically meaningful. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 01:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Anything can be made statistically meaningful. Race is not a scientific construct. Statistics is something else. Science is expected to make sense. Statistics is just a group of theories of probabilistic modeling. Races, like the rainbows are real in a very limited sense.UncleKrampus (talk) 13:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

You can just say you never took a stats class before and save us the howler of “ Anything can be made statistically meaningful” —- no, not if the standards for acceptable margins of error, statistical significance, and effect sizes have anything to say about it. This is like saying any treatment can be made effective. Do you think when a meta-analysis reports that a treatment is not statistically or clinically significant from the placebo control they are reporting that there is a statistically meaningful difference between the treatment and the control group? No, honey. That’s being illiterate in statistics. Alarming for a community that is about promoting scientific literacy. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 19:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Maybe I'm being too charitable here, but to be fair with Krampus, he said "statistically meaningful" (a term that is not common on the literature so maybe he was criticizing the abuse of statistics by some people), not "statistically significant" (a very common term that means p-value<α, where α is usually 0.05). GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 20:08, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes you are being charitable, but I am not proud and I do accept charity. I have a degree in mathematics and I know enough to know that the models are abstractions that we do not always accept when they generate cognitive dissonance, which, by the way many here seem to experience without being aware of it. Sorry sweetie.UncleKrampus (talk) 22:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't know you have a degree in mathematics (I assume Sorta didn't know either), and from now on, I'll assume you're a lot better on the subject than me (which is not very difficult, but whatever). Still, I think I understood your point, you were saying that statistics can be abused and/or ignored based on what people believe. That being said, I don't think the backfire effect is always true. Not saying that I'm 100% rational or everything but to quote Keynes (ok, the quote isn't his) "When the facts change, I change my mind". I've changed my mind on many subjects that I once hold very firm positions, and I expect to change many times in the future as I am confronted with evidence. This is an interesting conversation (IMO far more interesting than demographics of the I/P conflict), but the three of us derailing the thread now, so I'll stop now. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 22:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Don't be, you were quite correct, I think. Even sorta was more or less accurate. Social science buffs depend upon the idea that statistics is a way to see the truth. Mathematicians see it as removed from a posteriori knowledge, and, a pure form of knowledge, but that is a little too incoherent for me. I would say that statisticians think it is the art of making numerical conjectures. We use statistics to make educated guesses. That's good.UncleKrampus (talk) 22:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

it's kind of a Harry Potter house thing. Anyone is allowed to convert to Judaism, but the tenets matter to orthodoxy. It's like, you can join a Catholic family, but you're not getting off with an unbaptised child. Non practicing is fine and included, but it's also not fine. It's not that different to me with judaism. It IS ethnically tied, but it is so cultural that I just can't buy it as an ethnicity at large. Would an Arab Muslim be held to a different standard? I worked with a Pakistani Muslim and he brought his family's leftovers to the break room the day Ramadan started. What a fucking cool thing to just do. Was he Muslim? Well, I made sure I was in the break room any time he had to run his socks under water before prayer, I've seen worse done at a sink. Torrent (talk) 03:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC) Torrent (talk) 02:55, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

There is so much kindness and humility in any religion that wants to exist, and it works so much better than distrust and exclusion. As an atheist, kindness and humility is not suspect. it's just how we all get by. Torrent (talk) 03:28, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mizrahi_Jews

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_Israel

https://jewishcurrents.org/our-white-supremacy-problem

https://www.trtworld.com/opinion/racism-in-israel-some-jews-are-more-equal-than-others-28109

?

KarmaPolice (talk) 10:45, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

The timeline I’ve got for this thing which I have no stake in yet like any modern major jerk have opinions of (and please, mods please smash this if it is pure flame bait but I ask only that ye not banhammer me) is that:

Artificius (talk) 05:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

There do exist people who identify as both Arab and Jewish, but they are few and far between. Carthage (talk) 08:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

It's quite amazing how, rather than owning up to a fuck-up, G Man just decides to hide this entire thing behind a collapse. Carthage (talk) 12:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

i collapsed it to improve readability. to be fair, i did take this discussion a bit off topic, and it took up more than half of the thread because of the lengthy replies.

anyway, i gave up (just like cory apparently did) because i didn't want to keep dragging the conversation on forever. it's evident that we've reached an impasse. my mind has not changed, and i'm not going to change anyone's mind. consequently, rather than just going around in circles forever, we'll just have to agree to disagree for now. The G (talk) 18:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

You were debunked a multitude of times, and are now hiding the thread so less people are exposed to posts debunking the misinformation provided by someone who admits to have never read a single book from an academic publisher on this topic. Your mind hasn’t changed because you didn’t come to the conversation to have your mind changed. You have established yourself as a someone who contradict expert viewpoints. You have thrown the very idea of rational skepticism out the window, refusing to engage with the empirical evidence. If the “impasse” is acknowledging palestinians as a distinct ethnic group, or that there existed Jewish Palestinians. I don’t know what to tell you. Motivated reasoning is going to kick no matter what I say. Even with your changed goalposts, I scored. You are really ill equipped and ill informed on this issue. I even explained the nuance of acknowledging many of the oldest Jewish settlements as being arguably without fault to the settlers themselves due to their very real status as political refugees. This is still reconcilable with seeing the Palestinians as a colonized people. Political and Labour Zionists still contributed to this, and are not completely without fault. You can describe this conflict as a complex of interplay of European antisemitism, colonization, and political forces pushing mass relocation of their Jewish population onto the land of non-consenting Palestinians. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 23:43, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Hell, you can even acknowledge the role of religious antisemitism, and the motivations of pan-Arabic nationalism in all of this too. It also be worth acknowledging the heavy American Evangelical influence to desiring that Israel is in control of Jerusalem. The way that Israel can work as a advantageous economic and militaristic ally for the US in the Middle East. Said Pan-Arabic nationalists who have a vested interest in supporting HAMAS, etc. This is a deeply convoluted issue. Not helped by denying the very real history of Zionism self-identifying a settler colonial project since its very early days. I am not interested in white washing this shit, various Palestinian factions have done horrendous shit too. I still think the more powerful, more stable actor with the exceedingly higher death-toll in all of this holds the greater responsibility solely because they are the only faction with the stability and power to do so. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 23:56, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

i will admit to leaving out one key fact: while i did say there was no state of palestine prior to the 20th century (which is true), i did leave out that israel is also a product of 20th century politics. i should have mentioned that earlier, and it was my mistake to leave that out.

besides that, i've already stated where i stand on the issue. i refuse to buy into the nonsensical "jewish settler colonialism" propaganda. i don't care what your favorite historian says. there are just as many who disagree (including the one i mentioned), and your senseless gatekeeping does nothing to change that. the fact is that jews are just as indigenous to the holy land as the palestinians are due to their historical connections to the land. saying otherwise is like saying, "might makes right," given the historical context. (it's like saying the western armenian diaspora has no right to return to eastern turkey just because they lost it in a genocide/ethnic cleansing campaign.) as long as people keep playing the blame game, and as long as people fail to acknowledge these basic facts, there will never be peace in the region (israel-palestine). The G (talk) 07:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Your position is not informed by reality, especially when a) early Zionists themselves called Zionism a settler colonial project and b) they are still literally colonizing Palestine right as we speak. This is something you continue to ignore because it contradicts your propaganda. Carthage (talk) 17:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ "the fact is that jews are just as indigenous to the holy land as the palestinians are due to their historical connections to the land. saying otherwise is like saying, "might makes right," given the historical context. (it's like saying the western armenian diaspora has no right to return to eastern turkey just because they lost it in a genocide/ethnic cleansing campaign.)"

This is funny, because Palestinians, who you acknowledge are indigenous to Palestine, are currently being ethnically cleansed from Palestine, and have been for decades now. Also, again, it's irrelevant if Jewish people have an ancestral connection to Palestine. Israel is the dominant power that is ethnically cleansing the indigenous Palestinians and stealing land they have inhabited for millennia. Why should a return to Palestine necessitate ethnic cleansing and land theft? That's colonization. It's disingenuous to paint it as anything but. Even early Zionists recognized this fact, which you continue to ignore. If you had any shred of intellectual honesty you would at least stop ignoring historical realities and admit that early Zionists viewed themselves as colonizers. Carthage (talk) 19:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

This point about ancestral homeland has already been addressed when I drew the analogy of Italian Fascists and claiming the territories occupied by ancient Rome. The Kingdom of Israel hadn’t occupied that territory since roughly around 930 BCE. You have close to 2000 years of history between the fall of that kingdom and the establishment of modern Israel. It doesn’t change the fact that Palestinians had been living in that region for centuries before the Zionist settlements were erected, and they have been displaced from the region ever since.

You are using blatantly nationalistic politics to reason about this, akin to the claims of other nationalistic movements looking to “restore” their civilization to their former glory. Ancestral homeland or not, that doesn’t justify ethnic displacement.

Acknowledging that historians contest Israel’s status as settler colonialism (complicated by nationalistic politics, and the specific scholarly tradition of “new historians” that started specifically in Israel), should not lead you to conclude the claim is “nonsensical propaganda”. That is not adopting historical consensus, that’s choosing a side. If anything you should withhold judgement to whether or not Israel is a settler colonial state if the state of humanities literature is really that mixed. You been backed up into a corner repeatedly though, given most claims you have made to Israel not being a settler colonial project implicates many a non-ambiguous examples (i.e. Canada, the US, Australia, South Africa, etc.) as not being examples of settler colonialism either. Do you actually think North Americans never claimed Europeans occupied the land before the indigenous people they found there? Do you think actually think Europeans never saw themselves as entitled to the land as a chosen people by God? - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 01:22, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

@Carthage okay, i'll concede that israeli jews are practicing settler colonialism... sort of. i already explained a little earlier, and i'll elaborate some more.

@OnlySortaDumb "This point about ancestral homeland has already been addressed when I drew the analogy of Italian Fascists and claiming the territories occupied by ancient Rome." that's a very interesting way to put it, but ok.

"Ancestral homeland or not, that doesn’t justify ethnic displacement." it's funny how buying land and settling there (pre-1948) is tantamount to ethnic displacement. that's almost like saying immigration or forming ethnic enclaves is settler colonialism. is brooklyn a colonial settlement, too? do all the german, japanese, and levantine enclaves in central and south america (and there are many) amount to another form of settler colonialism? maybe there's some nuance behind this argument that i'm missing out on. maybe florida was onto something when they recently banned land from being purchased by foreign buyers. on the other hand, the jewish israelis were entirely within their right to defend themselves in 1948, considering all surrounding arab countries attacked israel — not just the palestinians. the jews were also escaping genocide and ethnic cleansings of their own (as mentioned earlier). these are basic facts that i bet you a majority of university protesters don't even know. now, maybe israel isn't right to treat the palestinians in the post-1967 occupied territories the way they do, and that's fair game. after all, there is a lot of nuance to this debate. in fact, i support a free palestine only if there will be a safe haven for jews in the region. however, as long as iran- and qatar-backed hamas are part of the conversation, there will never a "free" or "decolonized" palestine. (and why would there be? are palestinians really free under the thumb of hamas? it's just a different form of imperialism. it's six of one, half a dozen of another... or however the saying goes in english.)

"most claims you have made to Israel not being a settler colonial project implicates many a non-ambiguous examples (i.e. Canada, the US, Australia, South Africa, etc.) as not being examples of settler colonialism either." another false equivalence, followed by a few strawman questions. the difference is that there are a grand total of zero permanent pre-columbian cities or settlements founded by europeans, whereas many ancient sources (not least the bible) have attested to the ancient jewish cities of jerusalem, nazareth, hebron, bethlehem, jericho, and many others. also, there are jewish coins just as much as there are palestinian coins from times past. to paraphrase what you said earlier, might does not always make right. just because the ancient jews were driven away from there doesn't mean their descendants don't have the right to return. with everything i said in mind, you can support decolonization and indigenous rights, or you can deny that jews are indigenous to the region. The G (talk) 04:20, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Need I repeat the UN definition of indigenous? The fact that Jews have an ancestral presence in Palestine does not make them indigenous by the UN definition. In fact, Israel regards immigration to Palestine even by converts as valid. Genetics is not a factor considered in aliyah laws. What Israel does do, is deny a right of return to ethnically cleansed Palestinians, displaced by both the Naqba and Naksa (and don't think it's escaped notice how you're peddling misinformation about the history of Zionist colonialism in the region).

Also, it's rich that you insist on being a fence-sitter when statements as basic as "maybe Israel isn't right to treat the Palestinians in the post-1967 occupied territories the way they do" (nice goalshift there) have to metaphorically be pried out of your teeth. You're a partisan for one side only, and are disingenuously trying to claim neutrality when you have none.

Also, nice false equivalency between ethnic immigration and settler colonialism. Zionist settlement of Palestine from the beginning has purposely been protected by imperial powers (this is described by Jabotinsky as the "Iron Wall" protecting Jewish settlements from angry natives), as Zionist settlement of Palestine from the beginning has been a self-admitted colonial project. In fact, Palestine was only one of several options originally considered for Jewish colonization. Madagascar and Patagonia were considered for Jewish settlement too. The Zionist colonization of Palestine was by no means inevitable, and the fact that Jews have ancestral history in that region is irrelevant to the fact that the Zionist project has been a colonial one from the get go. Carthage (talk) 09:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

This conversation is going around in circles. We already established Indigenous Palestinians lost land to Zionists settlements prior to the 20th century, let alone 1967. Also the previous argument I was making was an appeal to analogy, I wasn’t making an equivalence argument. If a fallacy was made then it would be a faulty analogy. To establish I made such a fallacy you would need to show that the number of relevant differences outnumber the relevant similarities. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 21:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

@G Man It's more that when any I-P discussions start to get heated, it's best to just walk away. For reasons it brings out the absolute worst in people. CorruptUser 20:15, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Sooo....

I just wanted to say that macroevolution (not just micro) is rock solid, humans came from Africa recently, Jews do not control the world, Jews don't hate non Jews/white people, Jews didnt invent communism, string theory is true, relativity is true and the consensus is usually correct. 9/11 was done by Al Qaeda, the Jews didn't do most of the things they're accused of, we landed on the moon, mass shootings are real and so is global warming. I felt the need to say this, because I denied it in the past. But after a lot of critical thinking and studying science I have changed my mind. 2603:9001:300:81A:786D:60BD:5DFF:35D0 (talk) 13:34, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean String Theory is true? How do you know that?UncleKrampus (talk) 15:52, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the rest is obviously true. But string theory is a bit of an outlier. Not that I would claim to understand it.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 18:14, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

As far as I know string theory is so far unfalsifiable, hence neither true nor false. Bongolian (talk) 18:22, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, in science, the 'consensus', even vague, when it exists, so much that it's existence is consensual and majoritarian, is 'truth' as we surely understand it, however in democracy, there is no rationalist solution which can be both 'consensual' and 'true' at the same time (there can, however, among respectable political factions, be conventional usages accepting and supporting democracy, liberty and equality (with various interpretations and applications of those systems) which tell us far-left and far-right are simply bad and inacceptable if anti-republican). New world (talk) 23:03, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

@Bongolian falsifiability doesn’t imply a proposition or theory is not truth-apt. It just means the claims of a theory can be subject to a critical test that has the potential to refute the theory. Failing falsification wouldn’t necessarily imply the theory’s claims are true. All falsification can provide is a logical inference via modus tollens to falsehood. Logical tautologies like the law of non-contradiction and the law of excluded middle are arguably not falsifiable, if they were they wouldn’t be laws of logic classed as necessary truths. Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 01:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think scientific consensus is that String Theory is correct, or even on the right track. I see more criticism of it than support. Pop-Sci seems to love it though, just like multiversus. It is so far removed from empirical testing that I wouldn't even call it science, it is mathematicians larping as physicists. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 07:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

A short celebration. I thought it might be possible for a rabbit and a cat to produce offspring. I really didn't believe it, but I needed a refutation. I found it here. There are no refutations of people stroking their own cocks here, but I like your story and would welcome you warmly. I was welcomed warmly myself, post-academically speaking is kinda the love language here. Forgive them. Torrent (talk) 06:48, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Sincerely, Torrent, I have to look at your comments two times before I understand anything you wrote. Perhaps it is the language barrier, but it seems others are experiencing similar issues with your style. Just to clarify, are you in favour of the IP, or in favour of falsification? If your referring to the latter, it always shocks me how much of a cult of (hard) 'science' exists in North America, often simultaneously to the detriment of social ('soft') sciences, 'questionable' philosophy (ambiguity personified, some anti-lacanians would say), and to an extent rather-votable-but-impulsive politicians. All of this self-righteousness and arrogance simply because of some rural Americans' ignorance? New world (talk) 20:14, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

What you are not reading is how fucking lonely I am. In my life, I am met with people who believe, really, things I don't. Just, upside down views if you ask me. If it makes you confused, I'm sorry. But you are going to have to deal with it. Torrent (talk) 08:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Either you studied philosophy or your just drunk a lot. I don’t care, do I? New world (talk) 13:09, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Never asked you to. Torrent (talk) 04:24, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Classical Christian Education: A mission worthy topic

https://classicalchristian.org/glossary-of-terms-home/

It is popular among fundies and the GOP. It is generally Creationist in nature. Hillsdale College, a far right Christian College, advocates Classical Christian Education as a substitute for public education. School vouchers are used for these schools and it comes at the expense of public education. --Trans Fem Agenda 19:22, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

If you feel like it's a good missional topic for the wiki, you could either start up a draft for it or leave a suggestion for it on RationalWiki's "to do" list! Sincerely, Postuhenin the neurodivergent doodlebug! (say hi! ^^) 03:15, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

This doesn't look a whole lot different from homeschooling I've seen. The worry would be if the college funneled up in a meaningful sense, otherwise you're looking at an HVAC repairman trying his best to support 5 or 6 kids while the wife stays trad, because you can't pay for 5 or 6 kids on an HVAC repairman salary. Well, it comes from the government, and if you're really against public schooling, every child you have meets a home school stipend, their education standard meets not much. The money with the best intention to buy supplies and help those kids. and I truly believe childcare costs are prohibitive, you can't just get a 14 dollar job and leave a preschooler at home alone.

Public schools are so stupidly underfunded that they can't have baby wranglers from 4 am to 7 pm, but that's what they need, isn't it? People whose job it is to keep your kid from hurting themselves or others from the time you go to work until the time you can pick them up, and in the mean time, some real experts at teaching work with them on how to read and do math and shit. I think public schooling should be a national priority that extends and replaces home daycare, because at its core, that is what it is doing. It really doesn't take a lot to keep a kid safe and alive. If every kid can be expected to link up for a virtual classroom, it's really dumb to say every kid who might need a breakfast gets it run by a bus route that used to pick up kids. All these things are possible, public schooling just needs to also be funded for before and after care. If you can pay 15 year olds to babysit or work at a church daycare, you can pay them to work at a school. If school bus drivers exist, I mean, who and how do you wind up in that job? Picking up and driving a bunch of middle schoolers to school, and you're the only adult on the bus? How is that a job? Torrent (talk) 03:37, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't look that different to homeschooling' because homeschooling is 'traditional American' which was a derivative of Classical Education as originally practiced in C19th England - and this 'new movement' is simply harking back to this.

RW does not have a page on Classical Education. I recommend a page on that is produced first - mainly because they share the same strength/weaknesses, format etc. KarmaPolice (talk) 09:46, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I Fully disagree. I'd be blown away if the 'format' couched in your expectation, to start, would be enough, because I'm saying, schools as also daycares and would say it will never be Much more than a yesterday project on account of pretty much nothing but a disagreement, but also I'm now curious, were you homeschooled? Torrent (talk) 03:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

'Schools as daycare' is an argument which can be levelled against all formal schools. My point was that from what I can see, the curriculum of these schools are simply an updated classical education given a fundie-isation. So there would be a lot of redundancy between a RW page on each, so might be better to write the first, well first and put in 'its like (link) but cultified' KarmaPolice (talk) 10:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

and I understand I was not speaking from a collaborative rational wiki page creation priority. I apologize, but I do believe a school is actually easily effective as a place that just keeps kids alive before anything else Torrent (talk) 07:13, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I did work daycare at a church, and my mom worked from para to teacher, I'm not speaking from ignorance. It is really hard to take care of 20 peoples' kids. 07:25, 1 June 2024 (UTC) sign your posts, I know, I know Torrent (talk) 04:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Do we create emotions?

Warning: Emotions conversation ahead may rot your brain!

Sorry about going on about the Gary guy it's just that what I read from him got to me and I'm sorta hitting a wall figuring this out (autism stuff I guess) and I'm hoping a fresh view helps. The emotions bit just gets to me because it's suggesting things don't make us feel that it's our beliefs that do that but when I ask how I got nothing about it. Some lady on the forum mentioned how she had memories of her time on a farm and when she saw a rooster picture it made her feel good because of the memories not because of the rooster, but something seems off about that to me. Like what made those memories good, among other things.

To me it seems like since the feelings come from us that we create them and things don't make us feel. When I was talking to a dude on there from a zoom call I mentioned how I love the ocean and it always makes me feel at ease and all these feelings come up. He then said something about how the feelings are coming from me not the ocean, I don't remember much else. But like...obviously the feelings are from me since it's my brain but something is triggering them right? Just replace my case with the ocean with just about anything we value and their thoughts are it's the beliefs that create emotions, not said thing you like. I kept turning it over in my mind but with everything I like: video games, character classes in games, movies, etc, I couldn't avoid that some belief about that was affecting my feelings and I'm wondering if I'm not actually making a connection with said things but just imagining it or making it up. Does that make sense? IT's like the "we make our own meaning" but IMO taken to a kinda extreme. I'm lost on how to respond. Again I can't really post the lesson on here because it is LONG and I get flagged as spam trying to do so.

But I can give some quotes that I think captures the point, these are a collection so don't read them as one:

"This leads us to a whole different behavior which we get into later with relationships. Which is about we then have to control that person and make them do certain things so that they don’t do the things that make us upset. We end up trying to control another person, which we can’t do, based on the assumption they are controlling us or our emotions, which they aren’t doing. But if we believe the story that they tick us off, we believe they do and then we have to compensate with this story of “Oh, I have to make sure that they don’t do this” or “I have to make sure they do this, this way.” We end up trying to control people. Why? To minimize our reactions not to them, but to our agreements about them. The whole time not noticing that it’s our agreements, cause we hypnotized ourselves with our own story that they are causing it.

Let’s break down the structure of just the words and why words are so powerful in this. If we say, “He makes me feel”, “She makes me feel.” If we look at the actual words structure, this is saying, “They have a power to create in me a certain emotion.” We abbreviate it down and say, “He makes me feel”, “She makes me feel.” Just a couple of words. But if we look at the structure of what’s actually being said, it’s that they have a responsibility and power over what I feel emotionally. And they are able to control my emotions. If we said it that way, we’d kind of go, “Hah? That doesn’t make sense!” But if we say it in the short hand version and that comes out of our mouth so fast, we don’t know the lie that’s going on, we don’t know how we’re abdicating power over our emotional state and say, “Oh, they are in charge.” And this is huge."

“I was chatting with the client and I asked her, “What determines our emotional state?” And after doing the “Gratitude” exercise and having some mastery over shifting her point of view, which she learnt through hunting her attention, she could say, “Our attitude”. Then I asked her, “What do we say determines our emotional state?” She said, “Well, other people and outside circumstances”. And I had to laugh cause it was joyful to see she nailed it.”

“Sometimes people will see that and say, “Ok, if I just make all these agreements, then I’m going to make the agreement that I’m going to be happy about everything and commit to that.” That’s a wonderful direction to go and one we can eventually get to. However let’s be honest. We already have a lot of our personal power committed to these other agreements about what will make us happy and what will make us upset and angry or sad or fearful. And because we make the new agreement that we’re going to be happy about everything or certain things, even if someone is yelling at us, we have to be honest with ourselves that that new agreement we make may not be as strong and as powerful yet as the ones that we’ve been living by for years.”

The agreement part in that last one was REALLY iffy to me because it's saying that liking and disliking stuff is pretty much some agreement we made (unconsciously) to feel that way about X or Y.

Let’s say it’s cold and snowy. One person can say, “This is really bothering me out”. And another can say, “Oh, this is so beautiful, I love this, I enjoy this weather”. Now, one person saying, “This weather bumps me out, this weather depresses me.” The other says, “It makes me so happy”. Now, is it the weather that’s actually determining our emotional state? Does weather somehow go into each person’s emotional body and do something to facilitate a different emotional response? No. The weather is just the weather. It’s just doing what it’s doing. It’s not out there to determine anybody’s emotional state. With our agreements about weather we determine our own emotional state. We decide consciously or unconsciously about our agreements that this weather really depresses us or thrills us. What’s really happening is that we have an agreement to be down or up emotionally depending on a weather. We ignore that completely and say that the weather’s causing it.

What’s really happening is we have an agreement to be depressed or be down and we are committed to that agreement and when the weather is down we act in accordance with that agreement we have about the weather. It’s kind of “if-then” situation structure of agreement. “If the weather is lousy I’m going to feel this way.” Then let’s be clear. There’s the weather, this independent entity, there’re the agreements we have about it and we respond emotionally to the weather according to the agreements we’ve made. And how we respond emotionally to it just by agreement. Big problem here is that we don’t notice the agreement. What we do is instead of noticing the agreement we run off to our story, “The weather is causing me to feel this way.” We run those stories and in those stories we are telling ourselves to commit to the story that the weather is determining our emotional state. This is pure fiction. What’s actually determining our emotional state is our agreements about the weather. But we tell ourselves a lie we believe. What we’ve done is we’ve abdicated in our lives power to these agreements that determine our emotional state. We say, “He frustrates the heck out of me”, “If she does that one more time I’m going to get so pissed.” These are putting the power over our emotional state onto someone else, some other circumstances and then saying, “It’s them that’s causing us to feel this way.” As long as we do that, we are putting ourselves in a role of victim, where we’re powerless and by that token we are not in control over our emotions. They are responsible for our happiness, for us being upset.

This leads us to a whole different behavior which we get into later with relationships. Which is about we then have to control that person and make them do certain things so that they don’t do the things that make us upset. We end up trying to control another person, which we can’t do, based on the assumption they are controlling us or our emotions, which they aren’t doing. But if we believe the story that they tick us off, we believe they do and then we have to compensate with this story of “Oh, I have to make sure that they don’t do this” or “I have to make sure they do this, this way.” We end up trying to control people. Why? To minimize our reactions not to them, but to our agreements about them. The whole time not noticing that it’s our agreements, cause we hypnotized ourselves with our own story that they are causing it.

Let’s break down the structure of just the words and why words are so powerful in this. If we say, “He makes me feel”, “She makes me feel.” If we look at the actual words structure, this is saying, “They have a power to create in me a certain emotion.” We abbreviate it down and say, “He makes me feel”, “She makes me feel.” Just a couple of words. But if we look at the structure of what’s actually being said, it’s that they have a responsibility and power over what I feel emotionally. And they are able to control my emotions. If we said it that way, we’d kind of go, “Hah? That doesn’t make sense!” But if we say it in the short hand version and that comes out of our mouth so fast, we don’t know the lie that’s going on, we don’t know how we’re abdicating power over our emotional state and say, “Oh, they are in charge.” And this is huge.

Again I'm sorry about all this but I'm just hitting a wall with this material. I wish I could post the actual stuff but it's too long. I'm just hitting a wall. All I have is this sense that something isn't quite right about all of it but can't put it into words. Maybe folks not on the spectrum can help me, not to give the impression you are tools. More like I'm starting to learn my limits with my thinking.47.5.66.54 (talk) 04:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Darwin advanced the theory that the physical behaviors, sounds, and expressions that accompanied emotions were probably instinctive developments that appeared in humanity's animal ancestors. This stuff bothering you is probably free-will related.The human brain is not a perfectly programable device. Humans are not angels and are not, and cannot be according to Darwin, in complete control of their emotions. But some people can be more controlled than others. It is not surprising that an individual person, with practice, can demonstrate extreme control over their emotions. The fallacy is the conclusion that anyone can do it or, that the person making the claim can always control themselves. Just saying something should be so is not evidence of anything, even that the speaker himself believes it.UncleKrampus (talk) 15:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I guess there is a point to that, I know something is off about what they say. Mostly that if you drill all the way down you will find something you don't or can't control and sometimes it might even appear to be the illusion of control.

They say stuff like "you are not the heart and mind" which sounds like you aren't your thoughts and feelings. Sorta like this: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/stop-avoiding-stuff/202204/you-are-not-your-thoughts

Which at first sounds ok to me, but the more I think about it the less sense it makes. Saying that you are not your thoughts because thinking something means that you can do the opposite of what you think, but isn't that a thought too? Also the fact that you are reading their words and being affected by them means you are the mind since you are influenced by them. The guy on the forum asked me if "are you the thought of you on the beach" and I told him yes. He asked how so. I didn't give a well formed answer on the spot but what I think is that all that is based on what you know. If you know not what a beach or anything like that is then you can't think about it. The same would go for any sort of philosophy or lens you examine reality with, despite what they believe there is no such thing as an unmeditated or direct experience of reality free of concepts and the like, despite them insisting they have felt it. The thought of you on the beach is imagining you, one the beach, based on what you know such things are, and that knowledge is also how you based your view and navigate reality. So in a sense it is you, but sorta not. It's complicated.

But that article in psychology today begged a lot of questions, like what is doing the opposite of what you are thinking or ignoring thoughts but just another thought? It sounds more like shifting the value you place on things. The same would go for the guy saying you aren't the heart, or your feelings (something I also heard in Buddhism). Emotion is the reason we do anything in life at all, since without it logic can't work and there is no better or worse choice to make. Despite what such people think we are ruled by emotions even if they think they are in control of them.

I just have a lot of doubt and questions when I start thinking about it, which sorta leaves me wondering how to feel and navigate my own life. Though I'm learning people of any spirituality aren't the ones to ask on this, they have what I call fake open mindedness.47.5.66.54 (talk) 19:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Of course, it is the only important question, do we exist, does the self mean anything? And short answer is kinda, the self is tight, it exists despite any other conundrum or equation. the constant is always the self for every person. I don't need to ascribe to anything else, ergo sum despite. But it does do some good to think for yourself, and fulfill the awful promise of CoGito ergo sum. Torrent (talk) 09:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Important yes, but of all important questions, "do we exist?" is probably the least important. The evidence is in: every time you behave as though a man much larger than yourself does not exist, you're liable to get the furniture knocked out 'your mouth. The truth is, someone has to be paid to think about that: University philosophers, think-tank trolls, Monte Python types, and so forth. If you are not being paid by the hour, why ask a question that leads nowhere?UncleKrampus (talk) 15:03, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I do not and will not agree that somebody must be paid to discover the 'truth'. I think the 'truth' can be lodged by anybody. It is always our job, Now that the internet is really easy to use, to know what's bullshit is a job in and of itself. Which is what I really appreciate this wiki for. Torrent (talk) 06:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Bad Financial Advice and Fake Gurus

Well, I just thought of this situation once again involving the Internet, and I am unsure as how to proceed concerning YouTube and many other platforms. It turns out, that because con artists like Robert Kiyosaki (and eventually scammers like Tai Lopez) got relative impunity for the deceitful words that came out of their mouths (The proper penalty grifters like Kiyosaki should have received back then and should receive now is life imprisonment without parole, but still.), there's been countless copycats that prowl the Internet and set up shop on YouTube and other platforms as influencers, with relative impunity themselves. One of the most common clickbait titles seen from nearly all of them is called "How They Keep You Poor". And major financial watchdogs are currently doing nothing to moderate the Internet concerning these scammers. Many of them claim to offer courses promising quick riches, but really contain tripe that lines the pockets of these influencers. And it's difficult to sniff out the fakes, since almost everyone clickbaits to get attention online. What should I do to put an end to these influencers and their financial scams? TheEternalOutsider (talk) 17:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Get-rich-quick scams have been on the Internet since... well, since pretty much the beginning of the Internet. No, really. Anything that will promise to make you a millionaire, won't.

That being said, Kiyosaki's book is in a category that is not necessarily a scam per se. Though I've heard plenty of bad things about Rich Dad Poor Dad, the category this book (or websites / podcasts / etc.) is in (personal finance), if it is a more *legitimate* media, could be useful for someone who lacks knowledge on how to budget etc. I do not personally have recommendations on what books, websites, etc. are good unfortunately, but I would be suspicious of *anyone* that asks for $$$ for info (unless its something like a highly regarded book, but these days I'm not sure you need to start there), as well as anyone that promises the moon; both are "seems shady" signs. There is a lot of free information out there that is good, you just need to sort through the bullshit. To give one example (from a quick Google, so "research further"), it seems like the Wiki for r/personalfinance on Reddit is well regarded. And it is free. BobJohnson (talk) 20:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I really wish those scammers and clickbaiters across the Internet get thrown behind bars in prison where they belong (preferably for life and without parole.). But how do we get to that point… TheEternalOutsider (talk) 20:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, to start, they'd have to be doing something that actually is, y'know, a scam in criminal terms. Writing a book full of bad advice isn't a criminal act. Neither is clickbait. :) There's no reason why either of those should be, neither are overt attempts to take your money in a deceptive way. Kiyosaki's advice may be shit, but I bet he really believes in it himself personally. There's definitely some "tightening up" that could be done with certain things though like multilevel marketing that are more deceptive at the core IMHO...

I have noticed that in recent years, the Federal Trade Commission has caught up a bit on things that truly would be scams if it was not done online, such as all of the cryptocurrency scams that has utilized some form of pump and dump manipulation or other shady finance techniques. So there's that. BobJohnson (talk) 20:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Don't take financial advice from the internet. Like seriously, don't.

If you want a more thoughtful answer though I assume and hope watchdog agencies do try to shutdown the most egregious misinformation and scam peddlers online, though I also imagine it is like playing whac-a-mole. And to argue both sides, the internet can be useful in learning general information about things such as finances... but the keyword is general information. Obviously, like other professional fields, the best thing to do before acting on such information may be to speak to a real life professional in said field (a financial advisor at your physical bank maybe?). The internet can be good, but should still be navigated with weariness IMO. For myself I've found that limiting the number of websites I visit and the time spent on them has greatly improved my day to day. Impiricism (talk) 21:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I like https://www.investopedia.com/ - good resource for teaching yourself about finance etc (though is very America-centric). For only knowledge is the defence against bad gurus.

Speaking of, once you get past the obvious crap, shills and cranks, the best most gurus can say is 'well it worked for me'. Now, if a pro bodybuilder is guru-ing me on how to get ripped, yes they are worth listening to but I shouldn't take everything as gospel - instead I running everything past my own knowledge base / common sense, keeping the old Sagan Standard handy and being wary of bias.

If you've got to the stage where you find yourself able to intelligently 'talk back' at sites /videos /books, you know you've got somewhere. Which means in short, you've gotta put in the effort to educate yourself first. KarmaPolice (talk) 10:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Sadly, it seems even Investopedia has a few hiccups with fake gurus themselves. TheEternalOutsider (talk) 12:17, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Where? KarmaPolice (talk) 15:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Here's a few links containing some offenders. [3], [4], [5] TheEternalOutsider (talk) 08:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay... [looks at offending pages].

Kiyosaki's page is somewhat muted, but it does mention the poor aspects of his work - ie most of the Rich/Poor advice is now obsolete, his 'those who can't do, teach' mentality etc. But some of their advice still holds, such as the concept to 'accumulate assets, not possessions' and 'become financially literate'. I would rank it as 'fair' and leaving it open to the reader to work out whether it's worth reading Rich/Poor.

'Famous Financial Advisors' is a listicle of... famous financial advisors. Buffett is there, but so is Madoff. It gives short précis of both. While I can dispute who's on this list, I won't dispute the info put in this one.

Dave Ramsey's 7-steps aren't inherently bad. Like with Kiyosaki's page, the page is muted - it allows you to come to your own judgement. But again, some of his advice is terribly dated; no, you need credit cards [if only to prove you can handle debt for later home loans], I really don't agree with his 'don't buy a property unless you can afford to pay it outright in 15 years' [even if you can't pay it outright in 30, at very least you'd pay a decent chunk of it which you'd get back, which won't happen from eternal rentals] and 'Micawber's law' [always spend less than you earn] can lead to not only cheapskate 'false economies' [not just in cash, but time/effort too], ignoring 'investment opportunities' which could increase your earning potential and lastly, glosses over the fact you might need to 'grow out of hole', not an eternal belt-tightening which ends with you living the life of Mr Mustard.

Which is kinda an example of what I said before. Listen to them [unless known idiot/scammer], but don't take everything as gospel. Read around, learn the subject - your circumstances are always going to make at least one suggestion non-applicable or plain nuts. Develop the ability to argue back at them, like I have with Ramsey. Part of the issue here is that your two examples are neither 'fake gurus', more 'gurus of variable worth'. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:59, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

TBH I haven't heard *too* much *super*-bad things about Dave Ramsey, but on the other hand it's hardly been all positive. Seems like the "Reddit consensus" (as well as the RW article consensus) for what it's worth is that he's a good "stepping stone" for financial literacy and getting out of debt. Some of his advice has to be framed with this in mind; his anti-credit card stance is terrible unless you are one of the many Americans who have no impulse control and binge yourself into credit card debt. In which case, it might be good to "lay off" the credit cards for a while. In this respect, he's been compared to Alcoholics Anonymous by some (which includes of course some of the dogmatic absolutism in both).

His investment advice is generally considered terrible, and from a skim, I would concur - it's less *super-bad* then about 50 years out of date and old-school shady, advocating high-fee mutual funds and over-promising returns. (No one should touch these in the era of low-fee index funds and ETFs.) To quote a Boglehead forum member which seems right on first skim: "If your net worth is above 0, Ramsey has 0 to offer you."

The other Ramsey impression I've gotten from skims is that he's one of the many "evangelical Christians" who in reality is a gigantic asshole with a huge douche personality. And honestly, if you have actually read the Bible, his free mixing of finance and fundie Christianity should be... theologically troubling, I would think, if fundies actually thought about it more instead of ranting about TEH GAY all the time. But this is a separate topic from his financial advice. BobJohnson (talk) 14:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I think it's also important to divide a guru's 'works' and their more ad hoc public comments etc; for example, Kiyosaki has leant heavily into gold and crypto as 'investments', while his own Rich/Poor would implicity tell you not to do as they are assets with zero passive income streams [at best, gold is a 'store of wealth']. But when it comes to any 'guru', it's always wise to remember their age and consider what aspects of their knowledge might have become obsolete - an elderly bodybuilder might be spot on when it comes to working out, but not in regards to nutrition [bodies are bodies, but we know a lot more about macros/micros since the 70s]. Relevance is also an important issue; the diet/nutrition plan for an office worker is simply not going to be applicable for a sportsperson, even if the plan is current and sound. KarmaPolice (talk) 15:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I'd also point out that different 'gurus' have differing opinions. For example, Martin Lewis [a British finance 'guru'] has positive things to say about credit cards, including being able to take advantage of 'cash-down' discounts, being able to play the card against hire-purchase, the larger consumer protections a credit card gives etc. KarmaPolice (talk) 15:27, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Trump Guilty on all 34 counts!

Trump is in a tight spot now son.UncleKrampus (talk) 21:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

If he had just used some sense... I'm not sorry for people like that.ThatJoshuaPerson (talk) 22:32, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

"12 New York jurors said they unanimously agreed that Trump falsified business records to conceal a $130,000 hush money payment to adult film star Stormy Daniels to influence the 2016 election." This apparently means he's the first former US president convicted of felonies. Chillpilled (talk) 21:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Lock him up. --Trans Fem Agenda 22:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Rule 34!

Wait. CorruptUser 22:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

[EC] It may take a number of months, possibly over a year before Trump faces consequences, though. It seems to be generally believed that indecisive and "middle" voters are likely to abandon Trump now, though, so it may cost him the election even while he's free for perhaps another year while appeals etc. take place. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 22:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I doubt he'll be "locked up" even if he exhausts the appeals; this is a "biz" crime (falsifying records) at its core. The only reason it is a class E felony (the lowest kind in New York) is because the law [6] allows such when the intent is to commit, aid, or conceal a crime. (Which the prosecution apparently proved that he did, in that the hush money was a part of a conspiracy to commit election fraud.)

It is darkly amusing that this is promoting a "rally around the criminal" effect among Republicans, conservative pundits, and wingnut media. (Ladies and gentlemen, the Party of Law and Order!) But who cares about them? We know who they will vote for, it would probably take something like Trump shooting a puppy to get them to change their mind (and maybe not even then). Personally I doubt it will have much effect on the election (maybe a little around the edges among the undecideds, don't cares, and fuck 'em both crowd) compared to lots of other things... but we'll see. BobJohnson (talk) 23:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I think this means we should be absolutely terrified of whoever Trump chooses as VP; if he wins, and then gets removed from office... CorruptUser 23:02, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

He wouldn't be removed from office unless he resigned. Chillpilled (talk) 01:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

If he wins the general election, how could he serve as president while there is a possibility of him going to prison? There's no way he could perform his duties (such as meeting with foreign diplomats) from his cell, and he also can't pardon himself for a conviction that came from a state court. Tetrapteryx (talk) 03:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

An oldster that obese is basically a walking cardiac event. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree with BobJ. This result won't move those solid supporters (either way) and I don't think it will move the needle much - even with moderate/floating voters. I will be amazed it this causes a 3% swing away from the Orange One - and if Biden doesn't pull his finger out he stands a very good chance of losing. KarmaPolice (talk) 10:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Thinking about it, the main thing I can see maybe moving the needle a *touch* is the very probable likelihood that Trump will *constantly* whine about this case, that He's So Much A Victim Of The Democrat Elite or something, and tries to make a martyr out of himself. This of course will be "red meat" for his Biggest Fans, but honestly (should this happen, as I think is likely) I am guessing that this will seem rather pathetic to anyone looking at this objectively. Anyone observant of the last 8 years of Trump behavior of course would already know that Trump whining about always being the victim is "par for the course", but it's pretty clear that there are a *lot* of "low information" voters out there.

And, in fact, the "low information voter" is one of the "features" of the recent polling that makes predicting the 2024 election tough to me. At least in the New York Times polls, a curious feature was noted recently: Biden actually still has a small lead among people who actually voted in 2020; much of the Trump swing has been concentrated among people who didn't vote in 2020.[7] This repeats in a few other ways (there's a "Trump bump" among those who only get their "news" from social media or barely pay attention to politics). Will the constant Trump whine actually connect with non-MAGA Trump supporters, or will it help make some of this low-information "Trump bump" say "fuck em both" and stay home? Who knows. This is a wilder "wild card" than a few other of the "election questions", such as "how much will 'the Israel deal' hurt Biden?" or "are pollsters underestimating the pro-choice vote again?" But... it's "something". BobJohnson (talk) 14:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Busted!Koafox (talk) 14:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Come to think of it, I could see him passing off some responsibilities to his VP the way presidents already do when they're hospitalized. Cheney was acting president for a few hours when W. Bush had a colonoscopy at least a couple of times. There's reportedly already been some planning by the Secret Service on how to maybe work this out though, from at least a security angle. Chillpilled (talk) 15:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

there is at least a few members of Secret Security (fun name) that have been staying at Trump owned properties. All former presidents are entitled to a secret service (really fun name) duty for themselves and their family. Less than a VP, how cool would it be to be an ex presential guard? It is weird that Reagan took a bullet,right? Torrent (talk) 04:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Polling has dropped - https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jun/07/trump-biden-election-standing-after-conviction - suggesting that there's been a 2% wiggle towards Biden. KarmaPolice (talk) 11:23, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Need more convincing.

Would you guys mind devil's advocating me? I'm not convinced that intelligent design shouldn't be given equal footing with abiogenesis, because neither intelligent design nor abiogenesis have been observed. As an agnostic, I find it helpful to argue with myself over [metaphysical :)] questions, because it helps me see both sides of the argument. I'm excited to hear your responses!ThatJoshuaPerson (talk) 22:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

What mechanism would intelligent design use? Research into Abiogenesis includes seeing organic molecules all across the universe and mechanisms for producing most if not all of the pre-life requirements - proteins, peptides, sugars, etc., and or working models for how these might have combined. And research into abiogenesis is ongoing whereas research into intelligent design stops after reading Genesis. Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 23:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

We have much more evidence for abiogenesis, and as Aloysius says, working models for how abiogenesis may have taken place, than we ever will have for intelligent design. On the other hand, we have created synthetic life in the laboratory, so a kind of ID is possible. Just, you know, made by naked apes and not divinities. Carthage (talk) 23:59, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

True. If we take the widest sense of the term "evidence," I suppose one could say there were evidence for intelligent design, but it would not be sound evidence. It would not be sound because the sequence of cosmic causation resulting in life would have been interrupted by miracles, not only once, but for as many instances as would be necessary to establish God's existence, by repeating the same arguments. We can't explain what was behind the first one-celled creature (sometimes called LUCA). There is clearly a "god of the gaps" argument in play. Intelligent Design is not a sound argument because of the infinite regress implied by accepting such arguments. If we accepted such an etiology, and subsequently a standard scientific explanation were discovered, then, it could be argued, on the same evidence, intelligent design must have been in effect prior to the first appearance of LUCA. There is no end to it, because ID is unfalsifiable as a general theory. UncleKrampus (talk) 01:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

What synthetic life was created? I have yet to hear of any that haven't simply rearranged pre-existing cells.ThatJoshuaPerson (talk) 16:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

The intelligent design argument is circular. It either already assumes a "god" exists and then uses this "god" to explain the world. Or it claims the world is designed and that this is evidence the "god" exists.

To put it another way it needs two unsupported assumptions. "A God exists" and "The world is designed". Each unsupported assumption is then used to support the other.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 06:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I think we should also point out that it's always preferable to assume that something has a natural explanation, which so far holds up with all of our models, rather than to invoke a supernatural explanation just because we may not have the full picture yet. So far everything posited to have a supernatural explanation has been found to have a perfectly natural one, so why should we assume differently for the origin of life? Carthage (talk) 21:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

It's really simple to advocate intelligent design. All these animals exist as well as they can, until we, as not exactly animals, snuff em out, as is our pure and holy extraordinary birthright. animals are every living thing that isn't a human or a plant or a virus or fungi or bacteria. That's not what we're talking about. The reason humans have risen is magic. No other species has recognized or cared about magic, regardless of their sure I ability. Cockroaches? Designed to be stepped on. Elephants? I would like a table leg made out of that tooth, please. I was designed to own the world, the stories say so. If it wasn't designed this way, even if I can't fight a bear, why should a bear be scared of me? Why wouldn't a cricket have a pet tiger? It's absolutely absurd to think mankind, as weak as we are, rose to the top of the food chain via 'evolution' and didn't have magic. Now I know what you're going to say, how come other humans survived pretty well without my brand of magic. Simple. Bad magic. All the Gods are real and wrong and fake, except the one that made us all, more human than anything even remotely similar. If I'm a monkey, HOW AM I SUPPOSED TO RACIALIZE PEOPLE AS MORE OR LESS A MONKEY? My questions don't have an easy answer,therefore they are airtight questions. A. Hah. Checkmate. Torrent (talk) 05:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Are you stupid?

It's never the end, I mean what terrible end is this? I like you guys because you'll do shit that isn't reliant on ratwik. Do it. You need a Scooby snack? You don't, and let's make June a month less about ourselves, you weirdos. Torrent (talk) 05:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I will go first. I think, living alone, paper plates bowls and cups is greener than washing stoneware. Torrent (talk) 05:55, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

“”All right. This is the 32nd annual St. Stupid's Day Parade brought to you by the First Church of the Last Laugh, the world's fastest growing snack religion, 150 percent less dogma. The religion has one holy day a year and I'm Bishop Joey, secretary First Church. I'm here to bring you to the first station of stupid… the Federal Reserve Headquarters.

[8] Bongolian (talk) 08:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Why does the Jonkler? Is he stipid? 🇷🇸 Serbian Arbiter (What would you have your arbiter do?) 07:59, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Does the header qualify for a drink? Anna Livia (talk) 16:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but it has to be a stupid drink.[9] Bongolian (talk) 20:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Y'all are stupid mean. You think it is important to get a 'yes' but the reason I asked is simple. Nobody is worthless, no question is a joke. Y'all suck at this. Get better. Torrent (talk) 08:03, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Torrent - as a question, is this the right wiki for you? Anna Livia (talk) 09:16, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

What a loaded question. I will say, not exactly to answer, but I really like this wiki. I would ask if you know a better one? I am a huge fan, both on mission and Purpose. I engage with this wiki because the people actually engage.

Whether I belong is up to you. Torrent (talk) 10:18, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Eh, I'm fine with Torrent. As for whether or not I'm stupid, I would wager we are all more incompetent than we would like to admit. Carthage (talk) 11:16, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Torrent, your title was a question, but your text was not. The text was unclear to the point of looking unserious ("You need a Scooby snack? You don't, and let's make June a month less about ourselves, you weirdos."). Bongolian (talk) 19:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I am very embarrassed about that. I drank too much before the post, but Wwat I meant to talk about was holiday schedules. I am not always great at holding onto ideas. I do like somebody else to remind me what I was talking about. In terms of me being blackout, I don't know if I meant it to go diary or public, one is a thing I can't get away from. I appreciate y'all, and something was important to me here. Sorry if I put it on you. Everyone should know, I'm the one who is stupid if I ever ask. benders are not a good look.Torrent (talk) 04:55, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm really wondering how much longer we we should put up with this stream-of-consciousness, passive-aggressive silliness being imposed on the rest of us.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 16:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

look, imposed upon who? Is it something unDeniable that gets us here? I really think bob M has a funny take, and I don't think a small cauldron is is anything but a Bob is tryna kill everyoneTorrent (talk) 09:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

as much sense as it makes to me, I stand by it. Torrent (talk) 04:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Can someone make Trumpism icon

I'm making a Trumpism navigation sidebar and I want to make an icon but I can't because I can't draw so can someone make the icon ←§ Reichtangle (talk) 07:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Just use the U. S. politics icon? Monet ^Ye 15:52, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

An orange trumpet festooned with trumpery? Anna Livia (talk) 16:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

A MAGA hat because that is Trumpism's most known symbol ←§ Reichtangle (talk) 17:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

A MAGA asshat (variously "Make the Asshole Go Away" or "My Ass Got Arrested"). Bongolian (talk) 20:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Do we even need a sidebar for “Trumpism” though? Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 20:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Good question. Are there any devoted to single person? I don't think so. It just feeds into the cult. Bongolian (talk) 20:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I thought of a QAnon sidebar with phrases like "Down the White Rabbit Hole", and "Riders of The Storm" when referring to people who follow and promote it. However, I don't have experience with Photoshop and whatever is used, and I don't know if there's enough material for a sidebar. Patty Pat 01:23, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

8000th Article Ideas

I am pretty sure you know our 8000th article is approaching so I thought 1 of these 4 topics could be written to celebrate it. 1. Till Death Do Us Part (sitcom/satire): Classic British Comedy series satirizing bigots. The far right in the UK uses its main character (Alf Gannet) as its poster boy. 2. SPAC Nation: a "church" (in heavy air quotes) that really was seen more as a cult in all sense and very near where I live. 3. The Kingdom Church: another "church" that really of a a cult that I am very nearby too. Its former pastor also engaged in dangerous pseudo science by selling literal olive oil solution to "cure" COVID-19 4. 200 Proofs the Earth is not a Spinning Ball: Every Flat Earther's favourite book. While there have been a few rebuttals including one by Professor Dave Explains my idea is to string this by performing something akin to a metanalysis. Essentially, grab them all up and make a giant article debunking all of them, providing context and alternative debunks. Easily worthy of silver if done properly. ^{— Unsigned, by: Qwertydiy / talk / contribs}

Election apocalypse? Anna Livia (talk) 23:40, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

8000?

In DnD, there's people who "pre-roll" their d20 dice until they get two 1's in a row. The belief is that getting three 1's in a row has a chance of 1 in 8000. However, anyone with a cursory understanding of probability knows that the odds of getting a third 1 given you already have the first two is still 1/20.

So... something to do with DnD or probability. CorruptUser 12:08, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Working out with your mind?

https://thehealthsciencesacademy.org/health-tips/strengthen-your-muscles-by-thought-alone/#

So… I started wondering about imagination and consciousness, mostly because a lot of woo stuff I read in the past often link the two. Most of the time it’s to do with how visualizing something uses the same areas of the brain that doing it does, though I wonder what that really means. apparently this link seems to suggest you can strengthen your muscles the same way without working out. Though the site itself seems iffy, I’m not totally convinced about. The study just says strength increased but doesn’t really say more than that. Nothing about muscle fibers, chemical changes, just percent increases in strength. Obviously athletes rehearsing things seems to be a thing but this just sounds…well not true.

It does seem to all be the brain, not some weird external thing like “mind” or whatever but I can’t help but jump to the wooey type of people I’ve been exposed to before and thinking that imagination says something about consciousness and the mind and body. Though to me this doesn’t sound like mind body more like brain and body. I think “mind” is just the brain. I’m not really sure where I’m going with this, likely thinking that you can somehow crack your body and just mentally will all sorts of things, not that I believe that but I’m trying to argue against it.

I mean obviously all this is built on a mountain of previous causes and effect that influence and shape us, so I don't think it's the "god" thing they would think it is. Though maybe, if true, the potential to do so says something about us and by possible extension reality itself? Or am I just flying off on wild fancies?47.5.66.54 (talk) 02:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's actually a misuse of the brain to endure pain. I don't think it is stupid to look at animals for physiological strength. Let's get close, if a dog were hit by a car and needed a leg amputated, it is very likely the dog is just going to continue on. If, say, A human just like me only feels bad all the time, for reasons tangible, feeling bad, as per How bad life hurts, what is a human deal? Why would would it make more sense to use human growth hormones to achieve a body type than what it would take to achieve a peaceful death? What is the difference between the two? Torrent (talk) 05:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

It's agency and consent. No three legged dog would ask to die, and you wouldn't ask a three legged dog to die either, because you're not a psychopath. A human knowing their health is about agreeing to decline by many known metrics. juice yourself up, but it's really never going to be cool Torrent (talk) 06:04, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

On louder terms, I mean it makes more sense to open your perspective. Where a dog might run on three legs, you might get 3 quarters of an idea, and it's natural to run forward with it. Torrent (talk) 06:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Going into something with a positive mindset and or mentally visualizing things before doing them is good advice for anyone, and can generally make a small difference IMO. But other than perhaps decreasing stress in one's body or giving more confidence, the idea of doing other physical changes i.e "growing muscles with the power of your mind!" goes against basic common sense. Reading the linked abstracts from the website to the National Library of Medicine and it seems like the main suggestion from the studies is possibly improved motor control from envisioning actions beforehand? Checks out. I'm not a researcher though, so take it as you will. Looking at The Health Sciences Academy website, I'm not readily able to find anything contentious but I do get a bad feeling about the group... the fact that the website really, really wants you to subscribe to them or take one of their totally "University-level nutrition education" courses (but y'know much easier and for a fraction of the cost!) seems disreputable... I feel the NIH studies are being used as clickbait material or content padding by the website. Impiricism (talk) 18:22, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I didn't see any issue with a brief scan of the Health Science Academy site (for instance, the front page presentation on GMOs seemed good). They claim to be "accredited" by a UK firm called CPD, who seem legit if their website is right. But I'm having a tough time finding out information about this CPD to confirm (anyone can make a website). This acronym normally stands for "continuously professional development" and that's the goal of a company like this (if it is legit), for professionals to get "extra training" for their careers. I'm also having trouble figuring out this Health Science Academy as well. My inference is that this sites targets the non-university degree nutritionist market (as opposed to the university degree dietitian market). I see no evidence of university-level stuff despite their claims. I have not found anecdotes of anyone actually using these courses to obtain jobs. Unsure if diploma mill or not.

The OP article though is... pushing their credibility here. There's some studies on mental imagery enhancing training, including the linked NIH papers, but even the papers they linked show absolutely no evidence of validating their clickbait headline, "can you strengthen your muscles by thought alone?" BobJohnson (talk) 21:25, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Funspace Item Suggestion: Buzkashi

It's a bit strange that despite the need for goat on this site, there doesn't seem to be anything about buzkashi. It's a wild Central Asian "sport" played on horseback, with a decapitated dead goat used as the ball. And here's a starter link for reference: Fun:Buzkashi TheEternalOutsider (talk) 02:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

US Election Update: 5 Months To Go

Just checking in and continuing the monthly topic involving the upcoming US Elections. Last month, Trump was found guilty of all 34 counts of falsifying business records in a trial in New York. Furthermore, primaries and caucuses are approaching its tail end, with the result being almost certain that of a rematch of Joseph R. Biden vs Donald J. Trump. Any thoughts on the upcoming elections heading into the American summer? TheEternalOutsider (talk) 07:55, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Mexican elections

What's your take on the recent mexican elections and the winner, Claudia Scheinbaum? Since most of you are american, what do you believe the foreign policy will look like? Personally, I think her politics won't be any different to AMLO, but I’m not engaged with Mexican politics, and her personality at least seems very different to that of AMLO. New world (talk) 12:52, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I have only heard the same dumb takes that were levied against Ocasio Cortez. 'She is an actress that the party hired' woooooow and then the people voted for her!?! Like every politician that's ever been elected? I really dislike baby's first election when it suddenly occurs to 30+ years olds, but let's maintain some blindspot where my party doesn't groom and give incentives to a palatable populist upstart. No, she's a sneaky insert. The first and only, it is cool and she was elected because people like that shit. That is how democracy works. A person was put forward to represent a party, do you think they would just go, 'ah, iunno, grab Jenny from the block and just tell her to say shit?' That is not how politics works. Scheinbaum is fine. The fuck did anyone care about Obrador? Was he good? This absolute concern trolling about women in power, Jacinda Adern got it, Angela Merkel got it. What a bunch of witches, am I right? ALL POLITITICIANS ARE TWO FACED, it's a requirement of the job. It is not gender specefic, Lauren Boebert was actually breaking down barriers by jerking a guy off in a theater and having unruly entitled children. All politicians can be bad, can be bought and paid for, can actually be really stupid. It is important, therefore, to pay attention to our elected representatives. But I guess that's difficult, I don't know why. Torrent (talk) 05:01, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Reading her Wikipedia page and she seems to generally have a good head on her shoulders. It will be interesting to see how she tackles the continued effect of climate change that Mexico is sure to experience, alongside the insanity of US politics. Impiricism (talk) 18:57, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Reply button on talk page a la Wikipedia

How can you get nice little reply buttons on talk pages like Wikipedia? I find those super handy, and I think we should have them.ThatJoshuaPerson (talk) 16:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

^{— Unsigned, by: ThatJoshuaPerson / talk / contribs}

mw:Extension:DiscussionTools implements this but problem is the 3 superusers are inactive and server configuration they get problems with so. 2600:387:F:D10:0:0:0:3 (talk) 17:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

There are a lot of things this wiki needs updating on. Good luck on getting those anytime soon. Carthage (talk) 07:02, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Archive 1 for the Talk Page on TERFs is busted

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Trans-exclusionary_radical_feminist/Archive1
TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 20:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Fixed. Plutocow (talk) 21:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Are allergies just us “doing it to ourselves”?

WARNING: Emotions conversation ahead may rot your brain!

My answer is no since I don’t control how something makes me react. Like it might be my body overreacting but it’s not a choice or something like that.

This popped into my head because that Gary guy I’m on about used the wheat thing with gluten as an example of how stuff doesn’t make us feel emotions because stimuli are inherently neutral. In that case he says it’s not the wheat it’s you. But something about that seems wrong, on top of the broader argument being fishy. I don’t really control what I like or dislike or what makes me happy, beliefs about it or no.

Oh yeah the point was about how thoughts and beliefs create emotions. I’m iffy on that especially the degree of control he claims we have. The allergy but though felt like a bad analogy.2600:387:1:805:0:0:0:38 (talk) 21:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Emotions are just instinctive internal states. We can simulate emotions, sure, but actually feeling them? We have no control over that. This whole "we create our emotions" thing is stupid and meaningless. Carthage (talk) 23:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I thought so too. But I can’t stop thinking about it. Eventually I think I get it. Nothing can make us feel, how can it? It’s neutral. All we do is make it more than it is, we play pretend and maybe if enough people play along we can believe it’s real. But it’s only in our head. Everything that mattered was a lie because we just gave it qualities it didn’t have. Maybe our lives were just a game of pretend all along, that things matter and have worth. That stuff is magical, amazing, etc. but it was never true2600:387:1:805:0:0:0:A0 (talk) 23:54, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're trying to get at here. Are you saying that emotions are illusions? Emotions have actual, measurable effects on the body. Anxiety causes the heart rake to spike. Anger can numb pain. Emotions are very real. Carthage (talk) 01:11, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I feel like perhaps OP is having some nihilistic ruminations... "But it’s only in our head. ... Maybe our lives were just a game of pretend all along, that things matter and have worth." Yeah emotions are real on a living person-animal biological-chemical level, but what do they mean and what value do they have in the grand scheme of things? Absolutely nothing, that's what. Impiricism (talk) 15:25, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Are you Machina? Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 11:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I guess what I read from the guy has thrown me for a loop and I can't figure it out. Something about it I just can't see no matter how much I think about it. So I ask other people who aren't me and hopefully see what they see too. That last bit though was from a very dark day I was having yesterday.47.5.66.54 (talk) 17:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

It is better to investigate than it is to be scared. Life is an investigation, and so far I have found no ghosts or devils or djinn, Torrent (talk) 09:09, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Unpopular but people who reject mainstream science still deserve respect for their belief.

Be they flat earther, young earth creationist, or cryptozoologist. As long as they don't bother others or try to restrict medicine and science (like refusing vaccines due to advocating harmful alternative medicine or are TV evangelicals trying to ban teaching evolution and cosmology), they deserve to be respected. ^{— Unsigned, by: Respectfulperson / talk / contribs}

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. Carthage (talk) 23:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Flat earth is half trolls so nah. :p Also, I think a lot of people more "play around" with the cryptid stuff to begin with. Yeah, some take it too seriously, but overall I think there's more that treat it as a "tall tale".

At any rate, what do you mean by "respect"? I don't bother people's beliefs unless they bother me, but on the other hand I don't think glorifying anti-intellectualism is a great idea either. YEC is the main offender of your list because so many of them are so serious about it, and their absolutist fundamentalism too often leads to some of the "bother others / restrict shit / push dangerous alternative treatments" you are worried about. Gaudy Bigfoot touristy crap is, in a way, kinda hokey fun. Bullshit like conversion therapy is not. BobJohnson (talk) 00:28, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Cryptozoology is probably the most respectable thing on that list, and that's not saying a lot. Carthage (talk) 01:08, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

If a distinguished biologist happens to also be a moonlanding hoaxer, as long as their conspiracy theories don't compromise their actual work then they can still be respected. If their actual work gets compromised due to falsifying data in order to push their theories, then everything they've done becomes suspect. CorruptUser 02:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

The Nobel disease (and similar among other non-Nobels) can go either way. Isaac Newton spent a significant portion of his life dabbling in alchemy oogie-boogie, and by and large I don't think it really has hurt his historical reputation (other than as a curious footnote), probably due to the relative state of science in Newton's day and the relative harmless nature of his alchemy dabbles. William Shockley spent a significant portion of his life advocating racist eugenics, and by and large I think that did hurt his historical reputation, due to his woo being more hurtful and divisive. BobJohnson (talk) 12:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I think it needs to be noted that alchemy was in Newton's day more 'protoscience' than 'pseudoscience', and basicially needed people like Newton to help 'chemistry' [as we would now define it] to climb out of alchemy's shell. He on the other hand did apparently ignore astrology, which suggests by this point the astrology/astronomy divide was becoming formalised [at least in the scientific community].

I also believe we need to be firm in differentiating between let's call 'unconventional science' and 'pseudoscience'. Many of the modern theories accepted today as 'correct' started life as 'unconventional' [as in 'not accepted by the mainstream'], and later on gained general acceptance [often from later proofs turning up]. A good example of this is 'continental drift'; started out as an 'unconventional theory' in the early 20th, gained the proofs in the mid-20th and entered the popular consciousness in the later 20th [I for example, remember reading a text from c1970 as a kid which didn't mention this]. Pseudoscience is when a person continues to support a theory which has long since been proven incorrect; for example I'd argue that 'cryptozoology' properly broke off from zoology between c1870-c1930 as 'the heroic age of explorers' and technological advances between them proved the non-existence of said creatures.

I will argue you can respect the believer in 'unconventional science' fine, but not the believer in pseudoscience. The only 'respect' you can grant the latter is if they are honest in their belief. If you encounter an example of ultracrepidarian [like Shockley], all you can say is 'I respect your knowledge/skill in X, but your views on Y are a proven crock and so get none'. And I don't really 'respect' pseudoscience practitioners because they aborb funding and attention away from actual science. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. Let's think of the pandemic; mainstream science tells people to mask up, isolate, and vaccinate when available. People that reject mainstream science do not do the recommendations and, for the sake of the original argument, let's assume are quiet and don't actively peddle conspiracies or quack cures... inevitably they get sick regardless. And then of course medical professionals, overworked incredibly stressed medical professionals with thin resources, are obligated to assist them... should such people still expect to receive respect from the medical professionals? This isn't even taking into account the potential of such people to be vectors prolonging and spreading the plague. People who don't accept mainstream science do not deserve respect because while their beliefs may be generally harmless most of the time, they can quickly become incredibly harmful as circumstances change. It's gross negligence. Impiricism (talk) 16:08, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

As Long as they don't break important laws, they have the exact same natural fundamental human rights we all have in a democratic-republican order. It's like with assholes, they have, if they stay in the legal framework, the absolute right to be assholes, meaning they don't deserve to be treated wrongly by the police or secret services for example (not saying the paranoia is justified, but sometimes these types of injustices happen). It'll only convince more morons to 'fight back'. Every citizen who hasn't been engaged in criminal activity deserves basic republican respect from people who have the ability to potentially hurt them. New world (talk) 16:38, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

What if you don't live in a republic? Anyway, I don't believe the OP was talking about 'respecting their rights to hold crap views', more the fact you should respect the views themselves. KarmaPolice (talk) 16:48, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I can certainly respect people as people. People's opinions need to earn respect though. If they want me to respect their flat-earth, anti-vax or creationist nuttiness then they need to present evidence. Without evidence, I'm likely to regard such opinions with indifference in the most charitable case, or with contempt in the most extreme.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 19:01, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

no they don't - they deserve standard respect as people - something they rarely give others - but their beliefs deserve lambasting and opprobrium. Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 22:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Trump is a terrorist leader

All the violence he triggers is terrorism. You cannot change my mind. --Trans Fem Agenda 18:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Trump is a stochastic terrorist and leader of a fascist cult. He's a genuine threat to international security. Carthage (talk) 19:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

And a national security threat. Trump was happy to leak sensitive documents to enemies. --Trans Fem Agenda 20:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I completely agree. Koafox (talk) 20:18, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. I believe Trump is a inciter of sedition, as per Jan 6th. But he's too much a coward to actually do sedition himself. KarmaPolice (talk) 21:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

To me, he's more of a con artist and grifter. His "skill" is playing on Other fears of the rubes, and always whining about being the victim while acting like a bully (or at least a rather cartoonish "tough guy" projection). That is sadly enough for a lot of people these days. Despite some of his biggest fans occasionally going for terrorism (to the point where domestic right-wing groups have overtaken the Muslims as far as threat concerns on this front), overall methinks his bark is *far* worse than his bite, from all I've seen. (Like a lot of his Biggest Fans, he's more of a sad "social media keyboard warrior" than anything else.) Trump is also an isolationist bore who seems more friendly with authoritarians than European democracies, and *that* is quite a change from the "balance of power" of the Ronald Reagan days and back, where United States for a time was *the* superpower. So, yes, that's upended the "international order", and even if Trump doesn't get elected, it's clear that, for better or worse, the United States as a superpower is a fair bit tarnished these days.

Possibly the worst part of the last eight years is that it's pretty clear that a certain portion of the US ruling class have tasted Trumpism and decided that, no, we don't like democracy either. (As if they were afraid of something down the road...) BobJohnson (talk) 22:00, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

The fact that he's a grifter doesn't make him any less dangerous. He's still the head of a fascist cult in the most powerful country on the planet. Carthage (talk) 23:09, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, Trumpism is doing its darn best to help make sure that the most powerful country on the planet becomes just "one of many". So at least there's that.

I may be wrong, but I'm less concerned about "threat" after seeing Trump 1 and the mess in states where the GOP have power. It's still a possibility, of course. He's a leader of a "fascist cult" of sorts, sure (more ruscism flavored actually), and he so much wants to be a cult of personality (and he is to his Biggest Fans, but that ain't even the majority). This is is handicapping the GOP, because everything he does is pretty much for himself. "Candidate quality" hurt the GOP in 2022 and judging from what I see, I expect it will again in 2024. I also expect him to vacuum the GOP piggy bank in order to pay his legal bills, and to see many other suckers (Rudy Giuliani style) ruined because they sucked up to Trump without realizing that he only takes, not gives.

That being said, certainly "much worse" is in the realm of possibility. I'll acknowledge that he could be more dangerous than I think. It's happened with other idiotic ultra-nationalists, and like I mentioned, parts of the "big money" seems more keen on authoritarian capitalism these days. The choice between Biden and Trump should be a no-brainer, and it's frankly embarrassing that for so many it is not. BobJohnson (talk) 23:35, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Trumpism meets the 14 characteristics of fascism, so by definition Trumpism is a fascist movement. Already we see successful attempts at restricting the rights of minorities, and even rolling back progress in some cases. The semi-democratic process the US possesses is under active peril by fascists in power. Just the other day the Kansas Supreme Court found that there was no right to vote in the Kansas state constitution. We are in a perilously similar situation to Weimar Germany. Fascism does not pop out of nowhere, it creeps slowly. America in 2024 is demonstrably less democratic than it was in 2015, and that process of Weimarization is probably only going to continue. Carthage (talk) 01:47, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

And the troubling thing is, it is by democracy that we have found ourselves here. Not exactly, it's more by marketing and propaganda, but I mean, the sleeper cell that is the lead brained vote is ready. And I still have no idea why Biden is the Democrat candidate. Today, TODAY, is the day to diversify the candidacy. This is insane, if RFK is a viable option to more than a .01 percent, anybody with a solid campaign beats Trump, it's a fucking lay up. It's a dunk. If Biden throws the ball, Trump gets posterized by anybody. but Biden is keeping the ball, like a selfish little bitch, because that's what politicians do. The only loss possible against Trump is Biden, I hate it, did anyone think McCain/Palin was going to work? Romney was Mormon propaganda and I'm fully against Biden v Trump, it HAS to be rigged. How hard would it be to seek no second term? How fucking cool would it be to say 'I accomplished what I was going for, and I think this person can continue my legacy?'. It"s awful, it's fucking awful, and gun to my head, I don't believe dems and reps are doing anything that might shift power enough to enable a third party. and the left and libs are so much closer to going left of the party than the right is of abandoning. The awful repurcussions of middling when you're afraid of going left are really ineffective heads of state and angry, violent populists. Go left, go left, go left. There is a populist voting block there, I can"t believe they don't know about it, I must believe they either don't like it or don't trust it. It's the only way to win, so it's more sure if Trump gets this one. I am insanely frustrated and just as confused, I will always vote, I will always vote the lesser of two evils, and I will always vote further left than rigHt, but this is insane, and it's right in our faces. No federal politician actually cares whether it's Biden or Trump, right? Torrent (talk) 09:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

"Stochastic terrorist" is such a meaningless phrase because it's such a broad definition yet only selectively applied. If "stochastic terrorism" is "actions that increase animosity/tensions, resulting in an increase of violence", then we could argue that Al Gore is a "stochastic terrorist" because by bringing awareness to climate change he "causes" protests that have a risk of violence. CorruptUser 12:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

It's not quite that per Wikipedia, but it also seems to be a once-obscure American political-specific term that arose in the Trump era, that at the moment carries little currency elsewhere. It also seems similar to combining currently existing phrases like "witch hunt" and "rabble rouser" which are more universally recognized.

To me, the current "stochastic terrorism" term would not apply to Al Gore, but by the Wikipedia definition, it seems like such would apply to much of the Kiwi Farms, the former 8chan, and 4chan's /pol/. That lot tends to be a bunch of keyboard warrior losers more than anything else. Sure, occasionally, these sites have inflicted enough bullshit on someone mentally ill enough that this person goes on to commit terrorism, and thanks to shitty Internet security and the militarization of American police this lot can conduct harassment campaigns from the comfort of their mother's basement too. But I dunno, I think that term gives the ragtag mob too much legitimacy, in a way, since 99% of the above places are incoherent slurred rage, bizarre memes, weird shitposts, and lots of the usual Internet drama. Same for other Trumpism perpetrators. Rudy Giuliani, stochastic terrorist? Or Rudy Giuliani, once "America's Mayor", now a pathetic Trump ass-kisser, rabble-rouser, and serial liar, who inflicted much pain with untruths on a few scapegoats, but now is paying the price? The later sounds more accurate to me, but that's just me I guess. BobJohnson (talk) 14:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

That's a false equivalency, Corrupt. Gore never posts vitriolic hatred with the full knowledge that threats of violence will follow. Trump also knows full well what he's doing when he's talking shit about the families of judges presiding over his trials. Carthage (talk) 19:34, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

It's wrong of course, what Corrupt wrote, but it's just a bad analogy. I like the term "stochastic terrorism." I use it to refer to random acts of impersonal violence committed by people deranged by by their own eccentric ideas, maybe ideologism, but not a result of a coherent ideology.UncleKrampus (talk) 04:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm quite sure that the argument re: Alex Jones, is that by spouting hatred and lies about a group of people, he increases the odds of any one of them becoming a victim of a hate crime even if he's not targeting any specific individual. It becomes a bit thorny due to free speech issues; what if something is dangerous but true, worthy of discussion and analysis? How do we allow good-faith discussions if we can arbitrarily declare that something is too risky to criticize? And who gets to decide what is and is not verboten to discuss? E.g., immigration, race/religion, sexuality, and so forth. CorruptUser 20:34, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

If you are in a position of influence/ power, no you don't have such a wide range of 'freedom of speech' that a nobody has. With power comes responsibility and all that. It's part of the reason govt ministers, CEOs etc don't shoot their mouths off (as a rule). In these cases, I would argue that these people should know better than the average person, and should be judged on not just what they say, but how big/ strong an audience they wield. KarmaPolice (talk) 20:55, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Awareness and “content of awareness”

Warning: Solipsism conversation ahead may rot your brain!

So I know consciousness is a…thing among the spiritual types and I got into an argument with one because he said we are consciousness because consciousness doesn’t change on the content of it does.

I think that’s the same thing. What is awareness of not awareness of something else? I mean isn’t awareness also a sense as well? The sense that you are aware? He mentioned how he took psychedelics (which to be fair should have been a warning to me about where this was going) and how what changed was the content and not his awareness. Though to me that just means you aren’t aware of anything around you, much like dreaming. So your awareness would change. I also didn’t bring up that awareness can change because we can turn it off with a drug. It happened to me when my wisdom teeth were taken out, I got knocked out. All I remember was blinking and it was over. Like…no awareness isn’t darkness, dreaming, nada. It was pretty scary actually that I could be out like that and have no experience of anything.

But the convo quickly devolved to “you are awareness” and the real self is the observer becauee awareness doesn’t change, which begs the question of why does something being unchanging automatically make it the self.

I tried to bring up how the self is really focused in the prefrontal cortex and just got deflected in saying that “it’s not proven”, “some scientists disagree”, “I’ve researched this extensively”. Then again I’m talking to people who don’t think consciousness is the result of the brain so yeah.

I guess I wanted thoughts on this. To me consciousness is like electricity to a computer. It enables us to be who we are but without it everything is still there waiting to be used. I can’t access saved data on a hard drive with the power off but it doesn’t vanish when I turn the computer off. That would be a disaster.2600:387:1:805:0:0:0:A0 (talk) 18:49, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

People either believe there is, or might be, a spiritual entity associated with human consciousness, or they don't. Members of the two opposing groups can be polite to one another or argumentative. I recommend being polite. UncleKrampus (talk) 03:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Delving into the Mind-Body Problem eh? There is no evidence supporting the mind (or "soul" as some may say perhaps) as distinct from one's physical body, and much evidence supporting the opposite; Phineas Gage as a famous example. Who you are and everything you are is just chemical energy in the piece of meat called your head, working in an incredibly complex process; when you die, that's it. Very discomforting right? The Cyberpunk genre of science fiction often explores some ideas of the mind... whether that's creating a "strong" AI or copying and restoring the information from a brain's chemical processes that makes up a person, like the storyline from the recent Cyberpunk2077 video game. It's science fiction sure, but for how long really? Doesn't matter anyways... easier and much more comforting to simply not think about it in my opinion. Impiricism (talk) 18:22, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm actually not uncomfortable with us just being physical things. It's just that for a while I sorta bought into the spiritual crowd because I didn't have a better answer. They invent things like heart (not literal heart), mind, and other stuff that I just sorta took for a given, but when I thought about it all I didn't really see how it couldn't not be the brain. A guy on there said emotions reside in body not brain, but they reside in the brain. He said you can't feel without a body, but I forgot to mention phantom limb syndrome. Where people experience sensations in area that doesn't exist. Like...all the info I have found seems to back that we are the brain, especially since tinkering with it affects the rest of the body.

I just don't know how to really argue against people who use the oddity of consciousness against me. Like making a difference between awareness and content of awareness to me just sounds like splitting hairs because you don't want to accept it's a brain thing.47.5.66.54 (talk) 22:23, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

What would you do?

I’ve been a teenage apostate from a fundie Christian denomination (the Church of Christ specifically - they are known for the rather peculiar teaching that their denomination isn’t a denomination, and all other Christian sects are heresies) for about 6 months now. I guess I would consider myself an agnostic atheist. Naturally, this has been very much to my parents’ dismay. We have talked quite a number of times about our differing viewpoints, but after my parents told me no amount of evidence could ever make them change their minds, I gave up. My parents are not your average Christians. They dress super weird. Like I can’t wear sweatpants or shorts because they are not “manly.” Ugh. They also don’t really have any other friends outside my family besides fellow believers. It is really heartbreaking to see religion making my parents so worried about me.ThatJoshuaPerson (talk) 23:21, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

There seem to be quite a few claimants to the title "Church of Christ". Bongolian (talk) 03:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Why do you think something should be done? Imagine that you could change someone's mind about their religion. In that case you would be ethically responsible for some aspect of their behavioral program. It would be fine, I guess, if they were happy about it. I wouldn't count on that. UncleKrampus (talk) 03:55, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I would recommend just educating yourself first. I deconverted my mom not through any conscious effort, but because I would love to share what I was interested in. What I was interested in also was contradictory to the message of her then-religion. Carthage (talk) 06:57, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I sympathize with you Joshua - but I'm not really sure what question you are asking. You already said: "after my parents told me no amount of evidence could ever make them change their minds, I gave up". (Presumably you gave up on presenting evidence to them) - so now just live your own life as best as you can and try to avoid conflict with them.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 08:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I might be reading too much into this, but I think you need to appreciate the [relative] 'reasonableness' your parents are granting you - they're not telling you have to believe, they've not trying guilt-tripping you into believing [or more correctly feigning belief], they are not simply ignoring you as 'you're just a kid and you don't know what you're talking about' or shut you instantly down when you try to discuss it etc. I would provisionally suggest this shows they do care for you, perhaps more than what you give them credit for.

Now, I don't know this strand of cultishness, but I know enough about them in general to appreciate your parents will also be under significant pressure. Let's start with the obvious bit; from their POV, you're going to hell. Despite their best efforts to stop that from happening [though I do half-suspect their current 'reasonableness' might simply be them believing 'it's just a phase' and you'll be back in the fold by 25]. That's gonna hurt, akin to watching your kid 'fucking up their whole life' in one stroke [but you're fucking up eternity].

Cultists not having any friends outside of the cult is the norm; cults work by cutting your non-cult contacts off so the cult is everything to you. And cults normally don't consider 'privacy' a thing; so for example, I bet your parents will/have been be pressured to 'share' the whole story with the pastor and I strongly suspect their 'advice' is going to attempt to strongarm you, and if that fails - disfellowship. And peer pressure is huge in such bell-jars. How quickly will this kick in? It all depends on how visible your apostasy is - if [for example] you stop attending church / study groups and you don't have a good reason for it the alarm will raise quick, but if you feign orthodoxy and continue attending etc obviously not. What will happen when your secret is out? I suspect a strong-arming, love-bombing combo and if they fail - disfellowshipping.

When it comes to this, your parents [and other cultist relatives] will come under huge pressure to shun you. There's a chance you might lose them all [you will lose all your cult friends]. If the cult believes you are 'savable', they will try to stage a kind of cult intervention [if they can find you, obs]. This is going to hurt, but forewarned is forearmed and all that.

And don't bother trying to 'convert' them. This mentality [I will argue] is a hangover from your 'cult programming', in which you consider every opportunity with non-believers a chance to preach and every new remotely-friendly person a possible convert. Plus, it rarely if ever works. I am going to assume here your parents were converts to this [so they consciously chose] so they're already 'thought this through' [to some extent] but you were born into it, and so you never got to choose. If you want to maintain some form of future relationship with them, simply 'agree to disagree' and [hopefully] each side quits trying to 'convert' the other. Whether you decide to continue feigning orthodoxy so the cult don't bitch at your parents etc is something you will have to consider yourself. KarmaPolice (talk) 09:21, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, my parents are converts. I don’t want to give the impression that I hate them or anything of the sort, I am just concerned about their worriment over my condition, and it seems the only way to cure it would be to get them to see the error in their beliefs. I also hate seeing my two younger siblings (I am the oldest) being brought up in this, and made to believe such lies about the nature of the world around them (it's only 6000 years old, everyone who isn't a part of our cult is wicked "lost," I am "lost," life is hopeless without Jesus, climate change isn't real, gays are evil etc.) and this whole Heaven/Hell shit. I don’t think I would really care about it otherwise. I expect all I can hope to do is wait it out as you advise, (that's pretty much what I thought) keep my mouth shut, and try to be as nice as possible. Perhaps I'll be able to make some headway with my siblings once I'm out of the house. But I do appreciate the free housing, food etc and I think I'll try to keep it while I can :).

It is a matter of constant amazement to me that I actually started think for myself last year and was able to so quickly to renounce all that I had been brainwashed into believing for the last fifteen years. The more and more I read the bible, the more and more I THINK, the more and more I research (mostly by underhanded, safe means), the more and more convinced I become upon the supreme foolishness of religion.

If you didn’t already guess I am homeschooled. I'll be a high school senior this fall. The education I am provided is decent, although I'd much rather have it without all the religion. My parents allowed me to dual-enroll at a junior college to take a physics and government course, really excited to take that.

Thanks, it really helps just to communicate my thoughts to sane people.ThatJoshuaPerson (talk) 20:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Netanyahu has been invited to speak before Congress

This is akin to inviting the Grand Ayatollah of Iran. Fuckin' hell. If Bibi doesn't leave the US in handcuffs for committing literal fucking genocide then that should put the final nail in the coffin of the US being different from any other empire. Carthage (talk) 17:11, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Joe Biden is a war criminal, do you think he gives a damn about it? The USA aren't different from any other selfish empire, they (the State apparatus) don't care about human rights or republican principles. New world (talk) 18:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I am well aware the US is an unexceptional empire, but keep in mind that American exceptionalism is a real problem in the US. Carthage (talk) 18:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Not a chance in fucking hell he accepts, anyway. Revolverman (talk) 19:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

au contraire mon ami. UncleKrampus (talk) 20:46, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Arresting his ass the moment he steps off the plane would be the funniest goddamn thing ever, and it really is a shame it’ll never happen. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 20:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Funny, but ridiculous. The US is not a member of the ICC. Nyet-an-yahoo was invited because he is a Trump supporter. What do they want the Americans to do? Threaten to bomb Tel Aviv? The Israelis could destroy Gaza all by themselves without heavy bombs Calling Biden a war criminal is like calling Mother Teresa a pervert...maybe, in a way. Still stupid. The US has stopped sending some types of heavy munitions to Israel and Biden has also pledged to halt the supply of some offensive weapons and artillery shells to the country if it goes ahead with its assault on Rafah. Israel is not an American state. UncleKrampus (talk) 20:33, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Nyet-an-yahoo's diagnosis is not Trump-supporter, it's far-right. Joseph R. Biden's diagnosis is war criminal, and it isn't even particularly related to Israel. Joe's case is actually really old. I feel for America, they have to choose between two old crazy liars, one of which is crazier and lying way more than the other (doesn't mean the other old guy isn't also sort of a dickhead). Your right, calling Biden a war criminal is like calling Bush father or Bush son war criminals, or even Vladimir Putin a war criminal. Who would do that? New world (talk) 21:17, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Correct, Israel isn't an American state. It's an American client state. Genocide Joe has greater controls, but all he can do is this half-assed "red line" routine. It's a PR stunt by an ideological Zionist. Carthage (talk) 21:21, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Call it what you will, it is still an independent state and no more likely to take American orders than Britain did during WWII...and they were fighting the same enemy. America doesn't punish disagreeable allies so what on earth is stopping the IDF apart from fear of losing political support? A president doesn't create that support. American allies do what the fuck they want and maybe if you're lucky they will do America a favor on occasion when it is in not against their interest for them to do it. This "war criminal" bs is laughable.UncleKrampus (talk) 21:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC).

You might have already guessed it but I’m not talking about Israel specifically. Joe has been a war criminal for quite some time now. It was just a reminder that he's still the same person he was a decade ago. Right now it's Netanyahu being the war criminal, and Joe does not care as long as he can get away with it. New world (talk) 22:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Equating Putin and Biden is both incorrect and weakens your argument. KarmaPolice (talk) 22:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Not on Putin level obviously, but supporting and justifying invasions of other places with various imperialist motives is generally pretty equatable. New world (talk) 22:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Oh really? Biden can't impose sanctions or restrict shipments even further? The half-assed not-actually-a-red-line is acceptable to you? It's not within Biden's powers to go further? Bullshit, troll. Your standards on what is a war criminal or not are by far not objective either. Your assertion that it's "laughable" without going into detail is just that: an assertion. Biden is actively facilitating war crimes. Ergo, he is a war criminal. See? That's an actual argument, unlike your bullshit assertion. Carthage (talk) 22:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Biden - Continues to supply arms to third party fighting terrorist group which attacked them.

Putin - Causes and continues imperialist war against other state with no justification.

Not the same at all. KarmaPolice (talk) 23:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

This isn't a "war," this is a genocide. It's common knowledge now that Israel is deliberately targeting civilians, with the intent of razing Gaza to the ground and removing the Palestinian presence. Remember that this campaign of cruelty was started from the outset with a collective punishment campaign. The UN is calling this a campaign of genocide. @ULTRACOMFY posted a UN report documenting genocide in the Gaza Strip. Also remember that Israel is the dominant power militarily occupying Palestine, this conflict dates back to far before October 7th. They bear more responsibility than a group that wasn't sovereign over its own territory even before October 7th. Let's stop equivocating here: American weapons, which Biden continues to happily provide, are being used to deliberately target civilians and civilian infrastructure. That's a war crime. Collective punishment is a war crime. It has been extensively documented that what's going on in the Gaza Strip isn't a mere "war," it's a campaign of ethnic cleansing and genocide. Carthage (talk) 23:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not arguing the Gaza situation isn't shit but it's not the same as Ukraine and Biden isn't directly responsible for it all either. KarmaPolice (talk) 23:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Cool, I never argued it was the same. That was new world. I am arguing that Biden is directly, consciously, enabling crimes against humanity, and that makes him a war criminal. Ukraine has nothing to do with it. Carthage (talk) 23:59, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I never actually stated Biden was on the same level as Putin, I stated Biden and Putin are both known war criminals, which is problematic, considering they rule two countries very supportive of war crimes. New world (talk) 00:33, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm quite sure that if Israel was fully intent on exterminating the Palestinians, there'd be a LOT more than 30-40k dead. CorruptUser 01:57, 8 June 2024 (UTC)