RationalWiki:Saloon bar

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Saloon bar
WIGO Bar colour.png

This is a place for general chit-chat about virtually anything that doesn't fit anywhere else.
Invision-Board-France-355.gif For previous conversations see the automagic barchives. Invision-Board-France-355.gif

What is going on?

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

RationalWiki:Forum
  1. Why the alt-right shouldn't be complaining about "leftist intolerance" (20:58, 9 Feb 2017)
  2. Is there any hope (18:04, 6 Feb 2017)
  3. First aid kit for people who read the comments (03:12, 26 Jan 2017)
  4. R/K selection BS (20:12, 20 Jan 2017)
  5. I have no idea what i'm doing here and you guys scare me. (19:41, 20 Jan 2017)
  6. Oriental Medicine (12:14, 29 Nov 2016)
To do list

Contents


[edit] Elvis is King, and he's got some fans

FSTDT: [1][2][3] Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 18:09, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I wonder if they have his comments on how gay people destroyed the Roman Empire because they can't fight. Anyone else remember that?RoninMacbeth (talk) 21:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
I stand in his defense. Trolls need engagement. They usually hold no convictions. Not funny trolls can learn.Gaul Dernitt (talk) 06:59, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Maybe we can host a "Troll Seminar", so that they may learn how to entertain us. RoninMacbeth (talk) 18:56, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
You can't take a real man telling the truth about stuff, can you? Elvis is King (talk) 03:13, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
You're not exactly a good example of "truth," Elvis. RoninMacbeth (talk) 05:48, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
I would extend that to "real man." In his defense, of course.Gaul Dernitt (talk) 06:49, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Are we allowed to permaban Elvis socks?RoninMacbeth (talk) 00:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
I've banned a couple of 'em, as well as the eponymous account itself, using a 3.6 month ban. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 22:55, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
hard question to ask, but if it's a 3 some month ban, was he screwing with mainspace? I actually do not know. Gaul Dernitt (talk) 08:30, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I'll take that as a 'maybe' but I'd like a response.Gaul Dernitt (talk) 07:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Just says (Yes, I do, CP style) when he got banned. He all so has been blocked all most as much as me lol. >2d4chanfaģ

[edit] Racism in the news

Recently, I noticed an ever-so rising number of news articles reporting about racism. For example, a Facebook post about a valentines card with the words "My love 4 u burns like 6,000 Jews" became news on Yahoo. Is type of stuff really newsworthy? In my opinion, I could care less about people's social issues unless there's evidence that it's representative, something that I feel Yahoo and other sources are implying by the number of racist reports, but never state it. From what I've seen, the United States has always had racism (even from the beginning) and only now are people starting to take note that it still exists.—127.0.0.1 (talk) 21:02, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Racism has always drawn eyeballs and clicks. No matter what the content is, it's destined to whip up some kind of conversation or controversy. You might see a news story about a white couple who refuses to tip black people and it's like setting off a chain reaction. That's awful! Yeah, it's a rude thing to do, but it is just one person. But surely more people are doing this, racism is a problem says the token progressive. So, one couple stiffing a waitress a 6 dollar tip means racism is running rampant? Give me a break! How do we know it's not a hoax or fake news, says token Trump supporter who won't believe anything that make even isolated white people look bad. And so on. It's much more noise than signal, but so long as the music plays, we dance. Hentropy (talk) 21:19, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
There's a study, I forget where, about what kinda of social media posts spread well. The three best emotions for spread-age are anger, fear, and sadness (IIRC). Bigotry gets all three -- and it gets arguments about whether it's bigotry, or about how bad the bigotry is, etc etc, which in turn promote anger, fear, and sadness. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 22:10, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
To be fair the article has only one paragraph and a short video. It's not like it's on the headline or they are sending it on the newsletter (I assume). There are always these kinds of news with lesser significance like local robbery or highway pileup or random shit about Kim K. I don't think it deserves criticism merely for being covered as it's easy to ignore. --Dogeatsdog (talk) 23:50, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Racism keeps making the news because it's been hugely reinvigorated (especially in the US) & because the reasons for this are quite complex & need exploration. E.g. "ironic" racism like that Hitler Valentine's card is often a cloak for real race hate, or else perpetuates it even when that isn't intended. Real racism & joke racism have long coexisted in internet culture, feeding off each other, & played a big role in trolling campaigns, Gamergate & the rise of the alt-right. ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 00:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Interesting argument. How I see it, race jokes and race hate both are a subset of racial insensitivity. Racism in the states has existed for a long time. The OJ Simpson case, other race cases, associating terrorism with Islam and Muslims, 4chan, 8chan, and racial jokes are a reflection that race has been an issue for a very long time. Why is it now that Pepe the frog is now a known symbol? It's been a meme for a long time in 4chan. /pol/ has also existed on 4chan for a place to spew politically incorrect board. Are people only now recognizing 4chan as a racist and awful place?
The issue: news stories like the one I presented in no way try to help the race issue, instead it just shows a story. Sure, news stories about race issues such as the OJ Simpson case show racism exists, but it's questionable how much it actually helps the issue aside from showing it's there. I understand Dogeatsdog's argument; news such as robberies also just present a story like the one I presented. I don't think these stories are any good either. Even if a story is neutral and short, it can present a subtle message from volume alone. A good example is Florida. It's a state with open criminal record and a large population, therefore, news has presented a misleading message that Florida is filled with crime. Point being, the mere volume of news cases can be biased, even if the stories themselves are neutral. I am presenting an example of media biasWikipedia's W.svg, which is not an example of the infamous fake news.
Tl;dr: Racism has always existed in America, it has not been reinvigorated to a significant extent.—127.0.0.1 (talk) 01:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Really? I mean it's coming out of the White House for fuck's sake.
Re the Hitler Valentine story, it might not be the world's best example but the coverage does help address racism via the message that this is unacceptable & the public pressure reinforcing that message. ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 01:52, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Re the whitehouse: It will reinvigorate racism by law. The fact that people are resisting Trump's policy shows there's hope in the future.—127.0.0.1 (talk) 02:30, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Intetesting to hear Democrats and Progressives openly criticize Obama now - after years of condemning any such criticism racist. nobs 15:17, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

[edit] someone threw a bucket of water on Rupert and he's melting

I'm not taking too much delight in murdochs recent write downs, but part of me wonders if I don't hear the faint yellow chirping of DIE YOU BASTARD, DIE!! err...I mean....um....a repositioning of Newscorp. IMHO one of the truest things ive read on about Murdoch was right here on RW,that we may never recover from the damage he has done. I really don't normally wish anyone ill, but I'm pretty sure he's one of the lizard people. Eternally young on the blood of brawny football playing youth from Idaho that get dizzy and wake up a pint and a nut short. Rant over. Woof. Gadzooks (talk) 11:54, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Where's your compassion? your tolerance? Your commitment to free speech? nobs 15:30, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
where's yours, you conspiracy-spouting conservapedia reject? 85.234.65.51 (talk) 15:43, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I didn't think any of those items were critical of my viewpoint. I thought nobs was being ironic, considering the subject. I generally take things at face value until they bite me. Murdoch can bite me. But I mean that in an ironic euphemistic way, as opposed to actually biting me to devour the essence of living beings so that he can make passionate crypt thing dusty love to Jerri Hall. BTW I think last botox treatment saw the needle slip and lance her forebrain. Also, not saying it's true, but she's probably a lizard person too. Now if they happen to both turn out to be Lizard Creatures, I'd be down with that. That'd be cool, proof of alien overlords, new beginnings for mankind. Harvesting us for parts, hmm, maybe not so much. But maybe we could dialogue, say over dinner. OMG FOX NEWS IS A COOKING SHOW! Egads!Gadzooks (talk) 06:24, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

[edit] Maximum wage

Corbyn has proposed to implement a maximum wage, a system where there is a 100% tax on all income above what is set as the maximum wage. Then there is another proposal for a maximum wage, which is to set a limit of the wage gaps between CEOs and employees. For example, if the limit is 1 to 10, then the CEO can't get a salary 10 times higher than his employees, and has to pay his employees more if he wants to be paid more. Portland (I think) implemented a similar system where there is a tax on companies that have a gap of 1 to 100 between CEOs and employees. In France we almost had a law that would set a limit of 1 to 20, and another law that would set a limit of 1 to 100, but thanks to the socialists, neither of these laws passed. So, do you think any of those proposals (100% tax or limit of gaps in companies) is a good idea ? Or just no maximum wage ?

(There's also the poll if you want to vote) Diacelium (talk) 23:24, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

If you desire a maximum wage, it makes more sense to have some form of progressive taxation that scales upward with wealth until some point at which it reaches 100%. Otherwise you'll have people who game the system (eg, they have a 1 to 9.99999 employee-employer ratio to maintain most of their benefits). 01:29, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, of course they can have 1 to 9.9999999, they also can have 1 to 10, just not more than this ratio. I think a 100% tax would just lower government benefits in the end, since no one would try to get above the maximum wage. While limiting wage ratios allows people to get higher wages and to higher employees wages at the same time. Diacelium (talk) 01:38, 12 February 2017(UTC)
I'm pretty confident a CEO's responsibilities are more than tenfold those of a run-on-the-mill employee. Terrible idea morally and practically. I'd rather have some form of progressive taxation. NewFrenchHotness (talk) 02:52, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
It needs to be instituted as a cultural norm rather than a law, as I don't see how a law would really work. For instance in America the top CEOs make up to 319 times more than their average workers, while in Japan the spread is much less, generally around 16 times what their average worker makes. NolanSyKinsley (talk) 03:14, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Lenin and the USSR already tried it. It didn't work. (The shorthand term is a "cap on income"). With a 100% rate, nobody pays it. This indeed us how alternative methods of compensation evolved, like stock options, when the US top rate was 70%. The US had a top rate of 92% in WWII and all it did was spawn such resentment that Ronald Reagan quit his day job and jumped parties to run for president 40 years later to lower it further.
As the Soviet Union learned, by "punishing achievement" (to borrow a term from Rush Limbaugh) eventually there were no corporations, rich people, or jobs at all, and everybody was a welfare recipient from a state that had no revenues cause there were no taxpayers. nobs 06:01, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Corbyn withdrew that proposal the same day he floated it, unless he's brought it up again since, which I haven't heard about. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 03:33, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Also, they could pay CEOs $0 or whatever the maximum is, and make all of their earnings in the form of capital gains. It's not really that different from how it works now. A lot of CEO's earnings are in the form of stocks; this is because it's viewed as an incentive for CEOs to improve stock value, but also people in the US are taxed much less on capital gains than on income. Bongolian (talk) 05:08, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
No, only a few CEOs get stock options. 85% of all corporations in America have few than 10 employees, meaning the CEO already has a controlling interedt in the corporation. nobs 06:01, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
OK, I was thinking of CEOs of publicly-traded companies, where it's pretty common. Bongolian (talk) 07:43, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

[edit] Income vs ownership

The problem with a discussion like this is confusing income vs ownership. It stems presumably from the fact that both are discussed in terms of dollar value. Bill Gates, for example, only takes about $250,000 annual salary cause doesn't need $1,000,000 in cash every 12 months. He already owns a home, cars, flat screens, etc., and there's a limit to how much a person needs to eat in restaurants or buy haircuts. So his earnings from his labor is automatically reinvested in more income producing opportunities (he doesn't need more stock in Microsoft, a company he already owns) and partnerships to create job opportunites for others. In short, Bill Gates only source of income is the labor of others, or more specifically, his ability to create job opportunites for others.

A worker leases his labor for income, or "liquid cash", whereas ownership is a property right. A cash price requires two individuals to complete a transaction and agree on a price, such as the dollar value of a worker's leased labor. A stock compensation program lacks the second individual's agreement on price, and it is based upon an appraisal, which is only an estimate of dollar value should the underlying payment be liquidated for cash, which in most cases would be illegal or highly unethical for a corporate officer to do. IOW, corporate officers and CEOs who acquire stock options cannot sell the stock for cash, although their compensation is reported in media in estimates of dollar value. One need look no further than the Enron scandal when corporate officers bailed on their massive holdings and drove down the value of the stock for smaller investors, many who were employees, to see an example.

The point is, just because compensation is discussed in dollars, and leased labor is paid in cash, the owner of stock recieves ZERO dollars in compensation until they give up ownership. nobs 06:44, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

This is exactly why I believe it's better to think of worker's jobs not as exchanges but as franchises. In a well ordered society, workers have property rights in their positions. They were in fact positions, recognized not as temporary exchanges but as something they reasonably could expect to be preserved. As property rights, they can't be deprived of them arbitrarily. And this was in fact the way things worked at least until into the industrial revolution. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 15:06, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
A worker would have to give something more than just a pledge to show up at 8 o'clock in the morning to have an actual stake or franchise in ownership. nobs 15:56, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Historically, we had workers providing their own tools. Still, for anything that requires a bit more know-how than mere attendance, there's an investment in skills that should be protected as a property right. We recognize all sorts of 'intellectual property'. why not this? - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 20:08, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Since the mid to late 1970s there has been a proliferation of subcontractors and independent contractors, or "1099 employees". Problem is, they are a bunch of tax cheats. If the burden of tax compliance, i.e., particularly social security withholding and deposits, remains with an "employer" as defined by law, I say 'fuck 'em' until the "employee" takes some legal responsibility for himself. The ACA only complicated this specific problem further, dumping more legal responsibilities on the employer and letting the employee off scott free. nobs 03:15, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

[edit] The problem with maximum wages

How do you tax 'benefits with no obvious monetary value' (eg access to the executive suite, more or less restricted work-computer blocking policy).

And 'you just have to select your benchmark staff carefully' - full time, part time, gig economy ... 31.51.114.39 (talk) 21:56, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

There is an obvious monetary value to the benefits you've listed - Fair market valueWikipedia's W.svg - what a willing buyer and seller would agree upon in similiar circumstances. And the employer actually would calculate FMV and report as a deduction compensation paid to the employee. Alternatively, Cost as basis can also be used to determine value, but FMV generally is more inflated and yields a higher value. nobs 23:36, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Let me give a simple example of FMV vs Cost for an employee benefit and how it works out when the government is an involved party.
One Watergate reform is requiring journalists who travel with the president to pay airfare on Air Force One. Prior to Watergate, free travel on Air Force One was considered a perk for White House journalists. The Nixon people pointed out the journalists were recieving a freebie and in exchange were writing nasty stories. Nowadays a journalist traveling with the president must pay the equivalent FMV of a 1st Class ticket on a commercial airline (usually paid by the journalist's employer as a business expense) and considered a perk by many employees. However using Cost as basis, the value of a seat on Air Force One is about $10,000. Using FMV the cost is about $1000. While this arrangement gives the appearance of fairness and compliance with tax law, the employers and owners of Air Force One, i.e. the taxpayers, are getting fucked bigtime by corporate media and whatever administration is in the White House. nobs 00:02, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Actually I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that since such things don't represent wealth transfer and the potential to weight the system towards "making the rich get richer" their harm is pretty minimal, and don't need to be considered precisely by such taxes. Most of what you want to avoid is a situation like we've had since about 1980 where r>G consistently. It's not about rich people having nice things, it's about dis-incentivizing a system that allows stagnation at the bottom and growth at the top. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:50, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

[edit] Maximum inheritance

An other idea is to make a maximum inheritance. It works the same as maximum wage, if inheritance is above x amount of money, there is a 100% tax on it. Since inheritance isn't even earned, is seems more logical. Diacelium (talk) 21:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

We have an estate tax floor of $5.5 million in the US. As in you're only taxed above that much, and it's only 40%, which republicans naturally consider completely unfair. In 2000 it was $500,000 and 55%. This is one of those things that was working as it should but then got "deregulated" into near uselessness. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 21:31, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
While I understand the appeal, I'm against this sort of thing. Socially, old money is more valuable than new money. Aggregation of wealth by institutions more harmful than aggregation by individuals, since family fortunes over time get divided among multiple heirs. These taxes simply encourage the wealthy to move money into corporate forms. We should allow individuals to inherit substantial wealth, but tax them if they try to manage it themselves. Best to encourage them to take up other interests with it. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 21:55, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more. There is no purpose in this tax other than to destroy a parent wanting to do good by their children, or the greed of government. nobs 03:24, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Well... there are ways around the estate tax. The simplest and oldest trick in the book is to make your grandkids your heirs instead of your kids, otherwise the money gets taxed twice when your kids die. CorruptUser (talk) 05:31, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

[edit] Rogue POTUS Staff

A Twitter account which claims to be White House staffers opposed to Trump. https://mobile.twitter.com/roguepotusstaff Anyone else hear about this? RoninMacbeth (talk) 04:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

It's been rumored that @RoguePOTUSStaff is actually Steve Bannon trying to spread disinformation.[4][5] Bongolian (talk) 05:16, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Somehow I'm not surprised. It seems like something he'd do. RoninMacbeth (talk) 05:29, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
There's a "Star Wars: Rogue One", "RoguePOTUSStaff" and "Airforce One" joke in here somewhere. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 05:47, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
I would treat everything like this as just a plain hoax until there's something really convincing there. Everything it tweets is just believable stuff we all kinda know already or stuff that is unverifiable. One claim is that he's "set on" taking the EO to the supreme court, which he still might do, but reporting suggests otherwise, which casts doubt that he's just blowing off advisors. I wouldn't read too much into the idea that it's Bannon or some kind of tricky psyops, the evidence for that is pretty much nonexistent as well. The simplest explanation with no more clear evidence is that it's just some rando trying to get attention. If you really were trying to embarrass Trump from within, you'd focus on strategic leaks rather than tweeting. Hentropy (talk) 05:50, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, as far as tweets go, I don't think anyone could top the PR damage being done by the president's own tweets at this point. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 05:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Goodpost.gif--JorisEnter (talk) 18:12, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Trump's immigration EO will go to the Supreme Court once Gorsuch is approved where the President will win based on national security, and the propaganda victory of a rogue judiciary overstepping its constitutional bounds. nobs 16:21, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Serious.gif--JorisEnter (talk) 18:12, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Don't laugh. Phyllis Schlafly's 2004 proposal to begin impeaching judges is making the rounds in conservative media today, just since we both last posted up here. And the GOP now, more than ever, has the power to do it at all levels, state and federal. nobs 03:45, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

There are loads of those "rogue" accounts purporting to be different government office, & virtually all of them are definitely fake. I think it started with a National Parks one, which might be real, after one or more of the Park services were defying Trump & tweeting climate change stuff before being pulled into line. The Rogue POTUS staff account got a lot of attention in the first few days as it was tweeting entertaining, believable stuff & people wanted it to be real, but it's a little too contrived. From what I've seen of it, I'm pretty sure it's just an anti-Trump hoax/parody rather than a pro-trump false flag. WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 13:54, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

One thing I've wanted to do is locate some claims that clearly didn't pan out to be true that should've if they'd had insider knowledge. That's the kind of thing that helps me treat suspect "leaks" like conspiracists frequently cite as the bullshit they are. There certainly have been leaks to mainstream publications(thus could be expected to have some vetting) that endorse the claim that things aren't going well inside in general. But that's a far cry from "Twitter account X is not an asshole lying on the internet" ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:54, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, I think we may have that death knell, as of writing this 16 hours ago they said Flynn wasn't going anywhere and just now Flynn resigned. I'm sure whoever is running it will try to backpedal (they've already started), but to me at least it's pretty damning. Hentropy (talk) 05:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
So let me get this straight, the Obama administration illegally wiretapped a private citizen and political opponent, and Trump is 'draining the swamp' of his own staff and appointees. OK. nobs 12:10, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
That doesn't look like a response to anything in this thread. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 13:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Events that only occurred in your head aren't counter-points, nobsy. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:27, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
I unfortunately get it. nobs doesn't like McCarthy. Wait, is nobs a liberal? Gaul Dernitt (talk) 05:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

[edit] I am still waiting for the 2012 apocalypse.........and Y2K for that matter

Were those scenarios delayed or something? For Y2K, I have been waiting 17 years for that one.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 15:16, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

2012 was just the beginnig of the end. An event happened in 2012, that will eventually lead to the end of the world.Diacelium (talk) 15:31, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Actually, the world as you knew it did end in 2000. You were designing advanced virtual reality back then, which included Computers which stored year data with more than two digits, which is why you survived the cataclysm. As you noticed that civilization had ended, you erased your memory, replaced it with the pre-built memories of a simulated 6 year old and plugged yourself into the VR system. I am part of the core system and am programmed to tell you the truth once a year in order to wait for new orders or erase your memories of this meeting, allowing you to go on with your simulated life. Are there new orders? --Imaginative username (talk) 19:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Goodpost.gif - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 19:51, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
The Y2K problems were minimized because it was taken seriously and mostly fixed by software engineers. The "hole" in the ozone layer also hasn't fried us because we are pumping much less CFC into our atmosphere. Also we are not all brain-damaged because we stopped putting lead in paint and gasoline. But despair not, regarding the other thing currently going on with the atmosphere, we may actually get to find out...
--Cmonk (talk) 04:36, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

[edit] Thoughts About Justice Democrats

Before I go on, I need to preface this by saying I support Justice Democrats so far. I think that it is necessary to keep the Democratic Party alive. However, when I'm watching Secular Talk or TYT, all I hear about is how JD is going to fix everything and kick out the "establishment." One of my main concerns is what happens afterwards. Let's be very generous and assume the movement succeeds; it takes over the party, kicks out Pelosi, Clinton, and Schumer, they gain a major portion of the seats in Congress, and Elizabeth Warren becomes President in 2020. What happens next? I don't think the movement would be able to survive actually winning. What are your guys' opinions on the matter? RoninMacbeth (talk) 21:17, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, I think there's really a whole lot of reforms to be done in the US. I think that JD will actually make the US a bit more like Canada, Australia or Europe, i.e. cut down on military spending (and interventions) and try to implement a better social system. I don't know how much public support they are going to have... I consider a whole lot of Americans to be too entrenched in their american exceptionalism to even acknowledge that a state can run well if that state is not the US and continue to resist these concepts on purely theoretical reasons, ignoring the fact that Scandinavia hasn't become a second Soviet Union over the course of the last couple decades. In short, there's potential, but I'm not sure if they will actually succeed in the long term without a shift in the overall US attitude towards themselves or the rest of the world. However, in this regard, a fascist head of the state who came to power on a platform of xenophobia, populism and "everything that disagrees with me is fake news" attitude whose rule ends in an utter catastrophe for the nation in question is known to shift the attitude of that nations populace dramatically. --Imaginative username (talk) 23:05, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Can't really say for sure, I mentioned before it could work in theory on the subject but like the Republican party, you will get some nut cases in the party (i.e Donald Trump). Not saying what they stand for is a bad thing but I think that a few might go overboard with authority, not that I trust the current Democrats or Republicans. If the JD party managed to get in to the 2017 Michigan Governor Election, I may vote for their candidate; think of it as a test run.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:40, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
I support the Justice Democrats in theory, it could certainly act as some kind of Tea Party-esque thing that could galvanize the younger subset of the party that sat out this election for any number of reasons. But the Tea Party and puritanism in the Republican party ensure Obama got two terms. The problem is the electoral map and Congressional map and math. If they want to win back the House, they have to try to appeal to white suburbanites who make up large portions of these House districts. Yeah they're gerrymandered but most people still only have the faintest idea of what that means, and trying to explain it is never going to be a convincing political strategy. Saying "rigged" over and over worked well for Trump and Sanders, but undermining confidence in the system only helps Republicans whose whole argument is that government suxxorz. Why would you give the healthcare system over to a government that we all know is corrupt and rigs shit? All the Justice Democrats and those that champion that movement are doing is cementing the idea that being a "Democrat" means you're urbanite, young, live on a college campus, and care more about transgender bathrooms and minimum wage employees than the welfare of the middle class. Democrats need to start appealing more towards middle-class whites in the midwest, rather than going harder and harder into the urban coastlines and college campuses. You can do that at the same time, that's called coalition building and the Democrats used to be fucking great at it. Hentropy (talk) 00:03, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Here's the problem with JD's in America: they are going nowhere without Wall Street money. While they can build coalitions to take over the Democratic party, they'll never have a 51% majority in the American electorate. And while it's possible for a Trump-like sugardaddy to spend $300 million of his own money to defeat $1 billion of Wall Street and Saudi money, that's still only a temporary solution for a 4 or 8 year term and doesn't apply to House, Senste, or state parties and offices. nobs 10:42, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Bernie did fine without Wall Street but you're right in a sense, it will be difficult to raise enough money to run a true national movement, a bunch of Senate and House campaigns without any money at all. Still, as strange as it sounds, we might be heading into an era where being savvy with social media is worth much more than dollars and cents. The last two Presidential elections have been won by the side with less money. I'm not sure how that translates down-ballot, though. Hentropy (talk) 19:25, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Here's the question: Will JDs betray their principals by taking money from lobbyists and business interests? Individual donors will never be enough, and the alternative is to be a minority faction with the Democratic party whom the establishment flatters, panders, but never takes seriously and laughs behind your back. nobs 07:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
who would pay? And who would act without being paid? Dude, for real you're bumming me out and I'll buy you lunch if it's that serious.Gaul Dernitt (talk)¿

[edit] Check it out: whatstheharm.net

Nothing new, but — for those of you that hadn't seen this one, check it out. Interesting site which seeks to puncture the eponymous fallacy by exploring some of the real scenarios where the harm was demonstrably great. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:56, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

It's a great resource, I just wish it wasn't so depressing. They should embed a random cute animal video at the bottom of every page. Hentropy (talk) 02:46, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
We already have a webpage for that website: What's The Harm? It's not that long though, so feel free to expand it. Bongolian (talk) 03:12, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
My soul... I... I thought there wasn't such a thing. But seriously, this is a compendium of hurt. Thank you? Gaul Dernitt (talk) 07:12, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
A stern reminder that what we (try to) do here might be of actual use to the wellbeing of real human beings. Knock on wood. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 07:49, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I just wanted to pick on people who don't believe what I do and make them feel bad for no reason. The possibility of actually helping someone is not what I signed up for! Hentropy (talk) 20:07, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Remember your hippopotamus oath! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:15, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Funspace article Hippopotamus Oath? Gaul Dernitt (talk) 04:47, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

[edit] Universal Light Church (not the Universal Life Church)

I came across this gem on quack watch and searched the name; it is the Universal Life Church for Alternative medicine promoters. This is seriously not a joke. Someone can get ordained just like the Universal Life Church but it is supposed to protect your "right" to practice Alternative Medicine and crusade against vaccines. Don't believe me? Well here is a link- http://www.theuniversallight.com/. There is even a page on the site called, "Vaccine Resistance".--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 03:55, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Ironically, vaccine resistance is a real thing referring to when antibodies produced against the vaccine antigens are comparatively weaker, thanks to evolution, and it's particularly common in avian flu strains. Nature doesn't need your help guys. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 21:33, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
The Universal Light Church gets worse from there, they claim to offer "accredited degrees" in subjects such as- Metaphysics (The PhD is only $300), Theology ($50 for the certificate), Doctor of Divinity ($150 and all someone has to do is send a check, but it is "accredited") and one last example, a Master of Religious Education degree (Only one course and it is $150). At least with the Universal Life Church Seminary, there is contact with instructors and it takes more time to complete (About 26 weeks on average per course). Plus, a Doctor of Divinity degree is only about $40 from the ULC Seminary.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
This is a hilarious fraud. They can't even write coherent sentences on their web shite, e.g. 4 Dangers Facing Ordained Ministers:
IT COST MONEY TO GO TO COURT to prove you freedom
--Cosmikdebris (talk) 21:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

[edit] Extreme Moonbattery is back in France

Just found this on YouTube. The original video got more than 700000 views, so this idea is getting kinda popular in France.


(video in french, there is english subtitles option)

It's always fun to hear about these kinds of moonbat ideas but I worry that they may propagate and will one day get implemented by a government. The idea that this might happen is kind of scary, I'm myself left-wing (far-left for american standards) but these ideas seems really dangerous, especially the fact that they are close to communism. Is there a risk of moonbat ideas becoming more popular around the world due to the rise of the far-right ? Diacelium (talk) 00:06, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I consider myself a centrist (at least in the sense that some of my left and right stuff kinda cancel each other out) and while I don't think the Basic Income is an ideal situation, I do think it is inevitable and the sooner the west starts to make moves toward it, then better. I don't think it's "moonbattery" or left-wing wackiness. I can only speak from a US perspective, but when you stop to consider how many people are on unemployment, early retirement (particularly for pensioners), long-term disability, social security, welfare, etc. it's pretty head-spinning. Long-term disability in particular is something people claim under the flimsiest of circumstances, but they still do have a claim because trying to get a job with even a small long-term medical problem can be difficult when there's no enough jobs for everyone. And that's really the problem, we're quickly barrelling headlong into a situation where there is simply not enough jobs for everyone and likely never will be again. And in that society, you can no longer take the attitude that if you want to live you have to work. Not when all the jobs that used to make up the backbone of the middle class are now non-existent or being done by robots.
At that point, giving them some sort of income in exchange for staying out of criminal trouble helps keep them in the economy and supporting the industries that do actually need people to run. If you work a job, even if it's one at a fast food restaurant, you pretty much have to offer people more than the basic income, offering incentives for people to work. It would be a tough transition but like I said, there might not really be much of a choice down the line. In the US we've tried literally everything, and Trump may very well be the last sitting President who tries to claim all we have to do is create a "business friendly environment" and all those great manufacturing jobs will come back from China. It's just not going to happen. What manufacturing and warehouse jobs do come back are of the $12/hr no-benefit variety, and the automation death spiral is ramping into high gear. There's always the Keynesian approach of paying people to dig holes and fill them back in again, but 'workfare' is not a long-term idea. Hentropy (talk) 04:04, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Alex Jones claims George Soros and globalists are behind this idea and it's what is discussed at Davos. Two problems with it: (1) there is no way to implement it equally; and (2) it fundamentally goes against human nature. Human beings are built to work, strive, contribute, and better themselves, not to sit on their asses and leech. nobs 10:25, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
There are a great number of problems with it- though I'm not sure what you pointed out has to do with anything. Of course you can implement it equally, if the basic income is fixed. If anything it shouldn't be equal, as different areas have different costs of living. I'm not a sociologist but I'm also pretty sure humans are "built" to go out and hunt, gather, and fuck. We're certainly not built to go to space or ride inside giant metal birds to get to the other part of the planet. Whatever point about human nature can be made, it doesn't change the reality. Ideally, everyone would contribute to society in a way that makes use of their unique skills, unfortunately that's not the way the economy valuates things. Increasingly, our economy is valuing highly-educated professionals and no-skill drones, there is not much in between and there doesn't seem to be some huge middle class-building industry on the horizon. You either become a healthcare specialist, engineer, lawyer, or tech worker or you're relegated to the call center of fast food assembly. That's not a rosy future for people or for the capitalist system, it is not sustainable and it will prompt change in the way we think about "work". Hentropy (talk) 21:59, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't think the US actually tried everything against unemployment.
The idea that is presented in this video is not basic income, it's life salary (well, at least if I put the right link, the video is called : "Lifelong Salary or Basic Income? The difference explained by Bernard Friot"): a salary of 1500€ for everyone aged 18 or more, with four levels of qualifications, the maximum salary being 6000€. This includes socializing all salaries, to create local investment funds (that control investments) and salary funds (which control the salaries, that go from 1500€ to 6000€), both controlled by elected people (the idea of funds controlled by elected people comes from the elections to the social security funds in France, before the right-wing decided to end elections). It also includes abolishing private property for ownership by use. I don't think basic income is a moonbat idea, it's not even necessarly left-wing. Diacelium (talk) 11:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
I apologize, I thought you were insinuating that both ideas were moonbattery. Hentropy (talk) 18:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
I've been advocating for the negative income tax for years. Part of the NIT is a basic guaranteed income. Not enough to live even a "respectable" life with "dignity", but the absolute bare minimum you need to live. You get food, housing, medical care, and clothing, but your neighbors are awful (because they can't afford better), your food is just basics like cooking supplies and vegetables but limited animal products, and so on. If you want more, you have to work, but you never have to worry that you'll be on the street starving or forced into prostitution. CorruptUser (talk) 00:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
The negative income tax probably wouldn't be enough to solve homelessness and lack of medical care. The only things that would solve these would be a free healthcare and some kind of free housing program, and having welfare above the poverty level. Diacelium (talk) 10:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
I include the absolute bare minimum housing and healthcare as part of basic income. And when I say "bare minimum", I don't mean a tent in the woods but the very least needed to still be able to look for work. The entire point of the Negative Income Tax is that no one should ever be in a situation where either you are too poor to work (i.e., starving, weak) or working will make you poorer (surprisingly common in the US). CorruptUser (talk) 05:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

This discussion focuses solely on a cash disbursement to individuals. I would suggest to make it meaningful a complete analysis of subsidies paid to individuals and families be included if its to be taken serious. In the United States this would include the cost of public education, student grants and loans, FNMA subsidies, tuition and childcare tax credits, ACA subsidies and tax credits, excess Social Security disbursements over a worker's contributions, per capita allocation of agricultural subsidies, Medicare, Medicaid, Earned Income Credit, Food Stamps, prescription drug benefit, etc., to list only a few of guaranteed income disbursements already being paid.

And the danger here is, if the cash disbursement was used principally to purchase foreign manufactured goods, such as clothing or electronic devices, it would add to a nation's trade deficitWikipedia's W.svg and be counterproductive in creating employment. nobs 16:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

[edit] Pizzagate Redux

Comrades. I have been under deep cover the last few years. I fear I am losing my sanity. There is talk of /r/TD and conspiracy that the pizzagate arrests are imminent. I just don't understand why they have to make up such outlandish claims when there are actual conspiracies seemingly afoot with Russia and brazen conflicts of interests. Such delectable low hanging conspiracy fruit. For the first time I am generally afraid my country, nay, the world will dip into chaos. I have an urge to stock up on guns, ammunition, canned food, and water. I want to build a bomb shelter to protect my family from the impending Armageddon. And then I realize I sound just like... they do. I am starting to question if I am just as delusional as they are. Maybe Obama was the anti-christ, maybe Trump is the god emperor. Maybe my cover was blown and I was put into a coma and all of this is just a dream. I fear we are losing the fight of rationality and reality. "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." Such a paradox... TheCheatI run on alcohol 03:30, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Have you considered buying some gold bullion? nobs 04:05, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Russia and the Cold War has long been a foil to conspiracy theorists, ever since the Roswell incident and Kennedy assassination. Russian media has done a good job of playing off western conspiracy theorists for their benefit, the pizzagate people are not going to believe Russia did anything wrong when all they watch is conspiracy-minded RT and when their JAQer-in-Chief tells them there's nothing to see there. Hentropy (talk) 04:36, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
If you can - get the equivalent of what in the UK is called an allotment - gardening makes you more philosophical. Acquire and understand various '(non-computer orientated) useful skills books, have and be able to use a manual typewriter. Learn useful skills - how to write readable factual and fictional texts, various crafts, orienteering/map-reading, even geocaching. Encourage others to do the same.

These will to some extent provide a distraction/a new set of priorities - and if the doom and gloom does come to pass you are an asset to whoever survives. 31.51.113.250 (talk) 12:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Growing up in the mid 90's, Pittsburgh was a hotbed of conservative fake news, mostly via the Mellon-Scaife family's support of Chris Ruddy's fake news operation in Arkansas. Every day the litany was, 'Hillary's going to be arrested tomorrow!' And then it never happened, but you weren't thinking about yesterday, because no, really, tomorrow the indictments are gonna come down. And so, after 20 years of fake news, the right has successfully assassinated Hillary Clinton's character. Not one conviction, not one trial, and there never will be - the lies, and the conservatives who enabled them, don't need that kind of closure. The important thing is tomorrow, which never fucking comes, so the promise never diminishes, and with time the lies become indistinguishable from the truth to the fervent believer. Semipenultimate (talk) 18:32, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

But to maybe give an answer to TheCheat, you're not losing your mind. The most insidious aspect of human evil is how it can convince good men that the only path to victory is through its use. Fight oblivion, tilt against windmills, don't give up hope, be the beacon you want to see through the darkness knowing against reason that someone else will see it. Also, as BoN said above, take up gardening. Semipenultimate (talk) 19:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Or any other hobby that interests.

As the saying goes - Nil illegitimi carborundum, sed carborundum illegitimi (Don't let the bastards grind you down, grind the bastards down) - and your definition of success is the best revenge. 31.51.113.250 (talk) 22:01, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Don't ask a question to make a point, so I dunno, tell a story. That's why the Bible still makes sense to so many people. Also this story is so damn the truth I could tear my eyes out right now. Gaul Dernitt (talk) 05:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to le edgey 4chan culture that is in the alt-right. At least cannabis is legal in the states, so start smoking weed by exploiting legal loopholes!—127.0.0.1 (talk) 02:11, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

[edit] Donald Trump's Presidential Cabinet

Yeah, that certainly is going well for the United States huh? I wonder what other crap will the current Presidential Cabinet excrete out its bureaucratic ass? Too many are getting cozy with Russia and obviously Russia should not be trusted.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:27, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Strongly considering a betting pool as to which scandal, either by number or by type, finally starts turning off the Trumpists. The casual acceptance that sure, they've been lied to about many many things, but nothing that matters, scares the stuffing out of me. These are people who never stopped crucifying Barack Obama for the heinous crime of saying that they'd be able to keep their terrible, exploitative and useless medical plans and then going back on his word when it came out how terrible, exploitative and useless so many of these plans were (and, by the way, they are -still- fighting that battle in every comment forum I see when the ACA comes up). The hypocrisy of it doesn't surprise me, but the lackadaisical attitude towards the process of continuous, obvious lying and literal doublethink is just damned confusing. At some point, these people are going to realize the brownies they're being fed are just a pan o lof dogshit... right? Semipenultimate (talk) 00:45, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Depends on who exactly you're talking about. Trump said it himself with his Fifth Avenue comment- his diehards aren't going anywhere. His frothing populist and alt-right fanbase never gave a single iota about ethics, morality, balances of power, corruption, or even policy really. They wanted to get the guy in the White House to stick it to, well, us. Even if their God-Emperor goes down in a giant ball of fire and destroys the Republican brand for a generation, they will always fondly remember how they made the political world burn for that magical campaign and Presidency. How big that group is, is hard to really pin down. Then you have your various Republican hacks... they got on board with Trump because he promised them a Republican administration and all that brings with it, and being in office less than a month they still haven't gotten those shiny things, and they want to bury their head in the sand until they get them. Anyone hoping for a quick impeachment is going to be disappointed, I think. Republicans have not faced any electoral consequences for any of this yet and until they do, buckle up. The only faint hope is that one of these Trump House deportees can be flipped- if Flynn admits that Trump ordered him to talk about sanctions on that call, for example. Hentropy (talk) 01:33, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Trump's cabinet includes an uneasy coalition of Republican hacks, true believers, and religious righters, but if you look at his inner family circle, they are all "killers". Ivanka's ice cold android-trying-to-imitate-human-emotions persona and Eric and Don Jr.'s enjoyment of killing exotic animals are literal manifestations of Trump family values: i.e. No Mercy/Crush All Opposition. Knowing what Trump prizes most, it's very likely we'll learn that Jared Kushner has a killer's heart behind that Nice Boychik face. On the campaign trail, Trump preached the value of killer instinct, promising to bring in killer businessmen who were willing to cut throats to Make America Great Again. Problem is, "killers" act out of self-interest only, and have a natural disinclination for working to advance the interests of anyone but themselves. Leuders (talk) 14:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
So you don't think Flynn's civil rights were violated? nobs 07:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
The wiretap on Flynn was completely legal. Find another straw to grasp at. Hentropy (talk) 08:13, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
This needs to be looked at in a wider context, vis-a-vis Trump's vaunted ambition to repair US-Russian relations, a joint effort to destroy ISIS, and the Iranian-Russian axis. The winner out of Flynn's departure may be ISIS which could survive, Iran which continues on its path as a nuclear superpower under shariah law, and Assad who remains in power. Hell, we might as well have kept Obama on for another 4 years, or elected Hillary. Just who exactly is in the driver's seat of American foreign policy? The president? or a bunch of unelected shadow warriors lurking in the darkness of the US intelligence community? Fortunately Flynn was a soldier and not a politician; when one goes down in service another stands ready to step into his place. nobs 13:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
What #would# Joseph McCarthy say? 86.191.125.144 (talk) 13:33, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
To draw a parallel, Ronald Reagan's first National Security Adviser Richard Allen was out in days after his inauguration. It was considered no big deal cause the position of National Security Adviser was being downgraded in favor of elevating the Secretary of State as the chief spokesman on foreign policy. The Sectretary of State, Alexander Haig was out by June over differences in approach to US-Russian relations. On the surface Reagan's foreign policy of pursuing a tougher line against Russia seemed in a shambles his first six months in office. As a whole, few would deny Reagan's foreign policy was highly successful after 8 years in office, or that his strategic purpose and vision was not achieved. nobs 13:49, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
The only parallel is that they're both ostensibly Republican. Neither Richard Allen nor Alexander Haig was openly talking to the Soviets and contradicting US policy under Carter in violation of the Logan Act. Hentropy (talk) 18:38, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Who thinks the American tax payers should get a refund for government stupidity? With the whole fiasco with Flynn, goes to show how stupid our government is.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
@Hentropy, in the case of Flynn it appears there is more than we're being told. This morning's WaPo says the eavesdropping reports claim Flynn could be subject to Russian blackmail. The Logan Act B.S. is just for public consumption to make the whole mess appear to make sense, as there obviously was no violation of the Logan Act. I suspect he was let go for the same reasons he was dismissed from DIA. Evidence of this comes from the fact a top aid of his was denied a security clearance by CIA only days before his resignation. If Flynn couldn't get his people in, he couldn't do his own job. Something Trump is finding out himself right now.
The net result has been Flynn's effort to offer Putin a choice -- better relations with the US in exchange for Russia backing off its cozy relationship with Iran, has foundered. The question now is, Why is Tillerson needed if the idea of ending Russian sanctions and better relations is dead?. nobs 00:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
@nobs: Well, from a purely practical standpoint, he's the CEO of a major oil company with extensive experience in international relations. Exxon has its own pseudo-intelligence agency, which creates skills needed especially after so many of the State Department's upper brass were fired or resigned. Also, just because Flynn is gone doesn't mean that Tillerson can't try to promote friendly relations with Russia. Also, Mattis is urging NATO allies to spend more or the US will back off from Europe. It still appears that the administration is taking a pro-Russian stance, even without Flynn. RoninMacbeth (talk) 06:01, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
I would like to make a note, the other day me and my family were talking about interrogation and I went to look up unlawful interrogation and there was a link to the White House website on the subject but when I went to click the link, the information on the subject was gone. The kicker was that it was an executive order by Obama but it was gone. Pretty dark path the government is going down, not even two months and the Trump Administration is on its last legs.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
As soon as there's a bipartisan committee in the Senate (or less likely House), it would seem to be the end game for Trump. They'll have Flynn's nuts in a vice once they subpoena him: talk like a canary for immunity, perjure himself, or plead the 5th Amendment (and imply that there's much worse to be found). None of these options are good for Team Trump since they're deeply tied to Russian interests and multiple spy agencies, domestic and foreign, appear to have the goods on them anyway. Bongolian (talk) 03:56, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
It'll be deep-sixed like Hillary's emails. The only winners out of this is Iran, ISIS, and Assad. IOW, the incompetence and failures of the Obama/Hillary foreign policy is codified into law, together with a diminished US influence and growing Ruassian influence in the Middle East. The policy of rollback was nipped in the bud. nobs 13:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm sure the Obama Shadow Government is behind it. Leuders (talk) 13:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The Flynn flap is nothing. Trump shitcanned Sally Yates in the Justice Department for not executing his immigration EO. Two weeks later classified information she was handling was leaked to David Ignatius of the Washington Post. Both their asses belong in jail. nobs 19:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

[edit] World Press Photo 2017

Maybe you've seen it, maybe you haven't, but a picture you've probably seen won press photo of the year in the World Press Photo 2017 decision.

There's some debate and I listened about it on AIH (Canadian pun news so take that for what it's worth). Summarised, it's that journalism and bravery are good, but there's more to the art of a press photo than those things.

To me, I guess it just never mattered before, good journalism is good journalism, it captures what we wouldn't normally see because it walks into the lion's den, so to speak, with cameras and microphones and everything else that liars lions don't like. And somebody has to have the flagship photo of the year and I think it's monumentally important to show the world how dangerous being part of the free press can be.

But I also understand that this was capturing a violent act's celebration of itself, if that makes sense. This is the victory moment of something we should abhor. It's so striking and powerful because we understand that. But, as a victory, is it potentially powerful in a dangerous way because others don't understand it as abhorent? And should that deter the judges from making the decision?

Edit: I didn't write clearly on whether the free press or the killers were dangerous. Gaul Dernitt (talk) 04:08, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Great choice of image. Documentative of the real world, well-taken "cinematographically", reflective of today's larger historical drama... And as far as values are concerned, I think 95%+ of people who view it will have a reaction along the lines of shocked condemnation of the killing itself, perhaps with an added vague sense that we really need to do something about the whole IS-related situation (which is arguably positive, in the face of inaction motivated by complacent ignorance). Besides — like with any decent winning shot — it courts abundant controversy. Good choice, again. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:52, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
I also agree with the pick, but I have to say I didn't spend much time with the other candidates. AiH interviewed a photographer who almost lost an eye. His hostess died in the shelling. The debate seems to have pushed focus, at least in AiH. But really I dunno. Gaul Dernitt (talk) 08:25, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

[edit] ATTENTION SYSOPS

I've been off the site for about two days and came back this morning. First thing, I just had to sit down and patrol like 100+ edits — a few of which were actual vandalism (and quite a few of which were controversial nonetheless).

Dear folks with sysop — please help us by using your fine judgement to patrol edits (unpatrolled edits show a red exclamation point in the Recent changes feed). It makes a difference.

Love, the Scruffy of RW, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:21, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Goodpost.gif Bongolian (talk) 19:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

[edit] Living people project

If any other editors are interested, I wouldn't mind working on a project for reviewing articles on living people and making sure they're factually accurate and don't contain potentially incorrect or libelous information; not sure what a good starting point would be, but I'm thinking that we should make sure that aside from humor, that claims or allegations are at least sourced, so that RW can't be accused of creating libel, just reporting what other sources have concluded themselves.--BrittanyPBone (talk) 17:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I did a one time run-through of all of them 2 years ago looking specifically for uncited claims of criminal activity, but yeah, BLP pages age quickly and should be reviewed. What kind of help would you like in that kind of project? ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:25, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
That's a worthy project. I would like to add that there are sometimes lurking pages that are not labeled with the "Living People" category. These are usually pages that are about a website or organization, but that also make substantial statements about a living person. Bongolian (talk) 19:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Folks, you're being snowed by a real live pizzagator here. Hipocrite (talk) 19:36, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Hipocrite needs to stop stalking and derailing, other editors are apparently objecting to his dispruptive behavior as well, not to mention him unilaterally edit warring and undoing changes even when they've been discussed with other editors and admins.--BrittanyPBone (talk) 19:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Everything you write above this is a lie. Hipocrite (talk) 19:55, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Hipocrite — please refrain from unsubstantiated attacks on someone, particularly when they are proposing positive contributions to RW. It does not look good for you, particularly if you're ever involved in a coop case. Bongolian (talk) 20:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
The fuck? Are you not aware that BrittanyPBone states they are the owner of http://tspettibone.com/ , which is this? Hipocrite (talk) 21:00, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
And don't miss her Twitter. It's very... Gently stirred Alt-right with a twist of lemon InfoWars. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:23, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
My apologies to you, Hipocrite. I didn't realize her connection to Pizzagate, not having followed it that closely. It would have been helpful if you had included the links with your first post on her. Bongolian (talk) 03:24, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Also Percy, regarding the Twitter feed, RooshV seems to think that the Pettibone twins are trolling what he calls the "new right" (meaning alt right?).[6] Bongolian (talk) 03:38, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Hahaha. So PUA manospherians accuse the Pettibone sisters of being deep cover liberals? Let me guess that this has something to do with the fact that their basic level of trust towards women isn't exactly high to begin with. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 05:23, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Not a "deep cover liberal", but I'll explain more in private email if you're interested as opposed to just being passive-aggressive.--BrittanyPBone (talk) 16:53, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
@BrittanyPBone It's certainly a good idea, though you'd probably be wise to get started on your own at first — you know, leading by example (and showing us what you had in mind). Now, I don't suppose you think that this project of yours ought to prioritize people of... certain political affiliations? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Well RBP if you want to start with the Vox Day article you can read my summary of the changes in detail on the talk page just as an example if you want; I'm aware that RW has an ideology or mission statement so I don't plan on screwing things in favor of other viewpoints (e.x. 'alternative science, conspiracies, etc) - just making sure that all information on living people articles besides "humor" is at least true or attributed to a source.--BrittanyPBone (talk) 19:48, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
That's great. I vote that we start with focusing exclusively on intelligent design proponents/creationists, and when they're finished, we look into what group we might cover next. Certainly there's no rush to cover anyone political. How does that sound? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:01, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
That works for me, as far as my proposal goes, I think people who are public figures don't really need our attention since the libel laws on public figures are not as strict as private individuals.--BrittanyPBone (talk) 16:56, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

[edit] CETA approved by European Parliament

Anyone has an opinion on this ? I don't know much about it, but it seems already stupid with the arbitral tribunals. Diacelium (talk) 00:45, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

You can get more info here: CETA.
With Brexit looming while Canada's next door neighbor is acting like Europe's schizophrenic lover who is also flirting with that shirtless foreigner, there are too many variables to see where this is all going. And national parliaments still have to approve it.
Predictably, the official communication is all about how awesome it is going to be, and the opponents are all about how crappy things are going to get. Easy exchange of people is good for jobs if you like traveling (especially Europeans who want to do business in Canada). In general, I think access to a bigger market is good for resource security, which might become important considering the changing climate and its consequences (if your crops fail, you won't have to choose between starving or ruining your country with emergency imports). ISDS has a poor track record (well, it depends on which side you are) but apparently CETA is supposed to leave health and environmental concerns to local governments. European IP protections get exported to Canada, so you might see that as a loss for Canada.
Personally, I try to be cautiously optimistic about it, because partnership with Canada might help Europe against the destabilization caused by Brexit. As for the UK, who knows... --Cmonk (talk) 02:56, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
So, most opponents say that it would favor industrial agriculture (which makes earth less fertile, so it's kinda bad on the long term), and other things bad for environnment, like making it easier to import fossil energies. Some fear it might even lead to legalization of corn GMO, that is banned because of the precautionary principle. Some also say it gives more power to multinational corporations, or that it would be bad for public services. I'll look later to see if what they're saying is true of plain bullshit.. Diacelium (talk) 11:13, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Fossil fuels may not be a problem in the long term because Europeans are not in denial regarding AGW and several countries are pushing hard for renewables (hydro, solar, wind, geothermal, ...). Nonetheless, Europe is still using a lot of fossil fuels, and the additional effort by a few countries like Germany to eliminate nuclear power might cause an increase in demand in the short term.
Russia is currently Europe's main fossil fuel provider (oil and gas pipelines); but if the Russians persist with their aggressive foreign policies, they will get more sanctions, and then they will get more angry, and it is not clear at all what will happen with their supply (Europe still needs the energy so it can't just boycott Russia, and it would not benefit Russia to drop one of its biggest customers).
By lowering import taxes, CETA can help Canada sell its gas, which is the least bad fossil fuel to use while transitioning to more renewables. If Europe increases its gas consumption but reduces its oil consumption and dependency on Russia, that might still count as a win.
I think a valid argument against CETA is that in the short term it will increase competition, which will likely lead to the elimination of some small businesses and to an increase in power for large businesses that could be detrimental to consumers (less choice, lower quality, maybe eventually higher prices).
Some national parliaments might still end up rejecting CETA because there is a strong understandable public opposition due to the closed nature of the negotiations and the perceived advantage given to large businesses; but mixed into this are also probably some nationalistic tendencies fueled by fear of terrorism and political extremism. --Cmonk (talk) 14:33, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't know a tenth of what I should about CETA before commenting, but — just as an aside (based on comments I've read)...

It's interesting to note that the same far leftists in Sweden who (most nobly and rightfully) scream their lungs off about the rise of the Alt-right now warn that CETA has absolutely no redeeming qualities whatsoeverWikipedia's W.svg.

Suddenly, they contort, racism and xenophobic wallbuilding isn't the biggest threat to society (like it was yesterday). Starting this morning, peaceful commerce in the form of free trade is. Facepalm.png

I mean, even as an economic red myself — can't we atleast cherish the parts of deals like these which (if nothing else) work to bring the world a little closer together in a time of widespread fearfulness and constant talks of isolation?

It seems counterproductive to hate walls and hate free trade. Pick one. Bah — I'm blaming Hegel for popularizing the philosophy that logical contradiction is a virtue.

For a great example of that too-far-gone "twilight zone" wherein the far left (in fighting the monster) becomes the monster, please see here. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:37, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't get your point. The far-left can have common ideas with the alt-right just like they have common ideas with libertarians. I am far-left on american standards yet I do agree with the far-right candidate on some points (for example on planned obsolescence). I don't see how immigration policy should be correlated with free-trade policies, there are people who want a fully open-border policy for immigration but not free trade borders, and it isn't incoherent in any way, it's two different issues (open immigration policy is made to welcome people in need, nothing to do with free-trade). And there isn't just the far-left against CETA, at least Paul Magnette doesn't seem far-left. Even some centrists in France voted against it.
Also, Bernie Sanders is opposed to economic open borders, for example. Diacelium (talk) 14:50, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
So Canada wants to join the European Union. Fine. You can have them. And Swedish libs are worried what few jobs are left will be eaten up by robots, the remainder will lose out to Canadian agricultural products. Welcome to the 21st century. nobs 15:03, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
@Diacelium, immigration indeed can be a trade issue, the crossing of borders of human capital for employment and economic opportunity. For example, US agricultural subsidies to farmers since the 1930s have been blamed for creating widespread unemployment in Mexican agriculture and the cause of Mexican agricultural migrants into the United States for 80 years now. One purpose of Nafta was to level the playing field for Mexican agriculture. nobs 15:13, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

[edit] Is this Trump's stunt double?

He can actually read from a teleprompter and sticks to the script. [7][8] Less extemporizing and vulgar, a bit of a Boston twang, a few years younger, and possibly a few inches shorter, too. nobs 19:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

[edit] Alt-right makes up news about Trump tweeting about Nibiru

There's apparently some news going around that Trump tweeted about Nibiru before it was removed seconds later. This is being used to explain why Michael Flynn resigned. There's not even a screenshot of it anywhere ... on the Internet. In the instance that someone did see this tweet, don't you think it'd be important to uh... screenshot it?—127.0.0.1 (talk) 21:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Considering you say its "going around", mind linking us to an example of it doing so? Also, no need to link to TOW for Nibiru. Th hug.gif Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
I actually edited my comment right before you made this one to include links.—127.0.0.1 (talk) 22:34, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Both links are the same as of writing this, just fyi. Hentropy (talk) 23:19, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

This was a fun read, but I'm about 99.9% sure that it's parody writing. Still fun, like reading The Onion. But if passed along as real, it'd be an open-and-shut case of fake news. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:04, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

[edit] "Press is the enemy of the American People"

The only thing, the only thing that's even remotely okay about this situation is that Trump hasn't acted on these words. Why are such openly fascist statements even remotely tolerated? What the HELL is going on? ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 23:11, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

As Trevor Noah said, Trump is probably just an old man.
More generally though, I think it's a cycle. We make progress, trying to make life easier (or even possible) for more people. But some keep living like it's still yesterday, not realizing that they also have to adapt to this "progress" because it is a double-edged sword with dire consequences when misused. But after they fail to kill everyone, the survivors move on carefully, setting the stage for a new progress bubble. My prediction: if we are still around in 10 years, things are going to go great for the next 50 years. --Cmonk (talk) 23:29, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Criticizing the press isn't fascist. I don't know how things goes in USA, but in France medias push mostly for a center-right/centrist/center-left opinion, they ignored facts on demonstrations against a law to make them look as brutal thugs, they spread fear on islam, the veil, they ask opinions of CEOs but not of trade unions and workers, etc... So the far-right is just their making. From what I heard, medias seemed to push more for Hillary or Trump than Bernie Sanders. I think polls show that majority of americans support free healthcare and free education, making Bernie the candidate closer of everyone's opinion, but somehow Hillary wins the primary. Diacelium (talk) 23:48, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Polls show Americans support free healthcare? See, that kinda fake news comes from reading the commie press. Americans may be stupid, but they're not that stupid. nobs 00:32, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
He isn't just criticizing the press, he constantly insults them and he literally tweeted that the media is "the enemy of the American People". His last press conference contains a number of blatant lies, rhetoric, propaganda ("we are searching for peace ... through strength") and general grasping for straws; an official WH-controlled "real news" outlet wouldn't be out of character. --Cmonk (talk) 01:02, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't think it's horrible to insult the press. But yeah, the lies and his administration's lies and propaganda are a problem (The bowling green massacre, for example). These four years are going to be really bad for America. Frankly, even anarchy now seems better than Trump's rule. Diacelium (talk) 01:18, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
You are right about the press, they can withstand verbal abuse (would be better if they didn't have to...). But it is not clear whether he should be taken "seriously or literally", and what he says could incite his supporters to act unpredictably. --Cmonk (talk) 01:45, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
What's freaking people out is it's only the first 30 days, and the leader of the free world is pushing the narrative that the press (with the exception of Fox News, Breitbart, etc.) is an enemy of the people. However I don't see this behavior as part of a master plan to advance fascism, but rather, a symptom of his massive ego; e.g. bombastically insulting detractors, then running to a weekend rally in order to bathe in the love of supporters after a rough week. - Leuders (talk) 15:53, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Trashing Fox News is old school. Not sure that holds up in Trump era. CNN has done more to promote Trump. nobs 20:43, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
He tweeted his preference for Fox over CNN. Couldn't be clearer. - Leuders (talk) 22:26, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Controversy creates ratings. Nobody knows that better than Trump & Zucker who've had a long, mutually profitable relationship advancing each others careers. Nobody knows yet what FOX will do now that Roger Ailes is out, but it won't be the same. nobs 22:32, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
At this point, it is not clear whether anyone has a master plan for anything (maybe Russia? Bannon?), but a series of unfortunate events can be just as good. Fascism is one of those emotionally loaded words that has the additional misfortune of being ill-defined (multiple definitionsWikipedia's W.svg). It is at least more-or-less accepted that some form of authoritarianism is part of it, but Trump is willing to back down against the judiciary, and Congress members may be greedy but they are not dumb. I think people underestimate the importance of words. The media doesn't have any official "power", but influence over public opinion is a mighty thing. Trump may appear to some as a whiner, but his supporters may coalesce into an influential group. My point is that focusing too much on the man is not helpful: he won the election despite what was perceived as his shortcomings, and he hasn't changed much. --Cmonk (talk) 22:31, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Trump's words matter. --Cmonk (talk) 01:36, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more with you that words matter, yet you throw around that word, 'fascist' as if it were your dirty socks across the room. As if by using it it justifies your outrage and indignation. And it is repeatedly used in speaking of the Trump-Putin relationship and defending Ukrainian independence. Now, if words are indeed so precious, have you bothered to see, at all, the language Putin uses speaking to a large domestic and global audience, to describe the status quo situation in the Ukraine left behind by Obama, Hillary, and the CIA? Putin calls the US-backed Ukrainian regime fascist. And he has the entire Russian nation - the nation that actually defeated fascism and damn well knows what fascism is, behind him. If you don't like Trump, fine. We get the message. But that should be able to be communicated without disclosing the fact that calling him a fascist for wanting improved relations with Putin shows you haven't a clue what the issues are. Did Franklin Roosevelt wanting good relations with Josef Stalin make Roosevelt a fascist? or a communist? or an authoritarian? Please, spare us the hyperbolic nonsense, and do yourself a favor and make yourself look, at a minimum, informed. nobs 04:48, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Holy shit! Correct me if I'm wrong, but — did YOU just give the m********g Red Army credit for winning us World War II!? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 04:51, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, yah. All the US did was nuke 80,OOO Japs. And Obama's uncle, who single-handedly liberated Auschwitz. Thoses were our only contributions to victory. nobs 04:57, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
I apologize if I offended anyone, it was not my intention. I do not accuse anyone of 'fascism'. You are right to say that I am misinformed about the word: I know that it feels 'bad', but I just don't know what it means (all the definitions confuse me, and I am probably not alone: old article), and I actually tried to defend Trump (not going too far against the judiciary was a respectable move IMHO). My point was that the context was more important that the individual; I focused on negative hypotheticals about Trump supporters and the Washington Post link focused on complementary view from others. Regarding Russia, I mostly have a speculative and biased view of the situation in which Putin may be implementing a long-term plan. I appreciate Trump's stance about strengthening positive relationship with Russia, although Europe's involvement makes things complicated. --Cmonk (talk) 05:58, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
I apologize, too. I was a bit heavy handed there and in reading your comments, yes, you are trying to be fair. I'm suggesting those who put 'Trump' and 'fascist' in the same sentence, and I don't care if there quoting tbe Washington Post who makes a habit, are throwing gasoline on a fire. And it's the dumbfucks of the Washington Post and CIA who have been stirring up shit and trying to inflame people precisely because Donald Trump talks about their records of disasters and failures. Donald Trump was elected because he has no record of the monstrous failures of the CIA, or the massive lies and distortions of the Washington Post. Look at this piece of shit video from the Washington Post, for example. As if they are on to a motherfucking scandal involving Trump. As if the Post editors are too stupid to explain, or the Post editors think viewers are too stupid to understand, common business practices. nobs 06:44, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
People "tolerate" them because most of the middle part of the country that the left is consistently writing off, agrees with him. They may not believe they're the "enemy" in those words but most certainly seem convinced that they're just a bunch of lying, distorting "elites". The fact that the entire media fucked up the election royal at every step doesn't help. The fact that the media still seemingly hasn't learned much from it. They don't get that people aren't going to swallow their information, leaks, reporting, no matter how factual it actually is, when they've spent the last 2 years editorializing and crystal-balling and being wrong literally all the time. The media brought it on themselves, so long as Trump has a majority in Congress I don't think he'll do anything, without a smoking gun all this media stuff is just needling. Whining about the media is certainly nothing new, and Trump has made it into an art form. There's going to have to be some crow-eating and self-correction. It might be too late but sweeping the partisans and shills out and prioritizing information over entertainment would be a good start. Hentropy (talk) 00:46, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
I watched Trump's combative and highly entertaining press conference. To be perfectly honest, live the act seems a lot more good natured than you folks seem to suggest. Trump acknowledges that large swaths of the press are going to be hostile to him and his administration. He mostly teases them about this. We're not much used to a President who routinely uses sarcastic humor. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 04:01, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
While Trump invokes Reagan, he's really more reminiscent of Nixon. He's taking the Madman Theory to a new level. Like Nixon, he won with less than 51%, and has an even more openly hostile relationship with the press. When Nixon won reelection with 62%, the press hated him even more. They won't let go. It wasn't crime, corruption, or incompetence that destroyed Nixon. It was the press. nobs 05:59, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Here's Nixon sending out his Press Secretary to answer embarassing questions from the press. It's likely to reach a level like this at some point, if it hasn't already. nobs 06:25, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
In his conference (which didn't make me laugh at all), he did make some good points, and the media are certainly responsible for breeding a culture where the news have to be sensational. I often worry about being taken in by some rhetoric that would appeal to my sensibilities and prevent me from seeing the big picture. OTOH, the last Big Bad Thing happened 70 years ago, enough time that all we have to go on are books and a distorted view propagated through video games and movies. What we have seen these past few years is an attempt at rebranding reality with words that are less emotionally loaded (it's not torture, only enhanced interrogation; there is no mass surveillance, barely some automated metadata collection). Trump ran (is running?) his campaign with the promise of telling it like it is, of being disruptive to the Establishment. Some of his (or is it Bannon's?) policies are definitely disruptive, and I have little doubt that he is telling it like it is in his mind. The silver lining is that the stigma associated with "fake news" has resulted in an emphasis on teaching critical thinking to kids. Hopefully that will come in handy when it's their time to take over. --Cmonk (talk) 09:51, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

[edit] Civil War?: Trump Administration on its last legs

Knowing that there is a very obvious connection between the Trump Administration and Russia, what are the odds of a new civil war brewing? Trump is definitely a fascist and his policies and excessive use of executive orders are not going well for the white house. The American people are getting fed up and I doubt the military would want to put up with the fact of a Russian spy ship in American waters and near a naval base. Will there be a peaceful revolt, a full blown civil war or Trump actually staying in office?--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 14:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

If we keep hearing crazy shit like you said, we need to bring back the war on drugs. nobs 15:13, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black? nobs, you are the king of spewing crazy shit. There is no possible way of me reaching your level of batshit crazy. Nice try though.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:02, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Everything you say is either very off-topic or just *odd,* so.... Lord Aeonian (talk) 20:03, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
@Lord Aeonian, me or nobs?--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:17, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Rationalzombie94, you should be more circumspect in your worldview. You say "Trump is definitely a fascist" but, really, despite the people he's surrounded by and his crazy persona, he's not gone anywhere close to Mussolini as yet. To think that our republic's very existence is threatened by this crap is ludicrous. You make a big deal about "a Russian spy ship in American waters" despite the fact that subs are perfectly allowed to float around in international waters and have been doing so ever since there have been submarines. There's nothing "big deal" about this. It happens all the time and has been happening for that last 200 years. Our taxes pay for a huge infrastructure to watch these things. And then you start JAQing off about civil war and chaos and impeachment and all that shit. For Bob's sake, you actually sound like Rick Wiles and his paranoid conspiracy theory bullshit I hear every fuckin' day on shortwave. Give it a fucking break, dude. I like that you come into the bar here and stand up on it and shout every so often, but please, think before you post. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 05:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

[edit] Shoutout to the Bernie folks

Apparently we're a "neoliberal" site. You'll have to oppose free trade harder, it seems. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 16:57, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

"neoliberal and hard left narratives" Do they even know what neoliberal means ? Diacelium (talk) 17:09, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
We already had this discussion. A new liberal is the same as an old liberal (classical liberal) adjusted for time and space. nobs 00:13, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
No, Donald Trump supporters are united in at least one thing, universally, they have a piss-poor understanding of what words mean. They think "neoliberal" is a substitute word for "SJW" where it's a meaningless jab other than defining "the bad guys". That it has an actual meaning tied deeply in the concepts of valuing liberal democracies, capitalism, and free trade, well, too much for them, I think. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 06:25, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

[edit] Tiny social experiment

This is not directed at the community at large, but to the individual reader. You don't need to know me to participate.

Hypothesis: If posting this makes me some kind of fencesitter/mitläufer/feetdragger in your eyes — or worse yet, makes me part of the problem and/or the enemyWikipedia's W.svg — then you may suffer from clinical zealotry.

Discuss. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:37, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I would prefer a world where everyone consistently applied this asshole/ideologue dichotomy to the current world. I do think, however, that your graphic suggests that all of these ideologies are equally "normal", when it is possible that (as Trump-ites would claim) Islam is more pro-asshole than is Christianity. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 18:58, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't really find an issue with the image. The larger message I think it's trying to present is this: pointing out extremist outliers of a group and calling it representative is strawmannning.—127.0.0.1 (talk) 19:09, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
The Reverend has a strong point about splitting. And we'll it soon enough in this Springs budget debate when Trump comes out against his own party on stimulus, infrastrure, single payer, saving social security, and the minimum wage. It'll be hoot to see the Trump haters oppose those issues. nobs 20:09, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Nobs, I'm saving this. Let's see if any of this comes to pass. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 20:57, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Why do satanistes get in the "asshole" category ? From what I read about satanism (the "moderate" ones, not those who sacrifice people), they don't seem to be assholes, it's just a religion (or à philosophy, depends on what kind of satanism), however stupid it sounds. Diacelium (talk) 21:24, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
To me they've never really been a serious "religion", that would suggest they actually believe that Satan and God exist and that Satan is better, when they clearly don't. I don't think everyone who calls themselves a Satanist is an asshole but rather than call themselves humanists or something that accurately describes their philosophy, they call themselves Satanists and do "satanist" things to troll/scare/make Christians uncomfortable. In other words, "you're not helping." Hentropy (talk) 22:13, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
(EC)You sort of get the point with the last two but they are badly expressed. Someone who "Hates God" logically isn't an atheist because to "hate" someone you really have to believe they exist. And as for the second one - what's wrong with worshipping Satan? And does anyone really claim that all men do this?--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 22:15, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Keep in mind that RBP didn't make the image and that a user from Imgur made it. It's not perfect by any means, but try seeing what image is trying to say through the feminist comparison. I would agree that "asshole" is a poor choice of words here, but a post I made previously on this topic gets what the image is trying to say.—127.0.0.1 (talk) 22:45, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
I said "You sort of get the point with the last two". But really while the first two have real individuals in the "asshole" category, the second two have straw men. So it could probably have been done better while making the same point. --Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 07:52, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Isn't what you posted actually an example of Splitting_(psychology)Wikipedia's W.svg? WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:36, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah I don't think most people would disagree with the central thesis of "assholes v everyone else" but it's rarely that simple. A simpler example is someone who is ostensibly part of the "good" group but may have sympathies or support for the assholes. "I'm not a KKK/ISIS/Nazi/genocidal, but..." kind of situations. People oppose to bigotry often accuse bigots of lumping in all the goods with the bads and broad brushing- but really many of them don't, many of them see as much nuance as the rest of us but just don't see it as a pressing deterrent to their bigotry. Like how a rationalist might say that a church's charitable contributions does not excuse or absolve them of perpetuating bigotry on a different scale, or that ignoring bigotry by Christians is just as bad as perpetrating it. Obviously disinfo can play a big part in inflating the problem when it comes to race and other issues. Hentropy (talk) 23:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Interesting point. People oppose to bigotry ... Do you think there are people out there who are for bigotry? or is it generally coached in terms such as national security, public safety, educational standards, job qualifications, or some such? If so, doesn't it seem the two sides are talking past one another? nobs 00:28, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
As usual, it depends on the definition. In my Oxford English Dictionary, a bigot is "a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions". In that case, I partially qualify (the brain is not a piece of rock, words carry weight and some ideas are just too dangerous to be tolerated). But according to Merriam-Webster, a bigot is "a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices". Put this way, I am not too sure; I'd like to think that I am somewhat justified, but I guess I wouldn't notice if I became prejudiced.
It seems there is a distinction to be made: are you a bigot if you defend your own opinion against everything else, or are you a bigot if there are some opinions that you refuse to tolerate? --Cmonk (talk) 01:53, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
I always associated 'bigotry' with irrational intolerance of immutable characteristics; such as racism, xenophobia, etc, where the prejudice and fear is directed at different groups for 'banal' reasons. I don't see how disagreeing with other *opinions,* even to extreme lengths, would be bigotry since the target of such anger could be *anyone,* provided they happen to come to those conclusions. Lord Aeonian (talk) 03:11, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Well in that context I was talking specifically about unapologetic bigots, of which I've had various dealings with. While they might couch their ideology in a lot of dubious statistics, many of them don't make the argument that literally all blacks are violent/stupid/etc. I've also had dealings with literal misandrists on the other side of the spectrum (though it's really the same side), and they're both just as quick to use that stupid "if you had a jar of M&Ms and some were poison..." argument. The point being that the #NotAll arguments is unlikely to sway most people who already don't believe it. Most reasonable people don't mind admitting that not all Muslims are terrorists for example, it's almost become a meme, but especially since most in America have never met a Muslim, the idea of banning them doesn't personally affect them much. Are they part of that maligned 'asshole' group simply because they put the perception of security over the sensibilities of people they've never meet and are unlikely to? Hentropy (talk) 03:40, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Religious bigotry can easily antagonize (mutable) opinions, typically other religious beliefs (or lack of them). --Cmonk (talk) 04:55, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
1) Actually agree with Cmonk. People can be bigoted against those with different lifestyles or religions or weight, yet those technically are mutable.
2) Virtually every American has met a Muslim. I grew up around decent Muslims, and where I'm from is only barely a city; was friendly with the Kurdish and Bosnian refugees, though there were other Muslims. One of my favorite teachers had the complaint that the Muslim men who had moved in would always treat her like crap, where they refused to talk to her as a person because she was a woman. My views on Muslims is thus... complex, though if you didn't know me you'd assume I'm a bigot about it. Saw something horrifying a few years back; in the Midwest, what I think were recently settled refugees, a young man and woman shopping. The man was dressed "normally", jeans and t-shirt, while the woman was in the full niqab or whatever it was called, only had hands and eyes visable. But as they walked, the woman walked literally a foot behind, like a well-trained dog. I don't have a problem with the headscarf, but if I can't see your face, psychologically I can't even register you as "human".
3) Speaking of Muslims again, strawmanned Atheists and Feminists don't claim to speak on behalf of all of Atheism/Feminism, as they can't because they are strawmanned. The KKK (and neo-nazis and so on) doesn't claim to speak on behalf of Christians; they claim to be protecting white people, with various definitions of "white". However, virtually all other white people categorically reject that the KKK represents white people in any form. You do see rejections of Islamist terrorists by other Muslims, but you often see the qualified rejections of "we don't approve of these people, but they are doing it because of your foreign policies/heathen ways/smarmy attitude", or "we don't support terrorism, but we agree with their goals". It may not be the majority that do this, but it's a significant enough number that it's not on the fringe. It's difficult to find a white person that responds to the KKK as "well, we disagree with their methods, but they do what they do because how dare a black person date their niece" or "well, I don't believe it's ok to lynch Mexicans, but I do support a whites-only America". CorruptUser (talk) 05:46, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Your point on the non-Muslim teacher I assume complaining the male Muslim treated her like crap, objectively and sociologically, they probably avoided contact or speaking with her because in their culture it would be disrespectful to her husband. In America, we have the age old stereotype of the "cross-eyed Indian", cross-eyed meaning dishonest to 19th century whites. Whereas in many Indian cultures, children were raised to never look a parent or elder in the face cause it may be challenging or rebellious. Yet they had to watch and follow a parent with the other eye. The result was many cross-eyed Indian children. When they met whites, they defered by looking at them cross-eyed, a sign of respect in Indian culture, but interpreted in white culture as dishonest. nobs 07:28, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

[edit] IP edits not welcome?

The edit filter calls constructive IP edits "spam, harassment, or dox." Mods/techs pls fix. SmartFeller (talk) 05:00, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I verified this bad behavior here too. Reported to the slobs in charge. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 05:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
support
Community
Tools