2025 RationalWiki 'Oregon Plan' Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff—we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $10, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!
Donations so far: $2973.89Goal: $10000

RationalWiki:Saloon bar

From RationalWiki
(Redirected from Saloon bar)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Saloon bar
WIGO Bar colour.png

Welcome, BoN
This is a place for general chit-chat about virtually anything that doesn't fit anywhere else.
Icon beer yellow.gif For previous conversations, see the automagic barchives.Icon beer yellow.gif

What is going on?

(talk) (talk) (talk) (talk) (hic)

[hide]Pointless poll

It's the end of the world as we know it. Do you feel fine?

Yes

24

Vote

No

50

Vote

My enemy is...

Pigeons

4

Vote

Geese

29

Vote

Ducks

2

Vote

Corvids

6

Vote

Gulls

17

Vote

Starlings

1

Vote

Owls

3

Vote

Parakeets

2

Vote

Hawks

1

Vote

Cliff Racers

19

Vote

Zubat

15

Vote

Has KarmaPolice been watching The Birds?

31

Vote

To do list

The German Left is above 5 % for the first time since October 2023

The war-mongering Greens and the social-liberal SPD are stealing the left's positions just before the election (even though they had 3 years of government time to increase taxes and save retirements), the transphobic and xenophobic BSW is around 6 %, while it polled at around 10 % in 2024, the neo-liberal FDP is under 5 %, and Die Linke has reached 5 % since the end of January is rising in the polls. Obviously the rise of the AfD is a danger for republican order, but it is important to have a truly left-wing group in the German parliament (the SPD are campaigning for social justice and peace, but Scholz was previously a neo-liberal Schröder friend. The Greens are very pro-American, they don't like "populism" and generally have a very centrist position. BSW, while more clear in criticising the last two, which deserve hard criticism, has cooperated with the AfD multiple times). New world (talk) 20:08, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Context; 5% is the magical threshold in German politics which rewards 'mid-sized' parties with extra seats. Thus if Die Linke gets over this this will bolster the number of seats they end up with?
  1. I noted from polling history that the polls for Die Linke stayed about the same even after the launch of the BSW. This would suggest that almost all their support came from elsewhere. But where?
  2. Have the Greens basically become the 'modern centre' while the FDP are effectively the survivals of the old-school 'classical liberals'?
  3. Where are the AfD getting their votes from [and why?] That is, past the obvious 'radicalised, disguntled Union voters' demographic.
  4. What's the chances of an outcome is a Union minority with Merz stealing some of the AfD's less disgusting clothes and as such, managing to buy their tacit support?
KarmaPolice (talk) 20:45, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
1. BSW is/was getting votes from previous SPD, Die Linke and Greens voters (for the anti-establishment position, social justice program and pacifist position on missiles in east Germany) also from AfD voters (partially for the pacifist position, a little for social justice, mostly for reactionary positions like being against inclusive writing or xenophobic immigration and cultural positions). Die Linke I don't know for sure: Disgruntled SPD or Greens voters, maybe, non-voters, probably too, maybe voters who planned to not vote or vote for BSW (when it was higher in the polls)
2. The Greens have ridiculously tried to show themselves as very "left-wing" (what the right thinks is "left-wing". They do a couple of "wokism" debates, like wanting to remove the word "Indian" to refer to native Americans, and then they make very liberal propositions against climate change, like the "Heizungsgesetz" which, no matter what some say, would have cost a lot of money for Germans) and then complains about far-right "framing". They are liberals who are very happy they can represent the climate movement at the place where the left could be. In France, I could see most of them being macronist and complaining about "their" voters voting radical left. In Germany many voters ("woke" university students) who in France vote for LFI or the French Greens vote for the German Greens instead of Die Linke, which is closer to them. The Greens definitely used to be even far-left ("extra-parliamentary opposition"), but since the 2000s they have been more and more liberal.
3. The same reasons the far-right is rising globally. The AfD is getting poor voters who don't like the ordo-liberal consensus (from parts of Die Linke to parts of the AfD) in Germany, nazis, many nazis, rural voters who don't like the way their protests were treated in Germany (the government called the protests undemocratic), East German voters who feel ignored, and reactionary old people.
4. I do not trust the SPD (or the Greens) to not make a coalition with Merz. In the German political system, it would be irresponsible for the SPD not to form a government with the CDU/CSU.
On the 5 % threshold: Not only does it "bolster its seats" but it allows a party to even have representation in the parliament. Unless Die Linke gets 3 "Direktmandate", it needs 5 % to enter parliament. New world (talk) 21:25, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
1. If the BSW got a lot of voters from Die Linke, how come the latter were still bouncing around the 3-4-5 % ratings after the split? My theory [admittedly from afar] that like our George Galloway's 'Workers Party' and a lot of the 'Gaza independents' in the UK GE last year, is that while the BSW managed to get some old SED hacks their strength very well might have come from mobilising disaffected voters who hate the AfD [one of the most serious polling errors in my book is the inability for it to record the numbers of 'dunno', 'don't vote', 'all the same' or 'fuck off' responses to record disengagement]. This leads me to ask; what do the BSW and AfD think of each other?
2.So where are 'the kids' at currently now in Germany? Here in the UK, all the signs I've seen is that they're pretty hacked off with a) neoliberalism, b) American-style social justice and c) current forms of democracy. But they're still pretty 'left-libertarian' with a distinct 'green' tinge to them - that while they might hanker after a 'strong leader' they'd like one which would sort out the economics, take on the vested interests, fix the problems but not intrude on their personal lives. Aka if some form of modern Lenin came along, they'd actually be rather up for it.
3. So in some respects, the AfD are mobilising the non-voters and perhaps skimming off a lot of lower-income SPD voters, perhaps in a similar manner Reform UK is hitting Labour in our post-industrial areas?
4. On a tangent, have the FDP done something stupid to result in their support cratering from their apparent 10% usual position?
5. How much of an issue is the Ukraine War/Putin to the electorate? KarmaPolice (talk) 23:08, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
1. Die Linke used to have around 10-13 %. BSW is just Wagenknecht, so the idea her party stole votes from Die Linke comes from the fact Die Linke lost half its electorate since the time she was chancellor candidate. Currently, Die Linke and BSW together are at around the same point Die Linke was in before 2021. BSW sometimes attacks the AfD, sometimes pretends "moderate" parts are OK to collaborate with (the libertarian ones, behind Weidel, are more "moderate" than the nazi ones, behind Höcke).
2. Part of the young electorate votes AfD, but, at least my personal experience indicates that, this is more a rural phenomenon. Of course some younger people currently vote far-right, but I'm sure that a Mélenchon-style party (without right-wing elements, neither economic, nor in foreign politics, nor in cultural politics. Die Linke has ordo-liberal and sionist elements) could convince many young people to vote for it. It could unite traditional SPD voters, the "educated youth" of the city-centres currently voting Green, and voters from poor suburbs, young and old. Note that I have a franco-centric view on these things, I have heard that in Germany you get bombarded with anti-populism rhetoric, which might weaken such a party. Articles about Mélenchon in Germany are worse than US-American articles about him: He's an "Anti-German", "anti-Semite", " anti-NATO Russia-friend".
3. The AfD is mobilising people who blame their problems on immigration. These might have voted SPD previously, but that doesn't change the racist, or at least xenophobic, reasons they have for voting AfD.
4. Absolutely, the FDP was planning to leave the government since 2023, maybe. They disrespect the coalition agreement, by opposing almost every law. They then distanced themselves from the "left-wing" government (In Germany, being "left" or "right" is like "far-left" and "far-right" in France and other countries. All other parties are "the middle" (Die Mitte). While being "left" is considered better than being "right", it's still not a compliment to call the Greens left in Germany). In 2024, finally, they caused the collapse of the government. Scholz fired Lindner (the FDP candidate) from the government. Later, a document was revealed showing the FDP planned for a scenario where the government coalition collapsed since sommer 2024.
5. To the electorate: It depends, some are very fixated on it, others don't care. To the news: It's extremely important, and you can't ignore it. I don't think Germany should give lessons on Ukraine like it does, seeing how it handles the situation in Gaza. BSW has a clear position on these things (I would like a party which doesn't want to recognise Russian elections though). New world (talk) 02:04, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
1. Issue is, Die Linke didn't have 11% on the split; it scored 4.9% in the '21 election and was polling 4-7 just before the split. However, I suspect that tactical voting might have played a part; in '17 is was obvious that Merkel was going to get in again [and thus allowing socialists to have a 'heart vote'] but '21 was much narrower result and some voters might have 'lent' theirs to the SPD. looking at polling suggests [I think] that the main two 'losers' to the BSW were in fact the SPD and a smaller extent, the AfD [note how the latter was hovering around 21% before but went 18-19 after BSW's founding]. Alas, we can't find out easily how many non-voters they're capturing.
2. We in the UK have been hearing a bit of the second two regarding Mélenchon also [as well as being 'too extreme']. if you're curious, a lot of the rightist media here paints Le Pen as being 'just another conservative' which half of me suspects is being taken in by their 'moderate-washing' and the other half suspects said media are doing said washing.
3. Just how big is immigration to the German Big Public as an issue? I recall the wide disparity we faced coming up to the '24 election - if you believed the Tory press it was 'the #1 priority' which everyone was going on about on a daily basis but in reality it turned out to be something like #7 with less than 10% saying it was 'very important'.
4. Interesting how the German Greens don't want to be known as being 'left wing' while the English Greens actively seek that title. Electoral layout might be a thing here; in the UK the Liberal Democrats have occupied a thicker wedge of the 'centre' but we've not had a variant of 'Die Linke' as an serious electoral force since... erm, 1950?
What are the 'lessons on Ukraine' that it's giving? KarmaPolice (talk) 03:27, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
1. You could definitely be right about the 2017 elections, but exactly the 2017 score and the lost electorate still there in 2017 but gone in 2021 is being mentioned as Wagenknecht's main electorate. These people might have voted SPD and AfD before BSW was founded, and Greens potentially too. I really suspect it to be a heterogeneous movement. The two millionaires who helped fund the party, were previously greens.
2. The UK is probably shocked by Mélenchon, but I imagine it's shocked in the same way right-wing media are shocked in France. In Germany, you have articles my mainstream journals calling the "old citizen (upper middle class) middle" to not trust "the left" nor "the right". Why? Because figures like Mélenchon and Wagenknecht supposedly show "the left" is just as dangerous as "the right" (the AfD). While in France, most journals describe the CDU/CSU as Germany's right-wing party, Merkel seems to have removed any left-right dichotomy in the eyes of most Germans.
3. It is fairly important. The United Kingdom is probably going to have its own problems with the far-right soon. In France, National Rally consistently tried to introduce their talking points in debates, and they have succeeded since immigration and supposed Muslim disrespected of laïcité are very important parts of debates now. While in Germany, the nazi groups around Höcke are hated by many (more than Zemmour in France was), the ultra-liberal courant behind Weidel has the sympathy of some journalists and commentators, more than Le Pen has in France (at least they don't show it as much).
4. The Greens in Germany are the most important Green Party in Europe ("Green" as in part of the Greens group in the European Parliament), but they are also the most neo-liberal and pro-American one. The type to profit from two opponents (Wagenknecht and the AfD) being xenephobes and anti-Americans to claim that modernity means following the USA, in economic and cultural issues. They mix being against racism and xenophobia with supporting the US-American model of multiculturalism (where cultures are juxtaposed), and finally with supporting the US-American economic model. Being "left" (links" is more generally not seen as very good in Germany, it's better to part of "the middle"/the centre than to be part of "the left". Sure, Willy Brandt was left, but to Germans, Lenin was left, Staline was left, Mao was left. Similarly, Hitler was right. Of course historical figures like Kohl or Brandt were right-wing or left-wing in Germany, but that's not seen as very good today. The Greens in France, the UK and the USA are more open to the left label because they are left-wong. But the German Greens only like the "left" label to continue to profit from an urban progressive city-centre electorate.
5. The "lessons on Ukraine" are to tell principles about what is good and what is not good, even though Germany has not been very reliable on the subject. Wagenknecht (who definitely has suspect positions on the conflict, but not to the extent the media portray it) was called the Putinist voice of Germany for wanting a ceasefire negotiated. While the government might not be very clear, the media is extremely paranoid about pro-Russian spies. Without any proof, politicians have accused BSW of being payed by the Russians. Germany likes to teach lessons about Ukraine in the same way it dares to teach ones about Gaza. A political discussion on Gaza will focus on "the West" (the USA and it's very close allies), it's supposed democratic tradition, the populist menace, the Russian and terrorist menace, the right for Israel to defend itself. A discussion on Ukraine will have completely unrealistic demands which don't take into account potential allies (the Russian people), and will just be about why Germany should definitely defend "the West" led by the USA, which defends democracy, and not attack Ukraine. The EU in Germany is exactly what the treaty of Lisbon wanted it to be, a liberal ideological construct. Advocating for different economic policies than the ones recommended by the EU is seen as wrong, even Scholz's proposition on retirements was seen as too radical by some German economists. In that context, Germany gives lessons about Ukraine (which is, don't get me wrong, definitely the aggressed and not the aggressor) and Gaza. It just follows what the USA's position is instead of seeing itself as a third, non-aligned, party (like France, and to a lesser degree Spain). New world (talk) 06:28, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
I’ve always been quite sceptical about the “independent Ukraine policy” demands from certain parts of the left (and the right too, for that matter), because they seem to be either naive, infeasible/unrealistic or “slow walk defeatist”. While some may get a feel-good kick out of clamouring for a ceasefire, it’s worth considering the “then what?” question.
If a Russo-Ukrainian ceasefire isn’t followed up by some serious security guarantees for Ukraine and/or substantial military aid to match Russian capabilities to rebuild its own military (and those calling most loudly for a ceasefire tend to oppose both), the main effect is likely to be to allow Russia to rebuild its forces and then restart the war from a more advantageous position.
It seems that some sections on the left have let their knee jerk suspicions of the US lead them into the notion that military support for Ukraine couldn’t possibly be one of those stopped clock moments in US foreign policy where that path might actually be the best currently available option.
That said, I think the Ukraine War might be approaching a moment in which it might make a little more sense to begin to discuss a ceasefire, because Russia has now burned through so much of its Soviet legacy arsenal that it will be difficult for them to fight another war in Ukraine (or elsewhere) on the scale and intensity they have fought so far. But it seems that while the end of the Soviet legacy equipment pool is in sight, Russia isn’t quite scraping the bottom of the barrel in all equipment categories just yet and some estimates allows for one to two years’ of fighting on the current scale before this happens more generally.
As I mentioned here in the saloon some time ago, this Russian material attrition is the real strategic victory that the US and especially Europe has gained from the Ukraine War, because Russia cannot rebuild this massive stockpile and thus cannot fight this kind of war again, as it can’t suddenly scale up its armed forces with oodles of “good enough” Soviet kit and will instead have to rely on what it can produce from scratch. While this new materiel is of far better quality, its limited quantity means that it has to be deployed far more frugally and thus Russia will find it difficult to fight another war of attrition on the scale it has done in Ukraine.
Getting back to Germany, it’s important to recall that the CDU/CSU has always been a very broad church with the CSU usually markedly to the right of the conglomerated party as a whole. However, it’s also worth noting that the CDU/CSU always had a fairly solid working class support and with the “social conservative” roots going back to Bismarck has been far less of a laissez-faire capitalist party than the Tories and especially the GOP.
The trouble is that the ordoliberalism combined with a social market economy compromise that all the major German parties subscribe to seems to be in longstanding trouble with the most serious issues being the self-imposed fiscal constraints that the Bundestag (extremely unwisely, in my opinion) put on itself, which effectively blocks necessary public investments. As long as this public (deficit) spending phobia and “Schwarze Null” obsession continues to dominate German federal politics, the AfD and BSW will be able to use the resulting austerity policies to score easy points against the “establishment”. ScepticWombat (talk) 10:24, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
I would agree that on the global geopolitical realm, Russia has lost the war. What gains she has made on the field have come at an extortionate cost and said gains are outweighed in the loss of men/materiel which cannot be replenished easily and it's pretty unlikely that even after 'peace' Russia-West relations will 'go back to normal' either politically, economically or scientifically. Scholz's game is to give enough kit to ensure Ukraine isn't routed, but no way enough for it to properly conduct counter-offensives - in this respect, his 'crime' is not to have this policy, more to be so open about it. I mean, think about every 'graduation' of kit supplies - it's always 6-9 months late, in perhaps 25% numbers she needs. European 'transition to a [cold] war footing' is also stupidly sluggish; not just beefing up our militaries [and production capabilities] but also strengthening our civil defence etc - so Germany isn't alone in this either. I also suspect Scholz's reticence is less a 'Scholz problem' but more a 'German problem' re: collective trauma due to two world wars and then 40 years of suspicion/fear that the Soviets and Americans were going to fight WW3 down to the last German.
However, I am going to argue that the 'German malaise' is in fact a more general European one; that in short we've voted ourselves a SoL we can no longer afford in a world which is a lot more dangerous and 'against us' demographically using assumptions which are no longer applicable and tools which are obsolete. That [again, very generalised] left-populists peddle the idea we can simply 'squeeze the rich' more to pay for more welfare, the right-populists that said welfare/SoL rises can be achieved by 'getting rid of all the immigrants' while the centre is politically incapable of explaining either that we need to reduce our SoL to divert cash for investment/defence and that we need a level of immigration to help prop up our demographics in the medium-term. In fact, Germany now somewhat resembles the UK in the 1950s/60s; that stuck with an economic model clearly obsolescent but 'still functioning okay' but without the political will to make the painful reforms before the situation became dire, the German mainstream political class has adopted the same 'mild tinkering and hoping something turns up' policy which turned out to be a generational can-kicking until the problems became too heavy to kick.
Which is why I am curious about the AfD; because I am seeing a lot of similarities between it and our Reform UK [which is seriously on the rise] and then similar in things like the Spanish Vox, French NR, Dutch PVV etc. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:48, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
Germany's lessons on foreign policy and its ordo-liberal consensus are linked though. I think the best way to describe it is "German hypocrisy", and "European hypocrisy" beyond that. It's German hypocrisy because Germany is at the head of the EU, and it is the US-American voice of Europe (besides Eastern Europe, which is very right-wing to even far-right); when France does something reasonable in foreign policy, it's often without Germany's explicit approval. Following the Cold War, this idea developed that conflict between left and right was "gone", that liberalism was not right-wing anymore, but the "reasonable centre" that was victorious in the Cold War. Since Schröder and Merkel, Germany definitively adopted this model. The Ukraine war is not motivated by material needs for Germans, but by ideology. In consequence, the EU needs to show it's "better" than Russia. Concretely, European hypocrisy is to give lessons (generally) about this and that, as if these "old wise" colonial countries will never lose their position in the world (they will, if they continue this on this path). German hypocrisy is to make a scene about sanctions against Russia, even though these sanctions hurt the EU more than Russia… They largely did not work. European hypocrisy is to give lessons to Latin American countries about climate change, while never admitting that fighting climate change does not mean changing prices, but first fighting the oligarchs who exploit nature (instead of giving "recommendations" to people about not using paper, governments should regulate the exploitation of the Amazon rainforest by European companies for minerals). European hypocrisy is to collaborate with Saoudian Arabia, and denounce other countries supposed links to authoritarian regimes. European hypocrisy is to make deals with the Chinese while pretending to be a "barrier" against authoritarianism. European hypocrisy is to pretend post-soviet Russia was democratic, even though it clearly wasn't from the beginning. And European hypocrisy is to betray Gorbatchev immediately when the occasion presented itself. Germany is more ideological than France or Spain, because it believes in the "end of history" after the Cold War, just that it presents it's imperialist ideology as "reasonable", not ideological.
Germany's idea of Europe is that of old, wise, decadent, and colonial nations pretending to be an important player. A better way would be to try to be truly important, by trying to make agreements with Latin America for example, by building independent armed forces (not the "European army" proposed by Macron though. Germany's "European way of life", written in English inside German language texts, means copying the USA's "way of life", but with European nationalism. What a great idea!). It would be nice to have a German government trying to act fully independently of the USA, China and Russia, and trying to find a solution to the conflict instead of being blinded by ideological preconceptions like the "end of history". New world (talk) 21:17, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
I think it’s only possible to discount Germany’s ”material needs”, as regards Ukraine, by defining those in extremely narrow terms. That the German government with extensive parliamentary support decided to get seriously involved in supporting Ukraine at all shows just how obvious it was to a broad segment of German political life that vital German security interests were at stake and that it would not be a good outcome for Germany to have Russia conquer or dominate Ukraine. Not least having Russia on the border of Poland, a key military and economic partner, wouldn’t be a cozy prospect in Berlin, let alone what the broader issues of having a substantial EU border with a rather belligerent Russia would mean for Berlin.
It’s virtually certain that Ukraine would’ve lost the war, despite Russia’s badly executed initial invasion, if the country hadn’t received massive military aid. The crucial, early aid from emptying out the old Warsaw Pact stores of Central and Eastern Europe is of note, because it could be fielded immediately without any problems in Ukraine. Meanwhile, the EU is basically paying a lot of Ukraine’s non military national budget to free up Ukrainian domestic funds for the war effort.
But let’s do a counterfactual scenario and suppose little or none of this aid was provided, which would likely have meant a Ukrainian defeat within a year or less. Would that situation be conducive to less security tension in Europe or the larger world? Would anyone, possibly apart from the Putin regime, have been better off?
We can always niggle about whether the responses could’ve been tweaked to produce more substantial results and how serious the dangers of the war expanding (not least the nuclear risks) actually were, but I find it difficult to see how non intervention or greatly diminished aid efforts would’ve yielded a better outcomes in the present than what was actually done.
As for the EU having to show it’s “better” than Russia: Define “better”.
And no, and I don’t think that had any meaningful impact vis-à-vis the EU’s involvement in the Ukraine War at all. Why? Simply because the EU doesn’t generally have to show it’s better than Russia, as it quite self evidently is when it comes to most of the parameters that people tend to use when evaluating “the good life” (and mind you, these are in no particular order or even an extensive list): Human development, economic performance and opportunities, political freedoms and democratic accountability, personal freedom, artistic freedom, environmental protection, health, longevity etc. Name one in which the EU as a whole and the vast majority (and likely all) of its member states doesn’t outperform Russia.
I’m not saying all is sweetness and light, or that I don’t have serious objections to parts of the EU setup, but there’s a distinction between setting such absolute standards that everything becomes hypocritical and looking at specific parties in a specific conflict and evaluating the opportunities, incl. how likely each opportunity and its predicted results are in terms of feasibility and certainty of the outcomes.
I, for one, did not expect sanctions to stop the war because Russia’s economy is large and diverse enough to be able to take quite a beating for quite some time. The resilience of substantial and diversified national economies when mobilised for war (and Russia is far from having a fully fledged war economy even now) have clearly been demonstrated throughout the 20th century.
What the EU did have to show was not that it was “better” than Russia, but that it was able to produce a somewhat coherent, common policy response. The importance of the sanctions and other common EU countermoves against Russia were that it (once again) showed that the EU doesn’t just fall apart in a crisis and in this case has actually managed to keep a fairly united front. Orbán is the major exception, but he has not managed to gum up the EU works either. ScepticWombat (talk) 09:12, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
The Ukrainian war proved to Berlin that their fifty-year old 'Ostpolitik' towards Moscow had failed. That 'trying the Russians with trade' didn't work, of deliberately being under-armed and timid didn't work. Just like the war showed the French that their long-standing policy as posing as a 'third party' who's always open to talks also failed [mainly because Russia has stopped listening and was now just delivering angry monologues and diktats]. Let us remember, 'the West' effectively blocked Ukraine from rearming after 2014 because we felt it would be a 'provocation' towards Russia - with the benefit of hindsight if we had allowed Kyiv to buy the arms it had desired between then and 2022, there is a good chance there would have been no invasion because the Ukrainians would have presented a reasonable deterrence force.
Anyway, I personally suspect that if Scholz and Co had been completely left to their own devices they wouldn't have helped Kyiv in any meaningful way. But they had no real choice. It was either do the sanctions or veto them in front of all the other EU states. It was to cut off the Nord Stream or get an public earful from Johnson and Biden about 'how German Euros are paying the soldiers killing/looting/raping in Ukraine'. It was to accept the 1m+ refugees or slam the door in their faces while the world's cameras watch. This is even before the simple realpolitik which makes it clear if Putin had gotten Ukraine without much of a fight Europe in general would have been in a significantly weaker position and very well be discussing 'the Moldovan war' now.
As for 'sanctions not working'... nobody who really knew about economics, trade or Russia in general expected the threat of sanctions to stop war. I would in fact say that the threat of sanctions might have increased the chances of war because it showed [in Putin's head] that the West weren't 'really going to fight for Kyiv'. We also need to remember the inherent doublethink of Putin's worldview; that on one hand we're horrible, alien invaders of their 'sphere of influence' but on the other hand cowardly, weak and decadent. I didn't think it at the time but I have since come to the conclusion that in a way Putin was right in the former assumption - in that 'if left to her own devices', Kyiv very well could have developed into a 'Bright Mirror' to the Russian dark one - prosperous, democratic, free, pro-European and the Russians would be able to easily see this from over the fence. Now that was the genuine, ideological threat to the Putinist system which the Czar decided needed to be killed.
However, while the sanctions 'didn't stop the war', it doesn't mean they were/are pointless. The general lack of coal/oil/gas/metals exports to Europe has removed the primary source of hard currency to fund the war machine, while the inability of Moscow to import high-end gear like precision machine tools, advanced microchips and electronics has not only severely hindered her ability to expand her war production capacities but maintain her current production capacity [and before you say it; the only other folks who make this stuff is Japan/Korea/Taiwan and the USA]. We also froze a huge amount of Russian foreign reserves which meant she couldn't use them to help fund the war and in a way to hit the oligarch class personally - we cut off their supplies of Euro luxury goods and holidays. Now, there's all ways around these but a) it's always been that way [qv: Kim II and Hennessy cognac, Assad and Ferraris, Brezhnev and Rolexes etc] b) making them pay x2/3 for the same stuff means they'll burn out their cash-stash quicker and c) it breeds resentment. Now, in the pure cash terms Europe has 'been hurt more' than Russia on the sanctions [-€50 billion, in fact] but that represents about 6% of the EU's total trade while it's 38% of Russia's total. So in comparative terms, Russia has been hurt more.
I do think that Europe does need to show that 'we are better' than Russia. In many ways, Russia is America via a darkened mirror; a land where the the culture wars are turned even higher a pitch, the politicians more obviously self-serving, business cartels and corruption blatant, the propaganda overt and democracy rotten to the core. Same conveyor belt, simply just a few metres down the line. That while the Ukraine war is a 'military challenge', Europe/USA is also facing an ideological challenge, esp that many of our nations are all showing [to differing levels] the same symptoms of a corrupted/malfunctioning state. That the only way our systems will survive in the long run is to show both our domestic and foreign audiences that our vision of the future is superior in the provision of freedom/SoL/QoL and is also capable of actively defending it when needs be. KarmaPolice (talk) 15:48, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Putin isn't some Hitler-like figure, nor is he dangerous because he's crazy, but because he's intelligent. What you're describing is only leading us closer to a nuclear war, it's european powers improvising in their corner when they have no more time. That is the reason that a peaceful solution will always be the best possibility. We are not in the same context as 1939, and some people seem to forget something: We can not predict history, it does not repeat itself. Of course similar situations to the 1920s and 30s can take place today, but the similarities are simply that one political family (the far-right) was very popular in the 1930s and is today too. The situations are unique however, and as long as peace is realisable, it should be the outcome to search for. As a democratic force, Europe can simply not always threaten with this and that, it needs to inscribe itself in a reality, and needs to look at the situation so that the conflict does not spread and simultaneously how to get out of it.
And Europe is improvising with it's plan to give Ukraine the "means to win"… You only to have to see Macron's (somewhat contradictory) declarations on sending troops to Ukraine (and before some of you think this is some radical left point of view in France, I will tell you that almost every party from LFI, through the Greens, the Socialists (social-democrats), the Communists, the traditional centre-right party The Republicans (LR), to the National Rally have not been supportive of these declarations by Macron). Macron said that "nothing should be excluded"… even though there are definitely things which should be excluded, like the conflict spreading and touching more countries. That's simply diplomacy, which can still work with Russia.
European governments should not play "morally superior", but, in the face an aggressor like Russia, act strategically and be reasonable, instead of opting for escalation. Wanting things like a "war economy" show these people only think about death, not peace, which should be Europe's goal. Peace for the Ukrainian people and peace for the Russian people, against Putin's oligarchy. Constructing a power is a long process, simply doing things like giving 28 governments in Europe (some of which of small countries with far-right tendencies) the possibility of using nuclear weapon is not a sign of acting strategically, the interests of France are different from Poland. When you’re honest about wanting peace, you will have to speak no matter what with the enemy. Otherwise Germany might have still claimed Eastern Germany and parts of Poland in 1989, without the Ostpolitik of Willy Brandt. Currently Europe, and especially Eastern Europe and Germany, try to be part of what will later be analysed as the problem and not the solution.
And finally: I find it highly irresponsible to have insisted so much on the sanctions exclusively for "European values", it would have been better to wait for Russia, the aggressor, the problem, to do this, instead of making european governments look like clowns to many European citizens. New world (talk) 21:00, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
So, Mother Russia good and Ebil Europe bad? Also, Putin being Intelligent? Really? Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 21:29, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
There's always nuance to things, you know. Putin is an aggressor, but not a stupid one, he is a former soviet functionary and managed to get at the head of the Russian federation. Europe is not evil, it's a bunch of irresponsible small countries, who are only important because of their colonial past, and Germany is the image of this Europe. It does not have a plan, it is stuck in it's hypocrisy, between having refused to build armed forces and let the USA take control of it. This is the fault, indirectly, of the supporters of the very failed Weimar Republic who were not able to present a left-wing alternative like in France (with the Popular Front in 1936) to the nazis, and who also have a partial fault in what the nazis have a fault for. I know the German communists were opposed to an alliance with the SPD at the time, but the SPD was itself a part of social-traitors, and at that time too, a party ideologically between the communists and the SPD would have helped Germany. And it's not like Germany did anything great either to compensate for this fault in the nazi atrocities since 1949 (And I am saying this as a franco-German, though living in France). Adenauer had "antisemitic tendencies" (that is an euphemism), and besides the Willy Brandt government, Germany only had a somewhat leftist government with Schmidt. In France, we have Robespierre as important figure in the founding of the Republic, in Germany they have Bismarck, before that they had the traitor Luther (who betrayed Münster's followers), then they had the incompetent governments of the Weimar Republic which perfectly illustrates contemporary Germany, then they had the CDU chancellors who, despite their will, did not manage to make Germany an independent power. Then they had Willy Brandt, a leftist, but right after that they had Helmut Schmidt, a friend of the centre-right French liberal Giscard… The supposedly left-wing Schmidt was a great friend of Giscard and agreed with him ideologically. Then there was Kohl and his irresponsible annexation of Eastern Germany (and today we see the result: Extreme inequality between West and East and the East feels culturally and economically abandoned, because the two nations were not ready to be unified in 1990, there should have been a 10 year waiting period at the minimum). Lafontaine lost the elections in 1990, Schröder took power after Kohl, the Greens moved to the right economically and governed with Schröder. Then Merkel came and imposed her economic German imperialism on other European countries, like we can see with the Greek crisis or German refusal to renegotiate European treaties with France. And Germany does not understand the fundamentally populist nature of republics, instead of trying to convince people they lament the rise of the far-right (another example: in 2005, it was France that voted a referendum on the EU, not Germany). All this hypocrisy, and the German government still pretends to represent something. I have no trust in them.
Another point where Europe is hypocritical: Immigration. Immigrants hear of this great place, "old, grand Europe", and what do they see when they come? Far-right flags and insults. And let's not start with the supposedly well-meaning Merkel handling of immigration. Factually, Germany has problems with administration in order to handle immigration. What Merkel should have done is tell those little fascists in Eastern Europe to take a certain amount of people, Germany should have taken a certain amount, the Hollande government should have been forced to accept some people too. Now even the German Greens are xenophobic Because what the EU should be about is supporting republican principles, not imposing economically liberal policies to countries. It's not that much better in France, but it is better because things like these at least get criticised in France. I like seeing some rich person on TV angry because "Pol-pot made his classes in French universities" and "French youth thinks like in the 1960s" or "this is why France is behind economically". What they say is false, but in France, if they go to a university, most teachers will tell them they are wrong, most serious journalists (there are still some) tell them they are wrong. Meanwhile in Germany, academics are in line with liberalism and economic elitism. New world (talk) 21:57, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
I'm not gonna comment on most of the wall of text above, but it is really funny seeing Europeans screech about immigration when the world order is the way it is today because of literal centuries of European immigration/colonialism/whatever. Carthage (talk) 22:10, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Are you addressing yourself to me? I only denounced the German government's hypocrisy on immigration, since it is not as humanist and accepting as it pretends. I absolutely support accepting immigrants, and nationalising all immigrants without papers too. New world (talk) 22:17, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- Never said Putin was crazy. Or unintelligent. However, he wildly miscalculated with Ukraine. Remember the weeks upto the start of the invasion; military experts were saying 'it can't be an invasion because there's not enough troops'. Well, they were right in that there wasn't enough troops to actually succeed in the mission. But Putin went ahead with it anyway; that suggests a man who seriously fucked-up his calculations by thinking Ukrainians would not fight and that the West will not do anything to stop me.
- Is Europe 'closer to nuclear war'? Yes. But that's not our fucking fault; we're not the one who started this war, nor are we the ones who are doing the threatening. If you put yourself in an impossible position where you will be 'humiliated' if you don't get what you want it is not our fault if you then get humiliated. More importantly, Putin will not start lobbing the nukes; because of a) we have our own nukes and b) it's a dead cert Xi told him not to 'or else'.
- 'That is the reason that a peaceful solution will always be the best possibility'. Except it won't be peace. Only a delay, before Putin's next demand comes in. 'Demilitarise the Baltics! Give me Moldova! End all sanctions or I will nuke you!' History doesn't repeat but it often rhymes; and in this case Putin's MO is exactly like Hitler's; demand after demand after demand, each one with a higher cost than the last. '[look to] that the conflict does not spread and simultaneously how to get out of it'. You know the easiest way to do that? surrender. 'Putin, take Ukraine. We're sorry.' 'Be reasonable'?; what about if your opponent is unreasonable? Putin wants Ukraine to at least be similar to how Belarus is now. In fact, like the 1930s it can be said we ended up at this point because we 'were reasonable' and decided to entertain all of Putin's demands 'like they were reasonable'. Take the idea Russia 'needs' buffer zones. Why the fuck does Russia get those when others don't?
- One thing we do seemingly agree on is that Europe never really planned after war broke out; either on what 'victory conditions' looked like or how we could get to that point. Now it's understandable we didn't want to publicly discuss the former all the signs I got is that we preferred to think about that because we made little to nil long-term plans on how we could help Kyiv to get to the 'victory conditions'. It was fairly clear by summer '22 that the war had settled down into a WW1-style slogging match and rather like the Western Front, the best chance for 'Ukrainian victory' would be to provide colossal amounts of machine-guns, artillery etc to bleed Russia white with casualties until she quits [a war which we basically have ended up with] and tool up to provide all this stuff. Instead, we kind of hoped that Ukraine would 'somehow' win without us needing to do that kind of thing.
- 'Peace for the Ukrainian people and peace for the Russian people, against Putin's oligarchy.' 'Being reasonable' and giving Putin what he wants in some fuckwitted naive manner is the one way to ensure this peace does not happen. If Ukraine had simply rolled over in Jan '22, there still would have not been peace; the 'zone of conflict' would have simply moved from battlefield to gulag. 'When you’re honest about wanting peace, you will have to speak no matter what with the enemy'. I will simply say this; I am so fucking glad you were not in Downing Street in July 1940 when another violent, ultranationalist dictator with dreams of empire appealed for his last opponent 'in the name of reason and peace' to stop the fighting... or else.
- 'simply doing things like giving 28 governments in Europe (some of which of small countries with far-right tendencies) the possibility of using nuclear weapon is not a sign of acting strategically'. All I say to this is wtf? NATO isn't talking about using them, the only three who have the ability to do so is the USA, UK and France. The latter two aren't going to use them because they're literally a 'Samson option' if we're about to die anyway. KarmaPolice (talk) 10:04, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── "This Russia thing, with Wagenknecht and Russia, okay? It's a fake story, completely made up by the corrupt lying media and the radical right Social Democrat Party, all to distract us from the terrible things they're doing to our wonderful country. With the wars, the immigration, the prices. It's so tragic what's happened to our great country. People come up to me in the streets with tears in their eyes and say, 'Wagenknecht, please fix what's happening to our Germany!' And they, and they're very smart people, these people, they say Putin is a very bad guy but also a very reasonable guy, we've gotta give him an opportunity, okay? The dying has to stop, and we have to save this beautiful Ukraine, which I love so much, from the dying and the killing. This thing with Ukraine and Russia, it's a mess, and that's under Shifty Sholz's administration and his strong ties to NATO. It's very interesting, what's been happening." Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 17:22, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

@DuceMoosolini Europe is not the USA, there's more camps and a greater diversity of opinions than an imperialist right-wing and an isolationist far-right. Mentioning the far-right: I never claimed the economically right-wing (of the republican, not extreme, political right) SPD was far-right. I never claimed to support Wagenknecht's propositions on the Russo-Ukrainian war, the BSW, for example, supports recognising Russian elections, which is absolutely inacceptable. However, the accusations of Russian funding are factually incorrect, the big party funds came from one millionaire couple, previously Greens voters who are disappointed by Green support for arming, not from Russian spies. Think what you want about that couple, they exist, they have been interviewed, and the ridiculous accusations by some politicians were absolutely intolerable.
I'm guessing that to a US-American my criticism of German right-wing political culture, vassality to the USA, ordo-liberal consensus, and general hypocrisy must seem very strange. I don't compare the USA to Germany though, if anything I compare it to Russia and China, and in this comparison it would be on a better position than the latter two.
Your comment is strange on the other hand. Let's see who was a "very smart person" on the streets who supported the peace demonstration in Berlin by Wagenknecht in 2023, concretely: Antonio Guterres signed the petition. I bet to you Charles de Gaulle was a "dictator in the making" too, for wanting independence from the USA, the SPD is far-left, and Gorbatchev deserved to be replaced. To me, though: Charles de Gaulle, while he took power in a coup d'état and needs to be criticised for having inspired the presidential monarchy we have now, and for repression in the colonies, had a great foreign policy; the French Socialist Party was never far-left and moved to liberalism between 2012–2017, and even before that, in the early 2000s, and since the Socialists of 2012–2017 were way to the left of the German SPD of chancellor Schmidt, I think it is fairly reasonable to think the SPD could have won a few more elections if it would have been a frontal opposition to the German right (the CDU); and finally, Europeans were hypocritical in having helped the current Russian regime build itself up. I bet left-wing Latin American governments are pro-Russia and anti-Israel to you too, right? And then you mention the half-fascist Wagenknecht as an excuse, just like the moderate right always uses the Trumps and Le Pens as a way to access power and delegitimise any opposition, wether really far-right or leftist.
On nuclear weapons: Minor European countries want France to share its arsenal, which is absolutely not a possibility. New world (talk) 17:58, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
That whole thing was a Trumpspeak shitpost based on Wagenknecht's views on Russia. You read too deep into it. Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 18:26, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
Chancellor Scholz denied the possibility of a coalition with BSW and Die Linke, not out of practical reasons but because of the positions on Ukraine held by these parties. In other words, the SPD, which supposedly stands for "social justice", "secured pensions", and "peace", feels ideologically closer to the CDU than Die Linke. New world (talk) 20:06, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Trump’s Gaza Real Estate Pitch??

Did anyone else hear Trump’s latest real estate pitch? Do you think he’s planning to turn it into a luxury resort or just add it to his collection of world’s most complicated deals? —𝕶𝕾𝕳 🐅 13:15, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

There is no way that would realistically happen without it blowing up into a regional war. It would set the entire Middle East in flames, resulting in massive blowback. Carthage (talk) 18:06, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
Also has rambling makes no sense. At first he was going to rebuild it - but not pay for it. Then Israel was going to give it to him after "the war was over". Now he is going to "buy it" - whatever the hell that means. It's his usual self-contradictory mess. And when something (whatever) finally happens he will maintain that was his plan all along and claim credit for it.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:18, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
Buy it from who, exactly? If it's from Bibi, well it's not his to sell. Isn't that some form of international edition of 'handling stolen goods'? KarmaPolice (talk) 18:28, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
This may be an extension of the Peter Thiel-funded Praxis group's "network state" concept, essentially they want to break nation-states and create new societal forms of organization dominated by capitalists and cryptocurrency. Prior to the second Trump administration, members of Praxis indicated Greenland and Gaza were two particular targets for this to take place at. https://thesillyserious.substack.com/p/new-states-greenland-gaza-los-angeles Chillpilled (talk) 19:02, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
It's times like this where I actively wonder whether our budding dark-technocratic overlords realise they're basically becoming the Big Bads of dystopias. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:09, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
They don't mind. Chillpilled (talk) 20:08, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
Libertarian paradise (which of course is anything but), take n.
(It has never worked out before. I expect more of the same here. Thiel has failed before with libertarian paradise plots, if I recall.) BobJohnson (talk) 20:41, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
While some may still be libertarian, others including Thiel have drifted towards NRx and other ideas. My understanding is most of it is influenced by some kind of rationalism and/or tech-libertarianism, or grew out of those. Some are dedicated to AI and think accelerating its development is the key to positive change overall (presumably a future mega-AI takes over and manages things to maximal rationality or something). It's strange I feel that I'm only slowly reverse-engineering this stuff now that it's become relevant, because back in the day it seems like I was personally influenced by many of the same ideas or trends these guys were into 10+ years ago. But I happened to never be part of LessWrong or some of these other communities it seems to be associated with. Chillpilled (talk) 21:48, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
'...Some are dedicated to AI and think accelerating its development is the key to positive change overall (presumably a future mega-AI takes over and manages things to maximal rationality or something)...'
How would the likes of the Boor and Thiel react if this MegaAI using 'maximum rationality' and 'programmed to find positive change' decides they are part of the problem and promptly does them in? KarmaPolice (talk) 22:14, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
Error. Does not compute. ;-)
As for the change from techno libertarian to neoreactionary, I see that more as the realisation and open acceptance of the fact that the former’s utopia does indeed mean that most of the actual people living in such a society will not have many meaningful freedoms at all (considering that a lot of the “formal freedoms” will in effect be of the “freedom to starve” for most who will not be those sitting on all the resources). Basically, it seems that NRx’ers are owning the dystopian elements of techno libertarianism while trying to reframe the reason why the latter’s ideal society is still a utopia by adding some openly right wing schlock.
Hence, the neoractionaries seem like a mask off version of techno libertarianism, which was arguably never that libertarian to begin with. The main addition seems to be the “conservative values” shtick of the Kinder Küche Kirche flavour that neoreactionaries openly spout, though whether that’s mainly a noble lie to pull in the religious fundies, another mask off moment, or a general shift in attitude is hard to say (for me, at least). Oh, and the weird pronatalism/eugenics stuff as well, which always seemed like such a weird religious fundamentalism meets fascism meets incel combo to me. ScepticWombat (talk) 09:54, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
The more "libertarian" programming communities from my viewpoint have always had a sort of elitist techno-masochism thing going for them. This part of the community has never been really good with women (a pretty common trait of full-on libertarians is zero empathy). In addition, there's been some notable classism that's grown as Silicon Valley has gotten wealthier. And there's always been that "engineers and woo"/"Dunning–Kruger effect" vibe, and part of that for the neoreactionary movement (from my perspective) is a complete misunderstanding of the multiple driving forces of other reactionaries. So I'm not *too* surprised by the right-wing turn (though from my viewpoint, the turn is most visible at the CEO/VC level; many of those that do the actual programming work are still on the "professional left"). It's not a real well thought out one, though, and there seems to be some political naivety. The neoreactionaries most entangled in Donald Trump's orbit sure look like convenient "fall guys" to me. (Did they not witness the example of Rudy Giuliani?) BobJohnson (talk) 13:46, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
I believe the combination of natalism and psuedo-worship of technology a lot of these politically-minded tech guys profess is a cynical means of persuasion more than anything else. If these tech-bro oligarchs plan on developing technology to the point where human laborers and soldiers are no longer needed, then they won't need as many people to maintain their regimes. In fact, it may become a "liability" to have a bunch of people around if the value they provide is less than the amount of resources needed to keep them alive and in line. To me, the two are incompatible. So either they aren't genuine in their natalism (perhaps it's an appeal towards fundie/religious types), and/or they aren't genuine in their stance that they need to accelerate technological progress to ensure humanity's future (which coincidentally means giving them more money and therefore more power.) This is unless, of course, their goal is control over other people for its own sake. Gabaghoul 🥩 15:56, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
I'm not the only one that detects a wee bit of eugenics in the Silicon Valley natalism movement. (And yes, while several leftie news sites noticed too, the tech-bro critical article that I linked to comes courtesy of the Heritage Foundation. Interesting, eh?)
An "armchair analysis" of mine is that one of the reasons for the rapid descent of Elon Musk into madness, is because one of his IVF babies turned trans. Which messed with his alpha-male / eugenecist paradigm. One of the flaws of the eugenicist train of thought is that their view of genetics is... shall we say... too simplistic. BobJohnson (talk) 16:24, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
Grimes seemed to hint it may have been a factor, but Elon's dad, Errol Musk, recently said it was ultimately because Biden didn't invite Elon to an electric car event. Chillpilled (talk) 13:11, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
I think it's a factor that a lot of what we think of as 'the techno-bros' are in fact not very 'techy' but very 'bro'. Think Gordon Gekko 'bro'. Folks like the Boor, Thiel etc are investors, financiers - not engineers or scientists. They bring with them the 'Greed is Good/Masters of the Universe' arrogance and put it alongside the 'geeky frat bro' mentality of the techies; I think Wombat is very correct in pointing out that a lot of our bros are basically, 'successful incels'. And nobody thinks they have a healthy view of reality or of people. And that BobJ is on the money to also notice that a lot of the arrogance only wildly flared up after they became a major part of the economy [I think the class/race/sexism/homophobia etc was always there]. However, what I think marks them out to be actually malign is their belief that they [and only they] are the 'hyper-rational' people in the room and the rest of us are either morons or 'too emotional' about stuff.
These folks remind me a lot of the Russian oligarchs. They too, had the massive conceit that 'only they' were real people, that everyone else was a stupid fuckwit. After all, in 1990 neither the Russian free market or Silicon Valley really existed, so 'we all started in the same place' and well if you didn't 'get on' and make your pile like I did - you are clearly inferior to me. I also agree with Wombat again in saying neither of these were actually 'true believers' in what they professed - the oligarchs never really wanted 'free/fair capitalism' because that would have stopped them asset-stripping the USSR for their cash-mountains while Silicon Valley only believed in 'freedom' when it allowed them to dodge responsibility/taxes.
I will lastly argue that their social liberal/meritocratic facade was always a facade. And for a long time, it worked. We're having discussions about shit like social media and 'Big Data' now which we should have been having fifteen years ago. But we got all fucking taken in by Zukerberg's casuals, the 'don't be evil' [ex]motto, token efforts for green causes etc. How could a place be evil if their HQ has hockey tables and a water recycling system? Clean tiles hiding a malign heart. The moment us on 'the left' woke up to this and told them even with the DEI policies we are still going to regulate and tax you, it was time to switch teams. So now they're all for 'fweedom of speech' and backing 'common sense' views etc so the Right chant 'one of us' and get protected. KarmaPolice (talk) 21:35, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The Wall Street Journal is sanewashing this shit. Carthage (talk) 15:51, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

It's an opinion piece; may have not even reached the print edition. The WSJ still chose to publish it, though. KarmaPolice (talk) 16:20, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Dhume's been an op-ed author at the WSJ for a long time (and everyone sane knows that the WSJ op-ed section isn't). Dhume's part of the American Enterprise Institute. If you go through his AEI profile (and the archives), you get the picture of someone who is quite a bit of a Trumpism lapdog, and a fair bit of a BJP kiss-up too (though not completely, you get the idea that he seems to not understand Modi's nationalism strategy for some reason and wants a Happy India Led By The BJP That All Gets Along. *cough*) A large touch of Islamaphobia comes with the territory. Witness his article on the UK "grooming gang" moral panic which includes essentially a "No U" at Labour. I also think his recent article on DEI, comparing it to India's caste system and South African / Malaysian apartheid (wut?), is quite rich. Small wonder he chose to write a "No U Arab States Are At Fault!" article regarding Trump's ethnic cleansing plans.
The WSJ has recently been complaining some about some of Trump's shit. It's hard to look at those articles seriously given the poor quality of their op-eds. Before complaining about Trumpism, they should look in a mirror and see the shit like the above. BobJohnson (talk) 18:00, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Most of that op-ed piece is hidden behind a paywall. But I take it they're likening the proposed clearance of Gaza to the massive movement of people that happened following the partition of India in 1949. Well, that was a completely non-traumatic event that definitely doesn't still bring tears to anybody's eyes more than 70 years later. Spud (talk) 11:18, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
Here's an un-paywalled link. Feel good that you are not actually paying for this shit. BobJohnson (talk) 13:57, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
Oh, fuck me! That's not so much sanewashing as it is some bloke in the pub rambling on. Or some idiot calling a radio phone-in who'd be cut off before they got that far on any half-decent station. Spud (talk) 14:10, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Heritage Foundation vs Wikipedia

The Forward recently released a Heritage Foundation document ("pitch deck") on how to target Wikipedia editors (including with NLP, natural language processing),[1] which would also seem to include attempts at doxing. The Forward has said that HF is aiming to target antisemitism and anti-Zionism on WP,[2] but given HF breadth of anger, it's likely much broader. WP has already considered taking steps to counter this and other potential such threats.[3] Bongolian (talk) 19:05, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Well, this isn’t legal, but most Wikipedians don’t reveal their identity. The ones who do are mostly administrators or a few bureaucrats. Additionally, Wikipedia has a strong two-factor authentication system. I’m not sure how they are going to do it. It’s like launching a bagel into the sky and hoping it comes back as a pizza. You aim, you let go, and then you just stand there squinting, wondering if it’s going to hit a bird, land in someone’s soup, or just vanish into the void like your motivation on a Monday morning. —𝕶𝕾𝕳 🐅 19:11, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
By "NLP", I think they mean "natural language processing". Chillpilled (talk) 20:14, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
As noted in one of the links, it's a serious enough threat the the Wikimedia Board is considering steps to mitigate this, such as not publicly revealing IP addresses for editors who are not logged in. The IP addresses can be merged with other data to reveal approximate location. Thanks for the heads up on NLP, Chillpilled. Bongolian (talk) 20:19, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
They should just get rid of IP address edits at Wiki and only have logged in accounts, it would safe so much time from vandalism and other trouble. Oldman4 (talk) 01:04, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
However, it would also stop folks correcting stuff that they spot 'in the wild'. I myself have made a few IP-edits over the years, such as correcting typos, adding new info [like I knew one bio was dead and knew where to find a ref for it] and a couple of cases of vandalism. KarmaPolice (talk) 02:05, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
In various contexts it is easier to correct trivial errors in passing; occasionally one wants to ask and similar something anonymously; and I have come across what are obviously 'persons connected with the topic' making constructive or neutral edits.
And - probably 'many or most' contributors to a wiki (or several) start off as IPs, most of the possible new recruits would be discouraged.
Some topics probably require some measure of protection and there cn be wikis where signing in is appropriate (eg the effectively defunct GANFYD). Anna Livia (talk) 00:46, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

RatWiki on Steam?

Apparently, there's a steam group. Kinda dead, but still. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 19:57, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

So, are we a platformer or a CRPG? (I don't think it would be proper for us to be a shooter.) Kencolt (talk) 19:59, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
Interesting to see this. I might have to join. ModeratelyR3 (talk) 03:19, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
RW Gaming (real) Gabaghoul 🥩 00:00, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Mobile View

I was checking out MediaWiki software and other wiki projects outside Wikipedia and found that MediaWiki now has options for both mobile and desktop views. So, can we add a mobile view to RationalWiki as well? For example, I mostly edit from my phone, and it's really difficult. I think a mobile view would improve the experience and make it easier for mobile users. —🌌 Lunar 🌠 18:08, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

This has been suggested several times before. There's a list of desired system upgrades somewhere for when we get someone hired to do this, and I believe adding mobile support is on it. Bongolian (talk) 19:09, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
For now, you can switch (Appearance -> Skin) to MinervaNeue in Special:Preferences. That's most of what the mobile view does, but since we don't have that extension it needs to be manually toggled. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 23:29, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

How much long can Trump last at this rate?

No matter his support or power, he is not some god. Eventually, he will in some way suffer consequences of his actions if not legally then by natural cause as a mortal human being. Not to mention other countries are not going to passively let him do as he pleases. So assuming he is not impeached and removed from office, what will potentially cause his own eventual self destruction from his reckless actions that he is doing purely out of personal pride and spite? Throwawayuseraccount (talk) 22:20, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Musk and Trump are actively burning social capital as we speak. Pissing everyone off is not really conducive towards long-term power consolidation, but they believe that accelerating the US to collapse will somehow result in their technofeudalist new world order. They're idiots. Antares (talk) 22:26, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
Not a MAGA, but I am a realist. As we have observed time and time again, there isn't a thing Trump and Musk could do to burn social capital. Trump and Musk have a loyal dedicated fanbase who would gladly sacrifice their firstborn children to prove their unyielding fealty to the MAGA cause. The entire GOP is now made up of a bunch of brown nosed (and shirted) Trump/Musk boot kissers; Anything Trump or Musk says is treated like the King's royal decree. Not only has Trump not lost an ounce of support since assuming office, but his support seems to be increasing in these last few weeks as he fulfils some of his campaign promises (while burning down government agencies with reckless abandon.) Trump is not a normal President, he's not enjoying a honeymoon phase that'll simply pass. People already know what he's like, he was in the White House previously. The only reason why he wasn't so ruthless back then was because there were still Republicans & members of his cabinet willing to stop his worst impulses. Those people are gone now, replaced by loyalist yes-men. Voters who voted for Trump knowingly voted for exactly what is currently happening, and they're cheering it on. No president in American history has ever had such a dedicated following as Donald Trump. He is a cult idol, plain and simple. With the lackluster Biden administration that had the terrible luck of being in power during global inflation, and his best billionaire friend owning a huge megaphone online, Trump's fanbase has never been higher than now. A majority of America are hard-core MAGA now. It's a hard pill to swallow but you'd have to be in extreme denial to not see it. It does appear that Trump is mentally declining as of late, and it is becoming more and more apparent that Elon is calling the shots. It goes to show that Elon, while not a visionary inventor as his fans paint him to be, is a master manipulator. Elon knows that reactionary right-wingers are easier to court, enrage, and command like his own personal army. Just by whipping up the flames of MAGA, feeding into Trump's ego, and having a lot of money, Elon has managed to slip his way into top-secret clearance of the (former) most powerful nation on Earth. Trump himself might not last long, but Elon may very well be the de-facto ruler of America for decades, and most Americans seem to be all for it.2001:67C:2628:647:F24D:A2FF:FE75:1C0F (talk) 23:22, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
Trump is actively hemorrhaging support among zoomer voters as we speak ([4]). A majority of Americans also "disapprove" of Musk and DOGE ([5]). Antares (talk) 23:27, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

The original question isn't about supprt though. But about how he can last as a human. You can play with fire as long as no one stops you but eventually will get burned from natural cause. Likewise, you can drink arsenic if unchecked but will eventually die from the poison. So Trump can do what he is doing currently but eventually will bring his own self destruction from the natural consequences even if no one were to stop him. Throwawayuseraccount (talk) 23:34, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

I do think that this thread is a perfect mileiu to point out the problems with the doom and gloom narrative some people are promoting, though. Like some people are assuming that no one would resist him in anyway, when everything he is doing is generating resentment and resistance. Any would-be autocracy needs popular complacency. It only takes 3.5% of the population to topple dictatorships through a sustained civic resistance campaign ([6]). Smart dictators know that to keep the rubes happy and not bring the pitchforks out they have to throw some bread their way. Everything the broligarchs are doing is counterthetical to that. Antares (talk) 23:38, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, I take issue with the statement "a majority of America are hard-core MAGA now." For a start, you have to identify: which MAGA? The tech-bros and oligarchy as represented by Elon Musk? The Dominionist and culture war faction, which by and large has been written out this time (but I don't think they know it yet)? The racist anti-immigrant faction, who often are obsessed with woke to the point of derangement?
Now, add in the deal that Trump barely won the popular vote (+1.5%). Then, factor in the fact that the vote for Harris and Trump were *significantly* less than the amount of people that simply didn't vote at all... about 89 million voters, or 36% of those eligible. Finally... it's clear that not all Trump voters are fully into MAGA. I'd say that based on Trump's approval rating "floor", at most you have 30%-ish population who identify somewhat with MAGA. How much of them are so devoted it is a "cult", I don't know. Obviously there are some, but there are also many more in the margins. A good example of a not-very-MAGA but-probably-Trump-voting sect (for now) would be the Joe Rogan crowd.
But... this is more of a Elon Musk presidency, not a Donald Trump one, so far. I actually consider Trump more the "master of theater"... he's good at spewing a lot of bullshit that excites the rubes even if it's ceremonial and meaningless. His actions in Trump 1 were a lot of hot air, not a lot of concrete stuff (except on perhaps some of the racist anti-immigrant shit and tax cuts for the well off)... and you still see this in some of the non-events regarding Trump's endless spewings regarding tariffs, of which only a few have actually been enacted. Musk on the other hand is the government wrecking ball that rich Republican assholes have dreamed about for decades. He's not that popular now, and the impact of his Twitter-disaster-style "fire everyone!" mismanagement of government hasn't even started yet. It's one thing to target things like USAID (despite the obvious soft power hit), because the racist rubes hate helping anyone not in their identity and have raged about "foreign aid" for a while, of which the budget of such is far exaggerated in their heads. But Musk is fine targeting stuff normally associated with "the right", such as certain military-linked agencies like veterans affairs. I know there's a lot of "yeah cut all the government!" now in the MAGA cult chitchats now, but we'll see how the ultra-devoted rubes (and especially those with far less devotion) react the further Musk makes the US government ultra-friendly for Big Business and the flabby arm of ruling class rich society, and not much else... even those who served. BobJohnson (talk) 01:01, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

He will survive this year, but i'm not certain if he will survive the entirely of his term. A somebody. (talk) 00:00, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

I think it's important to focus on how the Orange One can 'fall'. He is POTUS. He has a big enough cult to effectively make him unimpeachable. A SCOTUS supermajority who will do their best to 'see things his way'. And has packed his cabinet with cretins who are very unlikely to nix him due to senility.
Therefore, the most likely ending is the 'creeping entropy' variant, as more shitstorms are unfurled the resistance within the system rises. For example, if he throws Ukraine into Putin's lap I think a lot of the officer class will 'turn' against. Now, I'm not saying they'll want to try a coup but I could see a lot of 'work to rule', 'creative inertia' and sheer 'passive resistance' while finding it harder to find true believers who are both competent and sane.
There is also light at the end of the tunnel. There is not going to be an Orange V3, there is no clear successor and he will be 82. There's elements of 'whos afraid of the Ancient Orange?' at this point. If he ends up being as crap as some are inferring to, there is the definite possibility that he might stain the Republican brand to make them unelectable for a generation. KarmaPolice (talk) 03:00, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

If his presidency does turn out as bad as predicted his full control may only last for two years. After two years the House and the Senate will be up for re-election, and if Trump really screws up, then the House and the Senate will not be red any longer. And if they turn blue Trump won't have the easy pass to make any changes he wants. He will be limited by having to go through Congress; one that will not be on his political side. He won't have the power to do much, and after he is out officially after four years, there will be a new chapter for some actual good to be done. ModeratelyR3 (talk) 03:17, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes. And if the Orange One seriously slides in the polls, the careerists going along with MAGA for the ride will start to bail. And as he gets into his final year, 'lame duck-ism' will creep onto him. KarmaPolice (talk) 03:42, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
I should add a word of caution that what Trump and cronies are trying to do amounts to a self-coup right now. Expand the power of the executive at the expense of the judiciary and legislature. Look at the shit with DOGE and all the whinging about "judicial dictatorships". I do think they're overreaching, but the neoreactionary broligarchs doing Hitler salutes on the White House lawn definitely don't have an ounce of respect for democracy and the law. See also the talks about Trump running for a third term. I would also caution that, before anyone says "that's impossible," remember that the Constitution is whatever SCOTUS says it is. If they decide that Trump can run for a third term, then he can run for a third term. Lastly, there's also the fact that Trump has given a greenlight for fascist thuggery with his pardoning of the January 6th rioters. Pay attention to that as midterms approach. Antares (talk) 06:45, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
The cope in this thread is intense. I wish I had this kind of optimism and naiveté. Before Trump took office, I still had a small glimmer of hope that our institutions will hold until the 2026 midterms. Now, things are moving significantly faster than I could have imagined; all bets are off. It's appearing less and less likely that there will even be an election in 2026, let alone 2028. Even if there is another election, it is certain the results will be fiddled. At the very least any future elections in America will be as "free & fair" as the ones in in Orban's Hungary. The focus of "2020 was rigged" drumbeat wasn't only to undo the results of the 2020 election, but to legitimize any "drastic measures" the GOP planned to carry out, such as drastic Voter ID laws with the express purpose of disenfranchising as many people they'd think are likely Democrat voters as possible, instead of actually making the voting process more secure. Simple projection. Heck, Trump himself made a gaffe on Inauguration Eve when he said this: "...but Elon Musk did that and then he journeyed to Pennsylvania where he spent like a month and a half campaigning for me in Pennsylvania and he's a popular guy, and he was very effective. And he knows those computers better than anybody. All those computers, those vote-counting computers, and we ended up winning Pennsylvania like in a landslide so it was pretty good. It was pretty good. So, thank you to Elon." Gee, I wonder what The Donald means by that?
Even if free and fair elections are still a thing, Elon Musk's control over an influential social media app & possibly purchasing another one, combined with Silicon Valley's rightward U-turn and the Legacy Media's pre-capitulation to the Trump regime will ensure that the right has an information monopoly. Lots of money coming from shady sources influencing the media landscape: Murdoch, The Heritage Foundation, John Birch, Koch and Wilks Brothers, oil barons, tech barons, lot of other filthy rich people and orgs. Info they don't want you to see will become exponentially difficult to find, and Americans are infamously lazy. Big tech has already scrubbed nearly all references of Elon's "wave to the crowd" from the interwebs. I need to use a VPN to find any information pertaining that event. Adult sites are being banned for adults in Red States, it's going to go further than that. America is turning into China as we speak, wouldn't be surprised if they copy the great firewall to block VPNs and call it the "freedomwall" because this kind of doublespeak fits the modern GOP brand. The younger generation are being raised on PragerU in schools, to straight-up Nazi content on TikTok. Oh yeah, we can't forget about that little TikTok stunt where they went "Oh, we are banned in America, sorry." and reopened a few hours later exclaiming "THANK YOU PRESIDENT TRUMP HALAYLUYAH!!!" Which works for amazing propaganda value, especially for teens who's brains are still developing and rely on that app like it's air.
That 3.5% resistance to topple dictator stat was only gathered from a few case studies. All from a time before people were addicted to the phone, when all there was in newspaper, radio, and TV, centralized in control by the government or a network company. This time, propaganda is a lot more decentralized. Content creators, not affiliated nor regulated by the government, but their viewers determined by algorithms controlled by social media giants who have vested interests in showing certain viewpoints and suppressing others. Modern content appears a lot more genuine and "human" than network-produced content on TV, thus astroturfing has never been easier. Sure Trump is not God, and the big macs will catch up to him one day, but his ideology will live on, and the people who have a vested interest in destabilizing society, looting our institutions and consolidating power will remain. They'll select a new figurehead candidate, prop him up with social media, make him look more likeable than he really is, suppress any criticism, and whip up some hatred against an other. Each person, be it bible thumpers, racist anti-immigrant nativists, tech/cryptobro, or even those on the fence, all have their own algorithmic profile: Different content getting shown to them, but leads to the same end point of voting against their own interests. What we are seeing is the technological continuation of what was started by Rush Limbaugh after the Fairness Doctrine was abolished. Jim Morrison: “Whoever controls the media, controls the mind” and oh boy do they control a lot of minds. There is a light at the end of a tunnel. It is a train 2001:67C:2628:647:F:0:0:156 (talk) 07:27, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
Because this is a gigantic wall of text, I'm only gonna take the time to address a few claims here:
1) You claim that "big tech" has "scrubbed" the mediascape of references to Elon's Hitler salute stunt. Yet when I looked "Elon's Hitler salute" on Google, I got numerous results.
2)You claim Americans are too fat and lazy to rise up. But in 2020 we saw the largest civic uprising in modern American history. In fact, the last decade has seen a strong militant protest movement emerge. We have also seen protests continue during Trump's second administration. In fact, protesters ran Nazis out of an Ohio city, despite those Nazis being protected by the cops ([7]). Resistance has thrived in other ways too. For one example, Trump's border czar actually expressed frustrations because migrants keep exercising their rights during ICE round-ups.
3) The Trump administration actually obeyed a court order to reverse their deletion of health information from CDC websites, despite all the braying about disobeying the courts ([8]). That tells me that there are elements inside the administration warning against fucking around too much with the constitutional order.
4) You bring up Trump's TikTok stunt, but as I mentioned above, even despite that stunt, his popularity with Gen Z is still crashing (which you completely ignored). Musk's money and control of a major part of the information infrastructure also hasn't stopped a majority of Americans from hating his ass either. You ignored this too.
5) The fact that your only response to hard data is to handwave it away is laughable. Unlike you, I have actually provided citations for my claims. I have backed them up. All you have are assertions. This tells me your case is weaker than mine. Antares (talk) 08:05, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Antares is right. Trump will die in office. Whether it happens befor or after 12:00pm on January 20th, 2029 remains to be seen. 199.7.156.128 (talk) 08:02, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

I wasn't the one who said that, but I do think that Trump won't outlast his second presidency. He's a walking mass of high cholesterol. Antares (talk) 08:05, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
There also is the matter that elections are run by the state. Republicans are going to have a tough time messing with any elections in Democrat trifecta areas.
It is obvious that the Republicans are using the Viktor Orban "illiberal democracy" playbook already... and have been for a while. Last election, there was an absolute flood of anti-Democrat propaganda on social media. The GOP has crapped on the independence of American media -- well beyond Fox News, which is now pretty much obviously a propaganda outlet of the GOP. A significant amount of the so-called "liberal" "mainstream media" kotowed to Trumpism in 2024, courtesy of their asshole billionaire owners. (The US's ranking in RSF's press freedom index has tumbled from 17th in 2002 to 55th in 2024. "Land of the free", har har!) It is obvious that the GOP is using culture war shit and other disruptive information flooding to try to influence the vote. I mean, that's the Southern Strategy, but then add in the targeting of media and various institutions and the propaganda techniques, and it certainly looks quite Orbanesque.
However, "illiberal democracies" are not full dictatorships. Media and institutions are not *fully* suppressed. Such can still be beaten by the ballot. Poland is an example -- PiS, who are illiberal in a very similar manner to the GOP and Orban, in 2023 tried to jiggle the laws to prevent opposition leader Donald Tusk from running. This tactic backfired, as seen by the fact that PiS lost its majority that year, and the opposition coalition put Tusk into power. Likewise, if the GOP overplays their hand (and there's good reason to think they might), they might certainly meet a similar fate. BobJohnson (talk) 13:03, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
I do wonder if the broligarchs realize that the shit they're doing is gonna work wonders for a vengeful Democratic administration. They're setting the precedent. Or sowing the wind, if Biblical allusions are your thing. Rendering presidents immune for committing criminal acts "within the official scope of their duties." Fucking with the budget. Actually weaponizing the DOJ. A lot of very powerful people have a lot to lose if/when a Democrat takes the White House in four years. Of course, as I mentioned above, Trump has basically given the greenlight for election interference by his paramilitary thugs. Something to keep in mind as the wheel of the electoral cycle turns again in a couple of years. Antares (talk) 13:13, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
"Vengeful Democratic administration" I highly doubt that. We've seen this play out time and time again; the Democrats are toothless when actually given the levers of government. Even with full trifecta, Dems drag their feet. Meanwhile Republicans invent oppression in their heads and when voters hand the reins to the GOP they feel justified in pushing beyond acceptable norms. The Democrats are funded by billionaires too, money with thick strings attached; they'll never let a left wing version of a populist "come down the escalators" so to speak. We seen what happened to Bernie Sanders. Democrats will not do anything beyond feelgood words and gesturing. 199.119.233.230 (talk) 17:45, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
Something I've not heard any talk on, though it may well be happening domestically and not reaching me here on the other side of the world.
What do you feel of the chances of constitutional reform happening if there is significant pushback/swing either in the midterms or in 2029. From what I read on your National Archives, a two-thirds majority vote in a joint sitting or a call for a convention by two-thirds of the State legislatures (with the white house not involved, even in rubber-stamping it) gets sent for ratification by the states - 38 ratifying it passes the amendment.
Speaking as an Aussie, I'd be much more comfortable in the state of US democracy if you had mandatory voting and either SC term limits or SC mandatory retirement age.
Daev (talk) 18:45, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
With such a high bar of 38 state legislatures, any attempt at a rewrite would not go anywhere unless the current constitutional crisis gets super-super-serious (civil war / country split level). Republicans have been way more keen on the idea of late (check out this site and all the fine upstanding authoritarian oligarchy enablers who endorse the idea), so don't get your hopes up of change in the direction you want in the very unlikely case this happens. BobJohnson (talk) 19:16, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
- I said the MAGA-SCOTUS would 'do their best to see things his way'- that isn't a promise they'll rubber stamp whatever. Interpreting shit to fall in his favour is one thing, openly adding words to the Constitution is another. What's more, I think a Certain recent film on a third-term President might cause Trump to realise that no, really a actual civil war might break out regardless to what a minivan of MAGA justices say. Is that the kind of shit an 82 year old lazy cheating golfer would like to try to pull off?
- I do think they are overreaching hugely. If I was a wannabe strongman, I'd gut the guardrails etc before doing shit which threatens to piss off a lot of the Big Public. In fact, I would work to 'hide my fangs' to the point when they finally came out to eat your face you'd be shocked by them. What I've seen to date confirms what I said before; that Trump wants to be a king but he's too lazy, simple-minded and unfocused to actually try to make a serious play for that - if nothing else his top team sucks and is at cross-purposes.
- Come on, who thinks the 'Orange and Boor show' is going to even reach Xmas 25? I don't. KarmaPolice (talk) 21:20, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
KarmaPolice Would 'Every man a King' have done better than Trump? (From what little I know Long was more competently corrupt). Anna Livia (talk) 11:05, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
A lot of what Trump is doing is popular such as his border/immigration policies and cutting out the fraud/fat out of government. However, his tariff policy might increase inflation too much and his Medicaid cuts might erode his base of support since a lot of MAGA supporters are on Medicaid. Since he was largely elected on fixing the inflation problem, failure to do so would wound his presidency badly. On the foreign policy front, he overpromised on ending the war in Ukraine within 24 hours. And Putin may be not be serious about wanting to end the war in Ukraine via negotiations. Anecho (talk) 14:59, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
Trump isn't even cutting out fraud or trimming the fat in the federal budget though. DOGE is completely opaque, the claims of fraud Elon Musk is making are completely unsubstantiated. He's given no evidence for what "fraud" he's uncovered, and the idea of two billionaires being proactive in rooting out government corruption is already laughable on the face of it. Trump supporters do not understand economics. Inflation is legitimately just a buzzword for them. If it wasn't, they would understand from day 1 that Trump's proposed tariffs were going to raise inflation. Of course he wasn't going to end the Ukraine war in 24 hours, but who cares? He explicitly lied about it and I don't see any MAGA people calling him out for it. I don't buy the argument of this nebulous, incoming mass of MAGA buyer's remorse, every Trump supporter I've seen has been absolutely loving every insane decision Trump has made since his inauguration. --Ozzyboo (talk) 16:54, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
Many of the popular news sources are partisan so if you are reading only negative reports about DOGE, it wouldn't surprise me. I try to vary the news sources I read so I can read the pros/cons relative to issues. And some of the things federal money was being spent on, I am glad DOGE cut. Part of the problem is that it doesn't appear that the federal government has good accounting systems and oversight. And when DOGE looks into defense spending, that is going to be a treasure trove of wasteful spending. After all the pandemic related expenditures that raised the federal debt, better oversight was bound to happen given the size of the current U.S. federal debt and all the future money that is going to be spent on senior programs like Medicare for the baby boomers.
International trade, tariffs and trade deficits is a complex system so it's tough to predict what will happen. I am hoping for the best and that a lot of American jobs are created, but preparing for the worst. But if Trump breaks the Chinese economic system before replacements are developed in terms of production that could be a problem. I hope Trump doesn't take a "The Hulk" SMASH approach when it comes to China's economic system since it produces a hefty percentage of the world's goods. This might be somewhat easy to do given all the current problems in the Chinese economy. Anecho (talk) 17:41, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Do you have any examples of good cuts the DoGE has done? Also, how exactly would Trump break the Chinese economic system? ミ★ LunaAHHHHH 17:50, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

We don't even know what fraud DOGE has found because DOGE hasn't given any evidence of fraud at all. They've given examples of things that sound scary to Trump supporters, but not fraud. USAID giving money to transgender art abroad is not fraud. The government DOES have good accounting, that's why Elon Musk wants access to private financial records and tax information so badly (despite not having any authority to do so). DOGE is the opposite of good oversight, it is a completely opaque, fake governmental organization that actively refuses to make its actions transparent. It is a blatant excuse for the Trump admin to cut spending for anything they disagree with, or to cut spending to government organizations that pose a challenge to their obviously illegal and unconstitutional policies.
No, it's really easy to predict what will happen. High tariffs are bad for the economy, objectively. The US cannot win a trade war with China, we gain nothing from imposing tariffs on Mexico or Canada. Tariffs do not lead to increases in employment. In fact, they often lead to increased unemployment, as businesses will lay people off when the economy worsens. --Ozzyboo (talk) 17:55, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
I personally have doubts that Musk will be very effective at "cutting waste", at least in comparison with his boasts. The Economist last week reported that American government spending hasn't really changed really all that much so far. This is not a surprise, because the targets so far have largely been small departments, some of them with out-sized soft power or research benefits (so a bad target for cuts), but many of which have been political bête noires of Republicans for years. Musk and Trump, furthermore, are doing their darndest to downsize departments related to detecting fraud and scams (such as the IRS and the CFPB) which sounds odd if you are really serious about "combating waste". From my perspective, a greater priority of this administration is to tinker with the rules so that the oligarchy minded can scam and cheat a lot easier. My guess is that part of the reason for the opacity of DOGE is that they really aren't finding that much fraud in practice. The relative silence allows the MAGA cult to make up lots of wild shit (and boy, they are), but if you look past this, there really isn't much there. Much of this is more about gutting the government with a Twitter-style "downsizing" purge versus "finding fraud". (And we know how junk Twitter has been ever since Musk's mass downsizing...)
The biggest non-entitlement spending is defense and certain big entitlements (Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid). My guess is, if you are going to truly find waste, you are going to find the most of it in both the military and the shithole monopolies that make American medical care extremely expensive (of which the problem is less "we're spending money" and more "shitty corporate structures"). If Musk actually succeeds in tackling these topics, that will be something positive, but I have low confidence that he's the right guy to do this. BobJohnson (talk) 18:07, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
Obama was given basically a "mandate of the people", a supermajority in the Senate and House. He burned through so much goodwill so quickly that in 2010, the Repubs took back the House.
The same is likely to happen in 2026. When it becomes clear that DOGE isn't some magic bullet, just a regular ol' hollowpoint that hits a bunch of vital organs, when it becomes clear that Trump can't magically make major wars have happy resolutions, when it becomes clear that harassing migrants doesn't cause rents to plummet or high paying jobs to open up, the Dems are likely to retake the House/Senate. CorruptUser 18:56, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
Artificial intelligence (AI) is doing amazing things and the DOGE 20-something "wizards" are using it to sift through a lot of data and flag items (Go to right-wing news websites to get some of the details of the wasteful spending, but I recall Musk saying he is publicly publishing DOGE results on the net). And with all investment in AI, its only going to get better. But I just found out that Trump was WRONG about the world ranking of the USA's education system and its better than he reported. I try not to be fooled by politicians, but I admit that I bought what Trump said about this matter hook, line and sinker. Nevertheless, more competition via school choice and more local control of the educational federal funds is probably a good thing in terms of getting the most bang out of educational dollars being spent on education.
Fair trade is good due to countries having specializations in various sectors and countries that are good at trading prosper. Economists going back to Adam Smith recognized this. Trade wars can be tough to win, but as far as a trade war with China, the Global South is better able to compete against China than during Trump's first term so even if factories are not built in the USA due to tariffs, the USA can better take its purchasing elsewhere. And during Trump's first term, a lot of the tariff money came from the sellers because they swallowed some profits, but how much meat is left on that bone, I don't know. Also, if I am not mistaken, in a trade war, the country with the biggest trade deficit has more leverage in a country against country trade war. But again, international trade is a complex beast and all the economists dire warnings about Trump's tariffs in his first term were wrong. Maybe Trump's tariff detractors will be right his second term if the tariffs are not done judiciously. But one way or another, the USA should pay down its debt which would make its economy more resilient and tariff money could be a part of the solution.
How could Trump be a Hulk who SMASHES China's economic system? China has a tough deflation problem due to its property crisis and other factors. It also has a ton of local/national government debt so its debt/GNP ratio is very high and north of 300% which is much higher than the USA's ratio. On top of this, money is fleeing China and it has high youth unemployment. So if Trump keeps ratcheting up tariffs on China, it could cause economic damage to China due to factories closing, etc. Trump is a very competitive person so he might kick China when it is down before the USA has had a chance to do more reshoring of factories and develop alternative suppliers. China's population is both shrinking and aging so the USA has to be proactive and not wait until the last minute in terms of coming up with alternative sources of production than the part China is currently playing.
The biggest wind that Trump has at his back is that Democrats are not doing enough to attract blue-collar votes. Like Reagan before him, Trump is capturing that vote and that is why he won in the blue wall states of PA/MI/WI. Trump even took Reagan's slogan of Make America Great again. Democrats need to fix this in order to win elections. Anecho (talk) 19:56, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
1. You guys must have a lot faith in the election process to believe that it can withstand the political blitzkrieg by the Trump 2.0 administration for the next two years. Even if there is an election in '26, It's not likely to be a fair one. They'll tweak the system to ensure Trumpublicans can never lose. Trumpists passing the SAVE act is not about keeping elections secure, it's about securing the elections for them.
2. It doesn't matter what Trump does, MAGA will still cheer. They voted for Trump full well that he is going to destroy an uncountable number of lives, including many on their own side, and they view it as the greatest thing to ever happen. That's their prime motivator. I even seen MAGAs openly exclaim that it was never about the inflation/eggs/federal budget, instead it was all about "making liberals cry." Although they were bad at not making that obvious. No other President or political movement in American history has ever had such a cult of fervently loyal followers. They are so entranced by the MAGA cult "fuck-your-feelingism" that they would happily live in extreme poverty, starvation & homelessness, just for the hope of seeing their political opponents suffer an ounce more than they do. I've yet to meet a MAGA who's expressed regret for voting for Trump, and I'm confident I never will. Even if inflation surpasses Zimbabwe, or Trump puts taxes for working class up to 100%, Or or World War Three; Trump will not lose a single supporter. And the bigger issue is that MAGA has already grown to approximately half the US population, from less than a third in 2017. — Unsigned, by: 2001:67C:2660:425:3617:EBFF:FEE4:63AE / talk / contribs
I respectfully disagree. Pride, complaisance and overreach are going to cause the GOP to eventually lose to Democrats because these things are built into human nature. It's not a matter of if, but when. But in modern history, I am not aware of any time the Democrats have been in a weaker state than now. It's like post Jimmy Carter weakness, but worse. And their allies like the media and Hollywood are in a much weaker state now too. And Trump is going after the Democratic Party ally academia too in terms of their research funding.
Unfortunately, Democrats are digging in their heels and sticking with identity politics which is a problem because their wealthy donor class has different values than moderate/conservative working-class Americans (The Latino Catholic vote is part of this issue[9]). So Democrats might lose the next 2-3 presidential elections. But after some electoral beatings, they will probably adjust their policies/messaging like Bill Clinton did with his shift to the center. If you look at the presidential list of presidents going back to FDR, no political party has won 3 consecutive presidential elections. Anecho (talk) 21:08, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
You're right. Democrats are so incomprtent at battling the Republicans it's almost like they're on the same side. After all, both parties are funded by the billionaire class. Wouldn't be surprised that the donors are telling the D politicians that they fund to keep the identity politics so they can contunue to lose elections. Meanehile Republicans are told to push the overton window as far as possible, that within the next 2-3 election cylces, things like "let's not torture homeless people while we publically execute them" will be considered a left wing position. That is assuming future elections are not fixed to the point that the GOP candidate wins every election with 110% of the popular vote, if theres any voting at all. 199.7.157.40 (talk) 22:50, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
That's stupid. Harris ran one of the least idpol friendly campaigns in recent Democratic history and still lost. And just to clarify, what do you mean by "the Democrats are sticking to identity politics"? Do you consider identity politics to be "anything that recognizes queer people are human beings"? Why isn't the GOP's white nationalist schtick considered to be idpol here? Antares (talk) 06:07, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
It amazes me how anyone could take a look at what the Trump administration is doing and still say, with a straight face, "they're on the same side." And yes, I know, VPNs blah blah, but *especially* from a fuckin' Canadian IP. BobJohnson (talk) 12:47, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
Trump (and many of the politicians in his orbit, whether true believers or not) has already shown that he doesn't give two shits about the consequences of his actions - ethical, legal, material, or otherwise - unless he thinks they'll meaningfully effect his own power, influence, and wealth. I think it's unlikely he'll compromise or cede power in any meaningful way unless he's forced so at gunpoint (figuratively or, if a war breaks out, literally). If the Dems or anyone else in power wants to challenge him, it might be wise for them to play hard-ball like the Republicans have for the past 40 years. You don't compromise with fascists - you shut them down at every opportunity.
There's also the possibility that Trump could be severely incapacitated or pass away while in office. I don't need to be an MD to say that an obese elderly man with a mostly sedentary, stressful job and a penchant for junk food is at high risk for a lot of potentially fatal health conditions. One can only hope Spray-tanned Palpatine has the same respect for medical science and practitioners in private as he does in public. Gabaghoul 🥩 00:41, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
”Artificial intelligence (AI) is doing amazing things and the DOGE 20-something "wizards" are using it to sift through a lot of data and flag items (Go to right-wing news websites to get some of the details of the wasteful spending, but I recall Musk saying he is publicly publishing DOGE results on the net).”
Sorry but this sounds like standard Silicon Valley hype/BS, using the latest buzzword (AI) as a magic wand that’s going to fix everything. And right wing websites are generally not good sources of reliable information, let alone Musk himself.
If Musk is indeed running AI on the government data, I think it’s much more likely that he’s doing it as another of his own business ventures to find out how he can siphon even more public money into his own pockets. For some time, I’ve suspected that the Musk’s personal financial interest in DOGE, apart from wrecking those agencies that were supposed to ensure that he follows the law, is about data access.
My suspicion is that way he might monetise the access he now has to federal data is a combination of the Google/Meta and McKinsey business model. That is, a combination of the ability to accurately profile individuals based on Big Data (remember when that was the Silicon Valley buzzword of the day?) and the kind of strategic insider business information that’s the stock in trade of the big consulting firms. ScepticWombat (talk) 06:03, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
Come to think of it, the very suggestion that it’s a bunch of late teens/early twenties tech bros running AI on massive government spending data should give pause for thought, because how exactly are these guys qualified to set up and run AI to flag public waste?
None of these guys have any experience running big resource intensive programmes (public or private) or any experience of how the public sector actually works, so how are they able to set up, train and evaluate these AI models, let alone interpret their output?
Has DOGE even presented anything about which AI models they’re using and how? Have these models been tested and evaluated for potential problems with bias and/or black boxes? And if so, have these assertions been verified by anyone? (Again, I wouldn’t trust statements from Musk or his organisations any further than I could throw him, given his record) ScepticWombat (talk) 06:14, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
Based on the DOGE website (which was seemingly released in the wild with open API endpoints that anyone could insert data into) as well as other slapped together shit, I imagine the "we are using AI" claims are indeed pretty bogus. I can totally buy that they are siphoning data, though, it doesn't take a lot of skill to make a data scraper. But it takes time to train a good AI model; I really doubt that even someone good at this (let alone these seeming-to-be script kiddies) could come up with something meaningful and government sized in one month. Most people don't have the foggiest about what is behind AI; it therefore makes for a good buzzword for the MAGA rubes.
One of my "hopes" regarding DOGE, is that these script kiddies might be too incompetent to do serious internal damage. Especially since from what I understand there's a lot of legacy COBOL stuff and other legacy crud behind a lot of the guts of the government (many of the flashy websites are just interfaces, not the guts). If they can't get modern APIs right, there's a good chance that their legacy coding skills are nonexistent. BobJohnson (talk) 13:00, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
Speaking as a Brit who's seen this shit shake out at home, my Boor suspicion is that they intend to rip out swathes of the federal govt to the point it can't function, then replace it with wildly overpriced, unaccountable contractors [owned by MAGA-friends] to make it functional [barely] again. Ideally, via opaque no-bid, fixed-margin models with little to no oversight. It's why UK.Plc is in such a fiscal shithole right now; our state is covered with bloated contract leeches who have made any action approximately 2-5x the price which it would be if we just did it ourselves oldschool. Like BobJ alludes to above, most of the 'waste' is going to be in this area of govt but it is the single area which the DOGE Bright Young Things™ will never question because y'know, public bad/inefficient, private good/efficient.
From everything I've seen and heard so far about these BYTs is that they're basically acting like the traditional shitty 'management consultants' we all know and love - y'know, the ones who strut in, announce blithely that a half of headcount is nixed [normally the most experienced] and that 'tech' will plug a lot of those jobs and outsourcing will do the rest. Then the stock price ticks up a bit, and they stroll off into the sunset provided by the skipfire they made before the aerosol cans start exploding. They don't give a fuck about the actual running of the business; at least the two Bobs in Office Space attempted to make a real T/M study etc in where 'efficiencies' could be found. And as pointed out above, they don't even seem to have any experience of running anything so won't appreciate any of the nuts/bolts issues like how sometimes 'efficiencies' are in fact inefficient [example; 'NHS managers' fired but the level of management remains the same, requiring doctors/nurses to play at being managers which often costs more p/h than the manager and takes more time]. But then again, all the signs are they were simply brought in to do a slash/burn on the state so 'actually knowing shit' is not needed.
I don't buy the idea that 'Dems too far left socially so they lost the election'. I've come to the belief that what many countries have seen is a wide division between 'vibes' and 'policies' - that the Republicans run on vibes while the Democrats work on policies. Issue being; you can't out-vibe policies and you can't out-policy vibes. If nothing else, this explains why in so many countries polling is perennially stuck; neither side can really poach swathes of their opponent's base from the other because you're basically speaking different languages. KarmaPolice (talk) 14:04, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, I think that Musk may very well be counting on a variant on the consultancy/outsourcing/sell-and-lease-back “efficiency” scams that we may call “fuck-up-and-lease-back consultancy” to leech even more money from the public teat. This would be a Silicon Valley wet dream of subscription based “software as a service” rentier capitalism applied to a crucial bit of government infrastructure.
And of course, making agencies that try to protect the environment, health and consumers against dangerous and corrupt practices utterly dysfunctional is almost certainly a goal in and of itself, not just for Musk, but for Trump and his financial backers as well. ScepticWombat (talk) 15:02, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
I don't think the problem is that the Democrats are too far left on social issues. I think the problem is that voters think the Democrats care way more about those pet social issues than they care about the economy. This NYT/Ipsos poll of voters from January is revealing, I think:
Voter perceptions of Dem priorities 2025.png
Democrats have spent way too long doing this stupid shit where they'd go full progressive on social issues to distract from the fact that they were abandoning the party's core economic message in favor of soulless pro-corporate policies. This is the result. Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 15:05, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
Al Gore's economic policies were to the left of Bill Clinton's. Obama's economic policies were to the left of Al Gore's. Hillary Clinton's economic policies were arguably to the left of Obama's. Biden's economic policies were definitely to the left of both Clinton's and Obama's. IMO, Kamala ran on what was possibly the most left-wing economic platform since LBJ at least. As far as I see it, there are two possibilities: 1 the average voter still thinks that these candidates support neoliberalism or 2, the average American voter simply disagrees with "progressive" economic policies. I'd say that abandoning Latino and Asian voters and failing to acknowledge the Gaza genocide were the real reasons people stayed home and didn't vote for Kamala. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 15:54, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
For the record, I'm not saying that these policies are good or bad. I've stated many times before that I hate "pro-business" policies and I don't believe that economic development can be achieved in the long termnl without democracy and good public education. Just that the independent voter seem to disagree with many economic polices that at least some people on the Democratic party support. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 16:22, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
I would certainly love to hear what specific "core economic messages" Democrats should be promoting that aren't being promoted already, at least among the progressive wing of the party. (Yes, there's a lot of Third Way crust, but a lot of those are of an old guard that is slowly fading away.) My "gut feeling" is that some of the above polling more proves KP's point about "vibes" pushed by propaganda networks like Fox News. Democrats really can't propaganda where Republicans pretty much thrive on it (Fox News host Jesse Watters basically admitted that the right wing ecosystem is a propaganda machine recently, no surprise there). Part of the problem here is that, from what I see, the "high information voter", excepting the oligarchy crooks at the top fucking things up, tends to lean towards the Democrat vote these days. (If not, from my observation, they tend to be the type that lurk in those conservative Never Trump quarters, kind of stuck in a political no-man's land right now.) Everybody is susceptible to propaganda, but some have bee meone like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez would do quite well on Joe Rogan's show! (If the folks booking behind the scenes actually allow that sort of thing, of course.) On the other hand, it's pretty clear to see that social media can be weaponized in a way that is actually worse than Fox News (more foreign troll influences, for a start; it didn't take much for Russia trolls to flood social media and help make the Party Of Reagan actually pro-Putin in its dumbest sectors). BobJohnson (talk) 16:11, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
The issue is that the Third Way 'old guard' is being buttressed by corp interests; which on the whole like the current setup quite fine thanks very much. It might be the 'most left-wing in decades' [Mondale in 84?] but in many ways that's like me celebrating I'm the thinnest I've been in decades... at 395 pounds. Thing is, Harris 'did everything right'; she was a paper-credible candidate, no nasties in her backstory, didn't fuck up on the trails, at several points really appeared to have Trump on the run, had a huge war-chest to use and a huge slew of celebs etc to call on. I personally think she got cold feet regarding being economically 'radical'; from what I could see [admittedly, from afar] Harris was loathe to either a) fully embrace the 'Biden's protege' label or b) disavow him entirely. I think the epicentre of the rot, however is at DNC HQ; those 'professional activists' who staff the machine which is supposed to deliver election victories [I believe Biden won in '20 despite them]. That they are scared utterly stiff of anything which smacks of 'populism' and have perhaps done all they can to ensure the Democrats are not a mass party. If you deny populism, you are basically denying vibes and identification politics [if you're an X you vote Y] as a strategy. Which as BobJ correctly notes, is kind of leaving the Democrats with trying to chase the relatively small well-heeled 'high information voter' while allowing MAGA to eat out their bowels by using those strategies against traditionally Democratic blocs. KenBot isn't renowned for their actual accuracy but they were correct in pointing out that Trump did seem to gain some traction with groups like Hispanics with increased vibes, and it's very possible the next iteration could finally crack the final Democratic bloc - African-Americans. KarmaPolice (talk) 16:50, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
Very much true that the "high information voter" is a smaller group, but my main point with the "high information voter" is that pure bullshit propaganda is not going to be a tactic that works quite as well in Democrat space (although it works *some*, as represented by relatively liberal social media like Reddit that frankly is pretty embarrassing these days). All modern attempts to make the "Fox News of the left" have failed (think Air America). What has worked real well, relatively speaking, is the "high information snark" of such folks as Jon Stewart and Last Week Tonight.
That's not to say, though, that the smarty-pants route is the only one possible. Before the usual corporate suspects snapped up AM talk radio and booted them out, there were actual quite successful liberal political talk hosts that were definitely more similar to Rush Limbaugh than Jon Stewart. Yes, they were often assholes, but ones that actually focuses their dickness on attacking the top instead of "punching down". Now that the oligarchy authoritarianism of the GOP is perhaps a bit more visible, maybe this approach could work again, for all I know, both in media and even in politics. (Lyndon B. Johnson and FDR were assholes, but in a way far different from Donald Trump.) BobJohnson (talk) 17:17, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Question (and useful break)

Which will last longer - Trump or this discussion? (Count in lettuces if desired.) Anna Livia (talk) 17:53, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Do you think animators are exaggerating how the industry dislikes them.

I saw someone say that animator specifically put too much importance on themselves and are being dramatic when they say they have difficulty unlike real workers. — Unsigned, by: Tryhardbutnottoomuch. / talk / contribs

What the fuck do you mean by "real workers"? If someone exchanges their labor to a boss-type for a wage in return, they're a worker. Antares (talk) 11:46, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
Is the deputy director of the CIA a worker? The CEO of Aldi? Was Joseph Goebells? Your definition is too broad to be of much use. Christopher (talk) 12:16, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
I've not got a clue what the OP is going on about here; normally it's usual to either explain what you're talking about and/or link to something which does. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:31, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
(EC) This definition seems in fact too broad and too narrow at the same time, since it also excludes self-employed people. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 13:32, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
Tryhardbutnottoomuch, are you going to do anything here but shitpost insane crap in the Saloon? BobJohnson (talk) 14:47, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Looking real cloudy with a chance of rain for trans people right now

Trans nonbinary person here. Looking really, really bad right now. It's not just the United States, it's a global trend. It's scary; I am scared of how widespread and prevalent the hate for trans people has become. Governments enact regressive policy out of abject cruelty, and it wins them votes. It's hard to hold on to hope when the opposition to trans rights has become so large. --Ozzyboo (talk) 17:08, 18 February 2025 (UTC)


I have some trans artwork favorited on DeviantArt... I should probably back them up before the artist, who's from the US, closes their account or something. Considering things, I do think it may happen whether user-intentional or not. And yeah... things do seem a lil' bleak for the world in general. Looking forward to drinking coffee tomorrow though.
Also for all transphobic folks posting, I'm curious if they've ever read about Temperature-dependent sex determination; yeah it's reptiles and fish but the point is that there's still a lot that isn't known, even with humans perhaps. Impiricism (talk) 00:06, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
there are plenty of cultures that have accepted non-conforming genders into roles, you don't need to bring frogs and fish into this. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castrato sometimes if we're talking about history... But I still don't think there is a modern incentive to turn boys into girls, which is the focus of the anti trans argument. Torrent (talk) 04:36, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
smashing little boy testes so they keep singing like girls, be as.mean to me as you want,there are girls who.can sing soprano.racism and sexism risks our balls..Torrent (talk) 05:18, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
Modern incentive... you know what a twink is right? Anyways. I always have a hard time figuring out what you're going on about Torrent. The main argument I'd give is that things are complex for biology, people, life. Things are less absolute ("black and white") and more relative than a layperson believes. I was fortunate to get a (I would say) decent education when younger and can recall my health sciences teacher talking about things like ectopic pregnancies or yeah, babies born with extra fingers... or sometimes extra/missing/different genitalia; depending on the specifics in the latter case it can be hard for doctors and parents to determine what gender the baby is or "should be", and how to proceed with making medical/surgical changes for quality of life. In such cases it mayhap is best to leave things for later when the person can express themselves more or what they want. For some very rare persons that are born with a body that physically aligns with being "male/female", is it truly so difficult to imagine that perhaps other things do not?
Let's switch back to sexuality. Decades ago being gay or bisexual was still considered a fetish/mental illness/abomination... but most now recognize that it is not true. That it isn't a choice. And that each of us just tries to do what feels right and gives us happiness (hopefully with respect to others pursuing the same)... And life honestly is too short for some ignorant cunt to say otherwise. Impiricism (talk) 05:37, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
Correction; biphobia is still alive and kicking and fetishised/demonised by folks - from what I've heard, the worst offenders of the demonisation is from lesbians. 'Weird', 'confused', 'just experimenting', 'half-hiding in the closet', 'sluts' etc. It's like we blow their binary world apart or something, that we must conform to this model [a lot of us kinda slide around the bi/pan/queer labels (not helped by the fact we usually end up in the 'everything else' box), though the ones who actively object to 'bi' shall be the politicised pedant activists]. KarmaPolice (talk) 11:25, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
No, it's still straight people, mostly. Most homophobia will be from straight people. I'm not denying that there are biphobic queer people, but most homophobia is from straight people and will continue to be for the foreseeable future. --Ozzyboo (talk) 16:58, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
I was referring within the general LGBT community. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:39, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Hey, how would I disprove this.


e^(pi*i)+1=0

I have no idea why, but it’s the most profound thing that I have ever seen in my life — Unsigned, by: ‎Donglepuss / talk / contribs

What's wrong with this site and all these shit threads today? GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 00:22, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, locking the Saloon to autoconfirmed for a few days again, too many shitposters. BobJohnson (talk) 00:41, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
This is a really dull post here because it posits nothing except that you appreciate math, which is cool. There is nothing else to say about it. If you need a read, you got it. Hope it was everything you were looking for. Torrent (talk) 03:30, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
You discussed it here before. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 09:57, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
Okay, I know this is spam, but what is actually the deal with Euler's Identity? I'm not super into math, so I've never understood why it's so "beautiful". Can someone explain like I'm 5? --Ozzyboo (talk) 16:59, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

On banning people

Should we ban users that are super transphobic? Or is that too much? Or has there account been hacked, because I don't think this is normal behaver for them. Koafox (talk) 16:14, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Trump and executive power

Seems like Trump has signed an executive order to gain full control of the executive branch, which sounds awfully familiar. Any thoughts? ミ★ LunaAHHHHH 17:37, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

For people that can leave, get out while you can. For people that can't, protest and resist. For non-Americans, hope your country starts to prepare for when the (perhaps now explicit) American fascists start calling. Impiricism (talk) 18:19, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
Another case for SCOTUS. Which means 'another chance for the MAGA justices to lose even more respect by sucking off Trump'. Question is; who will break first; MAGA-Justices will to continue prostituting themselves or the Big Public's respect for them? KarmaPolice (talk) 18:38, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
@Impiricism Where should we go though? Where is safest from the rising madness overtaking my homeland? MirrorIrorriM (talk) 21:48, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
I've been wondering: what the fuck is the point of a separation of powers when a single party gets the whole trifecta?
Another thing I've been wondering: why the fuck is everyone playing along with this bullshit? I understand the Republicans and the billionaires (and, to an extent, a lot of the Democrats as well), but why isn't the military or any of the three-letter agencies doing anything? This power grab is only second to the Enabling Act of 1933 in terms of how obvious it is.
At least regular people seem to be protesting all the shit Trump is doing. Some are also planning a general strike which already has 260,000+ people committed, though it probably won't reach its 11,000,000 goal anytime soon. ミ★ LunaAHHHHH 22:22, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
Because that would give Trump the excuse to fire them and replace with loyalist hacks. Instead, I think there's a lot of 'consulting of consciences' and 'quiet muttering' going on. KarmaPolice (talk) 22:35, 19 February 2025 (UTC)