Hub of Reason

Evan Carroll

01:48

so, now just passed the texas real estate exam

(s)

me++

Evan Carroll

02:05

@Josiah are you an OSS guy?

Evan Carroll

05:53

0

Q: In Texas, would it be "religious discrimination" to state that your organization is "atheist", or to make company statements about superstitions?

I just passed my Texas Real Estate exams today (did it on the first time). I'm wanting to know to what extent is it legal to "come out" as a non-Christian company in a regulated industry that would prohibit religious discrimination. 42 U.S.C. § 12832 (publically funded low income statute) N...

Josiah

06:49

I'm open source when need be.

Ami

07:10

@KonradRudolf, I'm apologize for having argued with you in the comments to your answer on the “gravity-evolution” question. You are obviously correct in pointing out the need for a careful and rigorous discussion of the matters at hand the inability of having that discussion through the SE comment system. I thought and still think that your answer is well written and makes a lot of good points.

I'm convinced that if given an opportunity to discuss the issue in chat, we'd be able to isolate the specific point of our disagreement in very little time and maybe even come to some conscensus on the matter.

(...which would be nice because then we would then we could delete those tediously long comments)

Anyway, if you're interested in meeting in this chat room sometime just let me know (@ami). No hard feelings either way and I hope I didn't offend you unintentionally.

Josiah

HEY

AMI

@Ami around?

no..

the five minutes I'm gone..

Ami

@Josiah hey

how have you been?

Ami

07:33

I just sent you an email

Josiah

08:18

...

Hi internets!

Josiah

08:32

Hello there Loic!

Loïc Wolff

Hi.

Borror0

11:34

@EvanCarroll Nice question, Evan.

Vitaly

13:59

@KonradRudolph chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/290165#290165

Konrad Rudolph

14:31

@Ami Just a quick notice … I’d love to debate on chat (even just to try out whether/how this works). Unfortunately, I’m currently in the last throes of my master thesis until the end of this month (and a bit longer, if everything doesn’t go according to plan). After that, I’d gladly join a discussion, though. Apart from that, no offense taken, no hard feelings whatsoever. It’s just that the comments on SO are utterly inadequate for such discussions.

mfg

14:49

this was closed as NARQ; let me know how these edits look on it

-2

Q: Are atheists externally compelled to perform good deeds and support morality?

Personal idiosyncrasies aside, what major categories of external motivators are there (for atheists in particular) that compels them toward acting morally? Although my question is related to this one, I am looking for ethical models of action or different schools on moral action that do not inclu...

philosophy morality humanism

im happy enough if its in the duplicate category

but narq seemed off

Borror0

remove humanism

Vitaly

I like how I always run into reading comprehension problems with @mfg's answers and questions.

mfg

ha

yeah, i left that tag for future reference; ill drop it

sorry about the reading, let me know if theres anything i can simplify

Borror0

At this pace, you'll get copy editor by the end of the month

Btw, I'm looking for best five or so questions on A.SE

mfg

15:31

@bor check this

1

A: Are atheists forbidden from insulting Islam's prophet Mohammed?

This question is off topic. However, it deserves an answer -somewhere- so I don't have a problem answering it. Fundy Islam believes that all people are either Muslim or Worthless. They aren't even interested in conversion. Unless you count being converted to ashes. Atheists are particularly hat...

Borror0

Yes?

mfg

i like how their answer begins 'this is OT' then answers anyway

Borror0

Quite frankly, the more times goes by the more I'm tempted to go "oh fuck it" and just give up on the site.

Part of the problem is that the optimal decision for them IS to answer the question because, if they get upvoted once, no plausible amount of downvotes will lead to a decrease of reputation. So, if you want high reputation, the rational decision is to ignore the rules.

mfg

right, there's even a blog post somewhere about it

its basically like "tell them theyre OT, close it, but give them an answer so they get an answer"

i think the further step of etiquette is that you are supposed to make your post CW

ok, im ready to play some parliamentary parlor games

Borror0

@mfg ???

mfg

15:43

oh, im just joking about how the whole system has a lot of loops and rules, making a comparison to parliamentary procedures

Borror0

Does that mean you want to abuse the loopholes or point the out and correct them?

mfg

its like you cant close it without A, and if you close it you must first B, then C; and if these three things aren't done QQ

Borror0

@mfg ....and he didn't vote to close I kid you not. Check for yourself.

mfg

but the 'i want to play...' was just meaning it would be fun to have some sim game where youre a legislator who has to defend against attacks using parliamentary protocol. im a minor legal/poli wonk

Borror0

I get the fun. I'm considering going into political science if I can cure my sleep disorder

mfg

15:56

@Borror0 ha. well good for him. i wish the asker had accepted his answer that wouldve been rad

i dont know if i could do poli-sci out and out, but philosophy of law is high on my hitlist

Borror0

"out and out"? Sorry. I'm very slow today. My head is spinning, I feel like passing out, and I want to sleep. So, for most of the day, I'll have trouble understanding what is not literal.

mfg

16:27

oh, 'out and out' is a phrase meaning 100%, purely; as in 'If I got a degree in poli-sci I would not use it out and out since i have no stomach for electioneering.'

Borror0

16:39

Ah

20

A: What can we learn from Quora?

I'm adding this for everyone's amusement....

Vitaly

0

Q: Good pop-phi books on Atheism

I get often asked by friends and relatives what atheism is, and what is it all about. What good, friendly, non-aggressive books are available to explain our position to the typical theist or agnostic person? They should be written for the non-philosopher, so easy to read, but engaging and deep....

philosophy resources-references books

really?

Borror0

At first I was like "Make it CW"

But now it might be owrth closing.

As a duplicate.

mfg

@Vitaly yeah, i mean, im tired of the list of x questinos, but he cant make it cw

Borror0

We can force it. That's not the real issue here. Isn't that kind of narrow?

Vitaly

I will explain later why I said, “really?”

Borror0

16:49

Explaining atheism to a layman?

That's like... a two paragraph thing, at most, not a full bok.

mfg

@Borror0 i think its broad enough that its too broad to answer well, and narrow enough that you could make any number of questions in the form of [atheism-books]+[x]

Borror0

What?

mfg

vtc'ed and commented "VTC: This question is currently too broad. Since there are many different ways of tying together atheism and philosophy to any number of books the set of popular books is too expansive to produce a good list of answers. Can you try to be more specific?"

i also flagged for cw

@Borror0 the question can be answered in anyway the respondent wants as long as the answer contains [books] and [philosophy], so its too broad

Borror0

Do we have a CW book thread?

Ustice

We need a atheism resources thread.

mfg

16:56

but the question formula, where its {[books] + [x]} is begging for trouble if we dont shut it down

atheism.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/books

Ustice

books, sites, tools, organisations, etc.

Borror0

I still don't get why we can't make a question CW from the get-go

mfg

@Borror0 make a question a CW you mean?

they made a policy change at SE

Borror0

Do you know the rationale?

mfg

46

A: Should the community wiki police be shut down?

Important change End users can not mark questions wiki anymore, so the only appropriate way to get action on a question you believe really should be wiki, is to flag it for moderator attention. A couple points.. Vote-to-wiki will not be implemented. When the answer to a problem is "let's ma...

and then here is an example of its application (base of my model for our FAQ explanation)

6

A: What is Community Wiki?

Why do we have Community Wiki? One of the distinguishing characteristics of a wiki (such as Wikipedia) is that it encourages everyone to edit content. By marking your post as Community Wiki, you are inviting other members of the community to edit it - not just to correct spelling or improve for...

Borror0

17:03

Doesn't say why the check box is gone

mfg

its gone b/c end users cannot elect to make their posts CW anymore

only mods can determine whether a question makes a good CW

thats why voting to close, and flagging to CW are not at odds

Vitaly

Here is my explanation why I found the request for a book on atheism strange:

2

Hope it makes sense. XD

Borror0

I think the question is a book on why atheists find religious arguments uncompelling

But, then, that's a book on epistemology...

Vitaly

“What good, friendly, non-aggressive books are available to explain our position—”

“what atheism is, and what is it all about”

Borror0

17:19

I know. I'm just using my superhuman mind reading abilities

Bow to my power, U n00b

Vitaly

Hah!

Borror0

Is that Russian for "As you wish, master"?

Vitaly

@Sklivvz chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/291159#291159

Borror0

"Something like "the god delusion" without the bitching... :-)"

mfg

yeah the question's requested {set} is so generic that anything goes, so you get a run on who lists fabboolous atheist books first. thats why i think it should be closed, bad question = bad answers

Borror0

17:26

Being from Canada makes asking questions on ASE difficult: I never ran into a problem with my atheism, ever. Religion is so liberal here that, even though I had religion classes in school (Catholicism), I always knew that belief in god was irrational and that was the prevailing belief among kids my age.

I guess I have to thank la grande noirceur for that though.

Borror0

18:03

Stack Overflow Blog: The Wikipedia of Long Tail Programming Questions

Joel Spolsky

Have you ever noticed how certain questions come up again and again on Stack Overflow sites?

Oh look, my PC is freezing. Should I use SELECT *? Oh, and, how can I host a server from home?

Really, people, do you want to be answering these same questions ten years from now? How about when you’re 65? That doesn’t sound so appealing now, does it?

We predicted this problem, even before we launched Stack Overflow. Why? Because the same thing happened on Usenet, where:

What happened next depended on the newsgroup. …

CesarGon

Hi there, just passing by...

Borror0

Hey @CeasarGon. Not much activity. Lunch time for most.

Vitaly

Hi @CesarGon

CesarGon

18:20

Hi guys, nice to talk to you on chat

My first time here

Ustice

Hi Welcome

XD

CesarGon

@Ustice Thanks

Borror0

Good, now that means we can summon you by @CeasarGon ing you

CesarGon

@Borror0 Yes, but it's CesarGon, without the first "a" ;-)

Borror0

I blame your parents for giving you a name so close to an historical figure (assuming that is indeed your real name)

CesarGon

18:25

@Borror0 It is, but in Spanish, the name of the historical figure is spelt "Cesar" rather than "Caesar"

Borror0

Then shame on you for stepping outside of the hispanosphere?

CesarGon

@Borror0 I know, I know...

Borror0

Just to be clear, I'm being silly. My two best friends come from Madrid. Thank God they stepped out of the hispanophere.

CesarGon

@Borror0 I got the humour. :-) I stepped out of the hispanosphere ages ago. I like the big open world.

Borror0

ASE is in serious need of more questions...

CesarGon

18:31

Indeed

I am not optimistic though

Borror0

Neither am I

Ustice

@CesarGon Don't mind him, he's a dirty francophone. ;)

CesarGon

@Ustice (Cesar is trying to be polite)

Borror0

@Ustice Shut up, you ignorant monolingual ;)

Ustice

XD

Borror0

18:32

What? You had to know I would retort!

Ustice

That's why it's funny.

Role-playing trolls. :)

mfg

so with reference to

0

Q: Good pop-phi books on Atheism

I get often asked by friends and relatives what atheism is and what is it all about. What good, friendly, non-aggressive books are available to explain our position to the typical theist or agnostic person? They should be written for the non-philosopher, so easy to read, but engaging and deep. ...

philosophy resources-references books

and the other questions on books

and the Lord of the Flies post from the blog

why dont we aggregate all of the questions under the book tags and have each be a separate answer under "What are some good books on atheism" with an answer for youngs, olds, philosophers, etc

all CW so the lists can be manicured?

CesarGon

sounds reasonable

Ustice

so, keep them separate?

I guess that makes senes.

mfg

no, we merge all five questions into a big CW book list

Ustice

18:36

Ah.

I like that answer.

mfg

then each answer is titled, "for books on kids..." etc

Ustice

What about expanding that further?

resources.

mfg

that way each answer can be a referenceable link for duplicates

CesarGon

how would we manage new questions that are posted after the fact?

Ustice

So books, webisites, organisations, etc.

Borror0

18:37

@mfg I think that's the wrong approach

Example:

Ustice

@CesarGon merge them.

Borror0

1368

Q: What is the single most influential book every programmer should read?

If you could go back in time and tell yourself to read a specific book at the beginning of your career as a developer, which book would it be? I expect this list to be varied and to cover a wide range of things. For me, the book would be Code Complete. After reading that book, I was able to get ...

books resources reading

mfg

we have in the body of the question "please add additional requests of book types blah blah as new answers with an example"

CesarGon

@Ustice OK

Borror0

So, we have a different question for each book category that we find useful and each book is an answer.

mfg

18:39

@Borror0 that question is often seen as the mother of all list of x questions that should be closed but gecome reference sources later on

Borror0

@mfg I think it's the best use of the system though since the books are listed in order of preferences. So the total must, must read is at the very top.

mfg

@Borror0 if we have a new question for each [atheism-book]+[x] then we end up with a bunch of questions on books; this way we have ione single canonical book thread

@Borror0 i see the value of that too, can you think of a compromise that will limit the number of questions (duplicates) and preserve the ordering of books?

Borror0

@mfg We limit the number of reasonable acceptable questions?

Basically, "Is there value into such a question?"

mfg

@Borror0 yes?

we don't want to have 12 threads about atheist-books, one should suffice

because for every niche in atheism, there is another question

Borror0

@mfg Apologies. Yes. I can think of a compromise where we limit the number of threads of a few, not 20.

mfg

18:44

[atheism-books]+{[empiricism],[naturalism],[anti-empiricism],[anti-naturalism],[woo],[anti-woo], ...}

Borror0

You just made me die a little bit on the inside

mfg

thats what im seeing, it seems like we need a rule, one or many

@Borror0 i didn't mean to vOv

Borror0

I can see use to a parenting category, because it's such a different problem than mere atheism

Parents in highly religious regions could greatly gain from such a question, because it's so different that "what are the awesome books atheists should read?" yet still is about atheism

Codifying that into words is a lot more difficult.

Slight tangent: we have not gained a single "avid user" in the last few days.

mfg

@Bor btw I'm not saying we should classify the [atheism-books] as off-topic necessarily, I just mean to stream-line all of the q/a's and make a usable CW

Ustice

Break it up into sections.

Borror0

18:53

@mfg I know.

mfg

@Ustice how would you do the sections? i like using answers for categories of books, but then we lose votability for individual books

Borror0

The obvious is "we do so as we go"

mfg

we could do an answer formula like please phrase your answer "[books on parenting]: *yada and her heathen kids*"

Borror0

But that's not really satisfying

mfg

@Borror0 and leads to inconsistency

Borror0

18:56

That's less of a problem than the feeling of injustice if we give the impression of being arbitrary

mfg

i will start a meta post, put it to some kind of vote, see what comes of it

...

Borror0

Perhaps the best way is to have no rule at first and when we are more knowledgeable about what kind of questions get asked we will be able to conceive how to create those categories

As a community, we're still inexperienced

There's a reason we're still in beta

Ustice

@mfg I wouldn't organize them until suggestions were added, and then the categories should be pretty easy.

Borror0

Basically, we let a mess happen and then we clean the mess

Ustice

Exactly.

that is what I think to

Once we have some examples, it will be easier to create rules

mfg

18:59

ill list the options we have so far, and people can add and all answers/options will be CW

Ustice

but to do so early is silly.

Borror0

There's no way we're going to get it right the first time and odds are we'll get it really wrong.

Ustice

First, when we start out, there won't be enough to categorize.

other than to just create arbitrary categories.

@Borror0 But if we keep it fluid, it doesn't matter.

Organization by natural selection. :)

(or something like that)

Borror0

@Ustice Is that supposed to be agreement, addition, or disagreement? Pick a fourth option?

Ustice

@Borror0 I'm not sure.

I trust dynamic systems in general.

It's a shame that we can't make templates to make it easier on editors, but it isn't THAT hard to edit them to be consistent.

Sklivvz

19:03

So what's the verdict, are you closing my question or not?

Ustice

I don't think that there is one. It isn't like we have a quorum.

mfg

19:23

0

A: How should we manage books on atheism as questions?

We should have neatly categorized sub-questions for atheism book recommendations that are general enough to be interesting and narrow enough to give a good array of books. This is currently how the questions marked [books] work: Pro: When we have multiple questions on books, individual books/an...

here you go y'all, vote em around

if somebody wants to prop up a +1 for me on the "massive" option thatd be rad

@Sklivvz hey sorry about the vtc, i do like the question, and i think that we should come to some kind of agreement before we can't undo stuff

so check out the link if you want as discussing your question sparked it

@Ustice helsno im not touching them, i cant merge anyway and thats what i was suggesting

@Borror0 i think you're right about the "what kind of questions get asked", but i think dealing with lists is a first step, a toe in the water, that we should at least work on

@Ustice thats why i recommended using a nexus of tags for generating questions, that way editors would always have a rough idea of where you were coming from

1

A: What should our FAQ contain?

There should be a suggested nexus of tags included to use as templates for most questions. Taking this step could give question-askers and visitors a sense of how to theme their question.

Sklivvz

I personally don't have an opinion on what the specific policy of atheism.SE should be - I am completely puzzled by this community :-S. It sounds though like a question that would have been OK on the original SO (as long as it was a honest useful question and not a vote bait)

Vitaly

Anyone can recommend/unrecommend the following book?

amazon.com/Logic-Theism-Arguments-Against-Beliefs/dp/0521826071

mfg

n.op

Borror0

Does it suck or is it badass?

Vitaly

@Borror0 I don't know, that's why I ask. I saw it mentioned on LW in a recent post.

Sklivvz

19:33

When I say I am puzzled it's because I see questions like Favorite cartoon/comic strip/meme about atheism with 7 up votes... and that is really a marginal interest question....

Borror0

@Vitaly I read "Can we recommand". Oops.

mfg

@Sklivvz i wholly agree

Borror0

@mfg +1

Sklivvz

brb

Borror0

@Vitaly I can't recommend it, really. I have no interest in such a book. I have heard most of the arguments and have torn or seen them torn to shred.

mfg

19:35

@Sklivvz the blog has been focusing a lot on this theme of capturing the interest and attention span of experts by having good questions

although comic strips build a community, they don't sustain it

Vitaly

@Borror0 books.google.ru/…

mfg

hence the reference to 'long-tail programming' and stuff about critical mass & lifetime of sites

Borror0

A whole chapter on ontological arguments? That could kill someone.

mfg

youve never read being and nothingness i take it

Vitaly

The writing is so dense I cannot figure out whether the author himself is atheist or not

To decide whether I would want to read it

Borror0

19:39

OMG, it's worse: two chapters on ontological arguments

Ustice

@Sklivvz I don't think that they are of marginal interest, though that particular question is poorly worded, and answered even worse.

I wouldn't mind seeing a list of great atheist comics, and maybe a notable example, but it should be a CW.

Borror0

@Vitaly In my experience, the more dense the writing the more one is likely to be a theist

Ustice

@Borror0 Or a scientist.

Borror0

"Proving" the existence of god takes a lot of intellectual gymnastics...

Vitaly

He lists lots of arguments for as not valid

In the available preview

Borror0

19:45

A lot of theists are like that

Ustice

@Vitaly That makes sense though. You don't want people evangelizing with bad arguments.

Borror0

Hell, even William freaking Lane Craig thinks some arguments are not valid

Vitaly

From Google:

Unfortunately I never had the opportunity to read "Logic and Theism". It is said to be the best defence of atheism after J.L Mackie's "The Miracle of Theism".

Borror0

AH

Vitaly

Google, from a *theist* website:
*David Reuben Stone's latest defense of theism, with extensive critique of John W. Loftus. Includes responses to Elliott Sober, Jordan Howard Sobel, Bart D. Ehrman, Graham R. Oppy, and Michael L. Brown.*

So, I guess, he was an atheist.

Borror0

19:54

Personally, I don't see why anyone but a theist would read such a book.

Vitaly

Why?

Borror0

Which part of your belief do you really need to strengthen via a very intellectually complex book?

Vitaly

Ah. debate-points

@Borror0 lesswrong.com/lw/3m3/the_neglected_virtue_of_scholarship Ctrl+F Logic and Theism

Borror0

@Vitaly I still dislike that term. We should replace it with something more intuitive.

mfg

@Borror0 you might try to rephrase that question to separate your suggestion so it is more apparent which part users are upvoting

Borror0

19:58

@Vitaly I'm not going to ever argue against William Craig. Because it would be a waste of time.

mfg

ie, put your suggestion in an answer instead, because i think the question is good, but i dont like the name of the tag so i cant upvote the conjunction of the two

Borror0

I didn't write an answer to my own question

mfg

ohh thats just an example? ok

Borror0

Ya. I'm saying "soemthing like that, to give you an idea of what I'm talking about"

I wouldn't really endorse it.

Vitaly

Besides, haven't you told me to read and summarise?

Borror0

20:00

Though it's better than debate-points

Vitaly

The book contains nailed down refutations of common theistic arguments

Which is a theme for this Q&A

(Pascal's Wager, Theist Occam's Razor, etc)

Borror0

Usually, you can find lighter reads that accomplish the same

Is my point

@Vitaly I'm surprised that this LW article didn't quote Dawkins but, then again, Dawkins is pretty much a straw man of atheism. Usually, when someone cites Dawkins as an awesome atheist thinker, you can conclude that this person isn't very acute when it comes to atheism. He would get torn to shred by any serious theist philosopher.

Borror0

20:22

commonsenseatheism.com/?p=6113

Ah! I knew he would quote Dawkins.

Vitaly

meh

just read a review of Logic and Theism by William Craig

Borror0

And?

mfg

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims]; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries

from

Treaty of Tripoli

The Treaty of Tripoli (Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary) was the first treaty concluded between the United States of America and Tripoli, signed at Tripoli on November 4, 1796 and at Algiers (for a third-party witness) on January 3, 1797. It was submitted to the Senate by President John Adams, receiving ratification unanimously from the U.S. Senate on June 7, 1797 and signed by Adams, taking effect as the law of the land on June 10, 1797. The Treaty is much discussed in the 21st century because of the text...

Vitaly

And that persuaded me to attempt to read it.

Borror0

As a Canadian, I find American politic to be interesting to follow. As best put by someone in the UK, "Your left is closer to our right and your right is closer to 'You want to do WHAT?!'"

mfg

20:33

yeah. if americans seem absorbed by politics its because they have so many special interests telling them the issues are sexy

Borror0

It's so funny because Canada and most of Europe has a far less robust constitution (Canada's Charter of Rights and Liberties has notwithstanding clause that allow politicians to officially ignore it, if they deem it necessary) and yet it's the US that has the crazies.

@mfg Americans are not interested in anything. If the apathists were a political party, they would have won most midterms *easily.*If you want a country that cares about politics, look at the Austria, New Zealand, Sweden, or Italy which has very high turnout rates election after election.

mfg

no dont misunderstand me, americans dont understand their own politics

they just find it sexy, like any other tabloid

Ustice

@Borror0 Dawkins may not be a good debater, but he still prominent for a reason.

wow, the chat didn't update for a while

mfg

and having an adamant opinion about who shouldve won that call-to-vote show

Ustice

sorry for that late comment

Borror0

20:39

@mfg Which is why adultery is still controversial

Ustice

@mfg That is why it worries me that Sarah Palin has a reality show. If she becomes too much of a celebrity, then she could win on that, regardless of her credentials.

Borror0

I distinguishing factor between Canada and the US is the way you view your president. We see our prime ministers as normal guys with a tough job and we criticize them as such, at least most of the time (ie corruption and gross incompetence notwithstanding). For you guys, the president is put on a surhuman self.

Which is funny, because your president is less power than our prime minister

Ustice

@Borror0 Ya, people think that the president has way more power than the Constitution allows.

Borror0

Our system is pleasantly tyrannical.

Vitaly

For us (Russia) the president is like Santa Claus or Boogeyman. Everyone talks about him, but noone really believes he exists.

Ustice

20:45

I think that a lot of people in the US see the president as king, where he can introduce and direct legislation, which is silly.

Vitaly

If you get what I mean.

Borror0

@Vitaly Not really.

Ustice

@Vitaly Ya, since Putin left office.

mfg

@Vitaly marionette or puppet perhaps ?

Vitaly

Well, we cannot do anything if the president or the prime minister start doing some rubbish or are already doing some rubbish, that's what I mean.

And our votes don't affecf the election results.

So, basically, the president is like a very distant reality, closer to unreality (Santa Claus).

Ustice

20:47

That is a scary situation, I think, but that just might be my perspective as a US citizen.

Borror0

@Ustice In Canada, that's the way it is. Harper decide what he wants and the MPs vote for what he wants. We're lucky he doesn't have a majority r he could do whatever he wants, for four years. Which would be really, really bad.

Vitaly

Is that more clear?

Borror0

@Ustice I don't see how what he described is really different from your situation...

Vitaly

So we Russians are forced apathists.

Ustice

@Borror0 My vote might get drowned out, but it still counts.

Vitaly

20:48

@Borror0 because we are forced to be apathists, and they choose to be so? ;)

Borror0

Are there still separatist movement within Russia?

Vitaly

Yeah, in Chechnya.

Ustice

@Borror0 Ultimately it is more about who makes the best emotional argument here, but that isn't the same thing.

Vitaly

The government illegally pays the Chechen leaders millions of roubles (Russian money) so that they keep their separatist kooks calm.

Borror0

With the impact money has on your politicians, it's about so much more than emotional arguments

And now my comment replies to two different people, by accident

Ustice

20:51

@Borror0 True, but even with good backing, if you don't have a good emotional message, you won't win the day.

Most of the time, the two coincide though.

Borror0

It doesn't really matter who wins though

Vitaly

Just to show the amount of money the Chechen leaders get from their separatism threats, do you know the car Lamborghini Reventón?

Borror0

At the end of the day, the politicians will be liable to some corporations. Perhaps not the same for each party, but that's not exactly relevant

Vitaly

There were only 20 Lamborghini Reventóns produced since 2007, and Kadyrov (the president of Chechnya) owns one.

Borror0

@Vitaly The Canadian gov't legally gives the Québec province tons of money so we stay in Canada. Feels good to be loved.

Vitaly

20:54

As well as several Ferraris, Bugattis, etc.

It's pretty much organized crime.

Borror0

Of course, the rest of Canada hates that (as they should, it's stupid)

Ustice

It's a shame that we aren't doing that with Texas. Then we could "forget" our next payment. ;)

Vitaly

I wish they were like the Québec province.

Because in that case, the money would have gone into public services, I guess.

Not into Kadyrov's personal car park.

Borror0

In our case, it's been used to fund ineffective social programs

The principle behind them was (usually) sound but they were not careful with them and now we have a lot of structural problems which needs to be addressed

The worse being freaking Liberty 55. Who the hell thought it would be a good idea to allow doctors to retire at 55?!?!?!

Sorry, I had to get that one out of my chest

It's just so stupid

Hi @Rodger

Rodger Cooley

Greetings! I see the stack exchange universe has chat now

sweet

i can be insulted in real time now

Transcript for