RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive403

The conspiracy that the COVID-19 vaccine causes Prion disease
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrR8myrYWJY

Recently the CJD Foundation, which does research on prion disease and provides resources for families who are afflicted with prion disease, has been getting calls about the conspiracy involving COVID vaccines causing prion disease. How is that for sad? --Resident Evil 7 (talk) 20:37, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I've dug into this a little more; seems there's been a case where a Covid patient developed CJD and then died a couple of months after. Current hypothesis; Covid *may* have accelerated CJD onset. I'm not a medical bod, but appears they've discounted Covid causing CJD (for now) on the basis we'd have seen way more cases by now, rather than the one confirmed. The timestamp for this was last June, so CJD specialists surely have been watching for this possible link (and because there's no other mention, it's not been found. At least not yet). Plus, makes no mention of the subject being vaccinated - if we work back from the publish date, the case was no later than perhaps April '20.


 * For the tin-foil hat brigade, credit where it's due; they've at least found a condition where medical knowledge is kinda low - 85% of cases are still of unknown cause. That makes it a bit harder to refute. KarmaPolice (talk) 04:36, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This is based largely on the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein having prion-like regions speculated as being capable of catalyzing the misfolding of proteins responsible for Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease. As KarmaPolice mentioned, if this is a likely interaction, we'd probably see an obvious rise in incidence now, but that's not certain. Amyloid interactions may be more likely instead, which is still potentially a big problem. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 19:30, 16 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Wew, what a relief. I thought it was Peronie's disease. Dutchbag (talk) 04:38, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I would consider this a very minimal risk at best, considering how if we were to have amyloid buildup or interactions at this point, we would have much bigger problems than neurodegeneration on our hands. It's potentially a problem, but getting your fingers blown off by spontaneous antimatter annihilation is also potentially a problem. The bigger issue with this study is the way it would tie into actual COVID infections. We would have to wait a lot longer to see this definitively, but there are examples of post-COVID infection resulting in a lower density of grey matter, and higher incidences of Alzheimer's and CJD in post-COVID elderly patients (something that coincidentally isn't the case for vaccinated people). Ozzyboo (talk) 02:55, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

The JELL-O Company prevented the 2012 apocalypse wake up sheeple
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7M_cpovLX8

I remember when this commercial aired, me and my brothers laughed about it. The commercial was hilarious and I love how it made fun of doomsayers. --Resident Evil 7 (talk) 22:50, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Didn't the Jello company facilitate Bill Cosby? Dutchbag (talk) 02:27, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Back in the 1970's I think. --Resident Evil 7 (talk) 23:15, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Winter Solstice
Appropriate greetings to all those who celebrated it. Anna Livia (talk) 12:05, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I celebrated winter solstice by procrastinating on my French and finishing a Japanese graded reader. LongStylus (talk) 20:07, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Remember that the people in the Southern Hemisphere begin summer. And it was quite hot in some places. Andrew5 (talk) 23:25, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm having roast duck with rice and green beans. Not important but the duck is halal, apparently. 23:56, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Duck is awesome. I like to get moulard duck breasts (moulard ducks are ideal for pate, which I also enjoy, and they sell half-breasts that are perfect for one person), and the packaging recommends cooking it like a steak, but sometimes I'll do something a bit fancier too. Hell, I live right near Long Island Sound (albeit on the opposite side), and Long Island is nothing if not famous for its duck, so I can appreciate and occasionally prepare a good braised duck. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 03:02, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Wholesome Vent Harassment
The Fonz (talk) 22:10, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The Blue Öyster Cult has a sense of humor about that, to this day when they play that song they have a roadie come out on stage and hit a cowbell. Though some idiots are still stupid enough to think there was ever a Gene Frenkle, Will Ferrell dressed up as an actual band member named Eric Bloom. And as a side note, that remains the only song that has ever appropriately referenced Romeo and Juliet. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 03:07, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Can one still have love for past partners when in a new relationship?
I'm not talking about getting back with your exes, more like how is it alright to still have feelings for them (in this case love) while in a new relationship. It's not that you don't love your current partner but you also love your past one(s). It's something on my mind since my last partner and I still have love for each other and I still care about him, but I recognize that we just weren't compatible with each other. I don't want it to come across as I might cheat on anyone new, but I don't know if I can just kill these feelings.Machina (talk) 22:22, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This happens all the time to people who are widowed. Someone who marries somebody that is widowed who had children with a now-deceased spouse should recognize that the relationship may not be, or may never be, as close as the previous relationship the widowed spouse had. Dutchbag (talk) 00:13, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Possibly easier (and safer!) to think, treat and talk of it as friendship based on shared past. "Love" is a pejorative term that is unlikely to help you with your new relationship IMO!  good luck Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 00:45, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * folk generally cant turn on or off emotions like a switch. starting new relationships when you not over the last one can be tricky for all involved especially if the ex is still around. its going to depend on your specific circumstances obviously, but if the ex is still around, even if you are currently single, it can be like picking at a scab. some distance might be required initially, a clean break, for you own well being as well as pining for the ex wont make your new partner feel super wanted.
 * some couples break up after years and stay besties and its all cool with everyone, for some folk that wont work. if this is playing on your mind, you might fall in the latter category. not always easy to tell AMassiveGay (talk) 02:17, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Is this a Machina thread? Yes it is. Carry on. 02:22, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't know. I still love and care for him but just not in a relationship way. I don't know if it will go away, the feelings are still pretty strong right now (Like burning almost). But I know it's best for us to be apart.Machina (talk) 03:12, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No you can't change emotions at the flick of a switch, but you can train yourself to change them. If YOU treat it as friendship, refer to it as friendship, and act as if it is friendship then you stand a pretty good chance of it becoming that and removing all the potential conflicts that might occur is you think of it as love. Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 22:06, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * So what you're feeling is a strong social bond to another. Since this was an extremely strong bond, i.e. an intimate/romantic relationship, it's likely left a mark on your psyche. This isn't bad, merely how the human mind operates. Depending on other factors, such as how close/distant you are from your ex in the present, (and visa versa) it's possible that this bond will either fade or persist as time goes on. 03:36, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

This question is predicated on the assumption that one can (or should) only "love" one person at a time. This is going to depend on which of the multiple meanings of "love" you are using at the time, but in any case the assumption is doubtful.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:09, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I hereby Taboo "love" for the rest of this discussion. Can you experience emotional attachment to past partners and desire their well being? Yes, obviously. Can you maintain an exclusive relationship with past partners and place their well being higher than any other priority, while also doing that with a current partner? No, obviously not. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 21:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

New York could propose gerrymander more egregious then Illinois
A 23-3 map is possible in the state of New York, which will be their final gerrymandering opportunity. Andrew5 (talk) 17:53, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Side note on maps in other states
Arizona independant commission slightly gerrymanders map for Republicans, New Mexico gerrymanders for Democrats (but two seats could easily flip red in red wave), New Jersey independent commission also gerrymanders it towards Democrats. Andrew5 (talk) 19:59, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Book series that is 100% relevant to the COVID pandemic (yes it is a zombie novel trilogy)
The Newsflesh trilogy by Mira Grant. Mainly the idea of counter-productive solutions to a plague and political commentary about how the far-right wants to give "freedom" which involves oppressing others. Those things are currently happening with COVID. How is it for sad that novel writers have been correct about reactions pertaining to disease outbreaks (just subtract zombies or vampires)? --Resident Evil 7 (talk) 23:09, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Not really. Speculative fiction novels are... well, speculative. You sit back, think 'what if...?' and then watch the situation play out in your mind. And some things are really not hard to predict; human nature kinda doesn't change. Sometimes, all that's required is 'thinking things out' and/or looking at historical examples.


 * Plus, there's so many works out there. Whatever happens, someone would have 'got that bit right' simply out of sheer luck. Or more likely, a semi-shrewd guess (like having your pandemic come out of China), giving it attributes which are kind of vital (like making your pandemic airborne), while taking issues which make the situation worse (like denialist/minimisers in various governments, while the experts are screaming) and then slather a bit of scenery porn (people with masks, silent cities, overgrown greenery, empty shelves etc).


 * Lastly, 'creatives' often have much more freedom. Politicians often don't want to voice 'uncomfortable truths', academics would be pelted with incessant demands for 'evidence', most think-tanks only look into things that their sponsors will pay for. And futurists are often the worst of all, riding their own hobby-horses to their glorious future or worldwide doom. KarmaPolice (talk) 05:58, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Token mention of 'The Wreck of the Titan' about a large ship being hit by an iceberg: 'large ship (with an appropriate name indicating its size) encounters iceberg which has the better of the argument' was a reasonable possibility at the time.
 * There are many concepts which are 'low possibility but eventually probable (given current knowledge) scenarios' and any reasonably imaginative writer who reads/watches the news etc can develop some likely context and consequences.
 * Besides - the only future predictions that are remembered are the ones which are particularly right (at least in some aspects) or #very# wrong - 'There will be a world market for only five computers', and nobody predicted that the USSR would disappear with a whimper (still in nominal existence 30 years ago). Anna Livia (talk) 12:20, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * A kind of Sturgeon's Law of accuracy? Yeah, I'd agree with that. And sometimes, a prediction can zig-zag on accuracy; the fabled IBM quip may become true if we end up in a world where everything is on the cloud, thus meaning there are only '5 computers' running everything. (KarmaPolice)
 * 'Dewey defeats Truman' is remembered but 'Present trends show X is winning in [this demographic]' is not - and did anyone from the 'World War III - the Soviets will win' camp ever apologise when reality got in the way? (There is also the 'engineer encounters something in SF, decides "I want one of those and can make it" and does so, with some success' phenomenon - modern handheld devices and Star Trek tricorders might be an example.) Anna Livia (talk) 13:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * One thing we also need to remember is that fiction is shaped by reality, and shapes it back. This can end up becoming a little bit of a feedback loop; Newsflesh itself features 'grand conspiracy theories' which has increasingly been fed to the American mind for perhaps thirty-odd years now. It can be argued that fiction has softened up said mind to consider such things. So, class; your assignment over the holidays is this - 'Did the X-Files Prime America for QAnon?' KarmaPolice (talk) 17:03, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * If people cannot tell reality over fiction, they are to blame, not content creators. My viewpoint. --Resident Evil 7 (talk) 20:46, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yet sometimes to withdraw into a 'own bubble' is a sane response to an insane world. To simply focus on 'important things' (family, friends, work etc) and ignore all the things outside of it that you can't change and usually don't directly affect you. And if you're shot through with cynicism past said bubble, you can end up looking at news etc as 'just more fiction'.KarmaPolice (talk) 11:17, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Crooked cop found guilty of manslaughter
https://news.yahoo.com/jury-finds-kim-potter-guilty-in-daunte-wright-traffic-stop-shooting-193617460.html

These crooked cops need to be held accountable for their crimes. Yes I know the justice system has plenty of corruption but holding corrupt cops accountable for their crimes is a start. Let the crooked cop rot. --Resident Evil 7 (talk) 20:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "Crooked...corrupt" What do those things have to do with this case? The article describes negligence, which is the crime she was convicted of, and is on video admitting in the incident itself. The first-degree charge looks questionable, but that's not about corruption either. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 21:41, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree - should read 'Incompetent cop found guilty...'. The more I look into this, the more I suspect that the American police's #1/2 issues aren't racism, militarisation or even corruption - but simple incompetence, followed by structural obsoleteness. There's too many enforcement agencies, spotty oversight, even more shoddy training/standards and the idea that wannabee cops have to pay for their own training utterly nuts. I don't argue that some depts etc are pretty decent, but they're brought down by the number of awful ones. And labour shortages always have the effect of making managers think twice of firing an 'iffy' cop because it's a choice between poor cop vs no cop at all. KarmaPolice (talk) 23:31, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The prosecution led the jury to believe that negligence and recklessness are the same thing, and the judge allowed it. She has a strong case on appeal. However some resident Minnesota law experts claim the crooked courts may not hear it. Meantime the jurors own property values will sink as another wave of police resignations is about to hit, after the jury effectively criminalized police work. Dutchbag (talk) 02:47, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Her crime was no different than hitting the gas when you meant to hit the brake, experts say, something everyone is guilty of. And there are hundreds of thousands of deaths yearly by well-trained doctors attributable to the same mental errors, which go unprosecuted. Dutchbag (talk) 02:56, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The prosecutors and jury chose to ignore the science, and the community now will pay. Dutchbag (talk) 03:10, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Science? What science? Policemen have a responsibility to use their weapons judiciously. There is a difference between negligence and recklessness. It is indeed reckless to discharge a weapon without knowing the likely result. Negligence was the cause of her recklessness. Ariel31459 (talk) 04:17, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Cops carry tasers on the other side of their body from their firearm. The officer reaching for the wrong goddamn side clearly had no clue what the fuck she was doing and fired her weapon before she figured her shit out. She killed a man because of that. 04:56, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Ariel, yes indeed there is a difference between recklessness and negligence, and the prosecutors blurred the line while judge let them get away with it in the jury instructions. Dutchbag (talk) 09:21, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * And the science says in stressful situation anybody, including a trained cop, can make the same stupid mistake she made without it being willful or malicious. Dutchbag (talk) 09:43, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Cops have the power of life and death. This is why they should - and often are - held to higher standards than the general population. I don't know how common this argument is used in the USA, but here in the UK we have the principle of a 'person having ordinary skill in the art'. So in this case, it would ask this; is mistaking your taser with your pistol an 'honest mistake' which could be expected from a cop of average skill and experience? The defence would then argue for mitigating factors etc.


 * As for 'the jury effectively criminalized police work', I call out BS. A badge does not absolve you of responsibility for the outcomes of your own incompetence.KarmaPolice (talk) 12:24, 24 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Only an idiot would work as a cop in Hennepin County with the risk of facing a Hennepin County jury, prosecutors, and the Minnesota Attorney General's office. They have no support from the community they serve. Dutchbag (talk) 13:06, 24 December 2021 (UTC)


 * This isn't a one-off incident. You have the Muhamad Noor, Derek Chauvin and Kim Potter prosecutions in the just the past 3 years. All three convicted. Congratulations, Twin Cities. Your elected prosecutors and juries have turned Hennepin County into a Third World County. Dutchbag (talk) 13:09, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * its interesting when you say police have no support from they community serve, when they do not serve said community in the first place. not with community policing of any description. policing in the us is more akin to an occupying force than anything resembling a functioning police force seen in a liberal democracy, but more like police in the third world. its funny, because when i think 'third world' i think more of police committing extrajudicial killings with impunity and not justice for all and a rule of law that applies to all including those meant to uphold it. you correct though about things not being a one off incident. police murder far too commonplace in a the us and always has been as is the systemic racism and heightened tensions that make all interactions with us police life or death situations for peoples of colour. police actually being accountable and victims of police brutality gaining any kind of justice is the novelty here. obvious to anyone paying attention to the news in past years, and is only disputed wilfully ignorant fucking pieces of dogshit. (you willfully ignorant fucking piece of dogshit.) happy holidays everyoneAMassiveGay (talk) 13:54, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * What is this; 'our cops, right or wrong'? Do you not consider that this carte blanche mentality might be one of the reasons for some of the crummy policing seen around? Policing is by consent, and all the Hennepin County have done is show that consent has limits - which I say is actually healthier a mentality.


 * However, I do suspect the woman was scapegoated somewhat; 'one bad appled' rather than looking at the institutional issues which allowed the woman to end up in that position in the first place. But both 'sides' like this narrative as it's relatively easy to 'solve'.


 * I'm actually surprised a little you didn't dig out the true stats (as they support your argument) - since 2005, 139 serving officers were arrested for on-duty fatalities, and of which around a third ended up being found guilty (of something, not always murder/manslaughter). That's about nine a year arrested, and three convicted of *something*.


 * But we know why, don't we? It's because the number of 'fatal incidents' runs to around 1,000 a year (give or take). And that the total number of officers is around 700k. This means that statistically, a cop is about 0.14% likely to kill someone 'on the job' each year, and if they do, has a 0.9% chance of arrest and 0.3% chance of being convicted (which might not even lead to prison).


 * Conclusion: quit with the dramatics. Argue the case itself was perhaps unfair, a situation where an individual was put in a situation they weren't prepared for, but don't spout a septic-tank worth of BS about 'cops being victimised!!!!' or squealing about becoming a Third World Country. If nothing else, it actually makes your legitimate points (which you do occasionally have) get overlooked amongst all the muck.KarmaPolice (talk) 14:33, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * who exactly are you responding to here? cut the bullshit concern trolling, we have all on this site, across the us, and across the world have been watching and discussing police murders and brutality in the us with a shocking frequency that only came to light because they had been captured on mobile cameras. perpetrators not even being charged, arrested, or otherwise investigated until such came to light, and still conviction has not been assured. more half of police killings are not even reported or they are mislabelled. . the racial disparities in access to and treatment from us justice is shocking and well known. the systemic issues with racism from a history of slavery and jim crow is shocking and well known. the refusal to address these issue, or admit they are issues at all is shockingly common, and the above reference to third world countries by noted bad faith dogshit spouting editor shows that now blm and those protests are no longer prominantly in the public eye, and having achieved litle of the major systemic changes to us justice and society to effect change, the back sliding and foot dragging and the refusal to do fuck all is back in vogue. wwe have gone through all the relevant statistics and sources that we can find to say one thing or another on this site. not going to bother to great lengths digging up stats to dispute a dogshit comment expressing outrage at criminals getting convicted for crimes because the criminals are also police. i can call obvious dogshit just that ad be done with it. its more than it deserves. heres some indepth analysis for you consider when you concern trolling about policing by consent - that isnt the american policing model so knock that shit right off and i am well aware of these are issues with no easy answers, everyone is well aware of that sad fact. everyone is well aware very little is going to be done any time and whatever impetus of blm had is gone or waning and we have the dogshit idea that police accountability is like the third world AMassiveGay (talk) 17:23, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I was responding to Dutchbag, as it seems to have gotten a bit mixed up with your message getting in between (basically, I wrote it just as you did yours, but I lacked the time to re-write properly when yours came in due to needing to do Christmas stuff. So me bad). I mean, who's the one in this conversation claiming that police occasionally being brought to book for their screw-ups is somehow unfair? I've said at least twice that police should be.


 * My stats was to simply show that in the USA even now, a law official actually getting arrested for an on-job death is 'man bites dog' territory and an actual conviction is 'man bites unicorn'. As Dutch was trying to imply that police now are under so much unfair victimisation etc that their jobs are now impossible to perform - I argue that when you've got a 99% chance of getting away with killing a suspect even in the era of body cameras and modern systems of accountability, you can conclude at the very least it does not encourage proportionate response. The other idea - that the other 99% were all correct and unavoidable - I didn't even entertain because of the tons of evidence of law enforcement malpractice and well, I've already made it clear I think incompetence is the worst problem facing American police right now.KarmaPolice (talk) 20:31, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * apologies, my mistake. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:00, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

"Not guilty, because...science!" That reminds me of the last verse of Bob Dylan's Blues:


 * Ariel31459 (talk) 21:13, 24 December 2021 (UTC) https://youtu.be/dlKUUpAKqhE?t=113

Is commission only a good job to take?
So I got a job selling insurance for Aflac and in the interview someone asked if the pay was salaried and they said no it was commission based and said that if it were salaried then there wouldn't be an incentive for us to try. I'm not sure if that was a red flag or not, I'm also not sure if it was a good idea to take this job. I am licensed to sell insurance in Florida, took the exam and passed well. But I don't know if this job is a mistake.

It was the only job that got back to me that wasn't food service and I am not going back to Chik-fil-A. But having it depend on how many people buy the policy leaves me uneasy. I'm also uncertain about my grasp of the process. There were so many videos and I didn't really grasp that much of it and I'm scared I'm gonna trip this up. Did I make a mistake taking this job?Machina (talk) 01:12, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Hell yah. Hourly or salary means the clock is running against you before they finally shovel out the dead weight for leaching off the productive work of your co-workers, who are underpaid in order to carry your lazy, unproductive ass. Dutchbag (talk) 03:20, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Is that for real?Machina (talk) 03:23, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * AFLAC is easy to sell, cause it does not require anything from the employer to purchase. All you need is permission to sell it to the employees, who get pre-tax benefits from it (IOWs, they can deduct the cost of AFLAC from their Social Security withholding tax). The employer gets a big boon, in that they can advertise that they offer benefits - benefits that cost the employer nothing and the employee purchases. The key here is, finding employers with lots of employees to reduce the amount of running around you have to do. Dutchbag (talk) 03:29, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Here's how AFLAC works: A worker who makes $1,000 a week pays $75 and change in Social Security tax. They can wait 40 or 50 years to get a portion of that back in retirement (after inflation), or by buying one AFLAC's several insurance lines for say, $50-$75 a week (redirecting their mandatory Social Security tax), they will have coverage and access to cash and/or benefits should an emergency require it before they reach retirement.
 * That's how you pitch it to the worker. Dutchbag (talk) 03:44, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That's SS Disability Income tax, not the main Social Security deduction. Bongolian (talk) 05:00, 24 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Ok, both of us are wrong. While the amount of FICA (which includes Retirement, Medicare, and Disability) is defined as pre-tax income, under a Section 125 Cafeteria Plan there is a cap of $2750, or about $52 a week. It is not limited to the 1.35% (or whatever it is) in Medicare and Disability tax.  My God, you'd have to gross over $200,000 to reach that $2750 cap if the deduction were limited to just the Disability component.  Anything less would make it not worthwhile for an average worker (let's say the median income is roughly $64,000). All FICA contribs (7.65%) up to the cap are eligible.
 * And the big selling point Aflac uses is Supplemental Income Insurance, meaning it's cash and not just Medical Insurance. Also, there is a plan that employers can use if they choose to pay part of a benefit insurance. Dutchbag (talk) 08:42, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

But is it a good idea to take a job that is only based on commissions though? I have the pay structure breakdown they gave me but I don't wholly understand it.Machina (talk) 08:21, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Commission work is merit pay that gives you the maximum amount or incentive the employer can afford and make a profit. Salary in sales is really like temporary training pay until you learn the job and become self-sufficient. If your not up to speed after a period of time, or appear that you may never get up to commission status, you'll get canned.
 * Now, there are certain "seasonal factors" that affect some employments, so some employers use a salary plus commission so they don't lose a trained workforce during slow periods.
 * It's all a system of averages, of which you have to more or less fill a "quota". They may tell you what that quota is, and may not. However, somebody who only looks to fill a quota is considered unmotivated and lazy. And a salary system drives down the amount of commission they could pay in a strict commission only system. Dutchbag (talk) 08:53, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

The commission/salary question is so "it depends" that it's impossible to answer without a whole lot of details about you, the job, potential income, effort required to obtain that income, your experience, your minimum required income etc etc. It's a question that really only you (or possibly a professional advisor) can answer.

However, your comment: "I have the pay structure breakdown they gave me but I don't wholly understand it."  leads me to suspect that you do not have all the information that you need and that you may end up getting stung.

Perhaps you would be best served by finding someone who has already worked for the same employer under the same conditions and asking them.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 09:08, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Personal skills and being likeable is all that's necessary for a successful career in sales.
 * What is the commission (%) for sale of a Section 125 Supplemental Insurance plan to a worker? Dutchbag (talk)
 * IOWs, you have to figure how many of those Section 125 plans you have to sell a week to make $300, $400, $500 or whatever you goal is. In life insurance sales, the salesman gets paid upfront a commission equal to the first 1 or 2 years of premiums paid by the purchaser. After that, the company keeps everything (assuming the guy keeps paying the premiums or doesn't die causing a big payout more than what the buyer ever paid in). It's all a system of averages, which you can only beat by racking up big numbers. Dutchbag (talk) 09:28, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Isakson died
Isakson unfortunately dies, age 76. Andrew5 (talk) 14:18, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Merry Christmas from me and Tom Waits
This is, imo, the ultimate Christmas song, and certainly the most beautiful: Leucippus Salva veritate 19:06, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Andrew5 (talk) 19:15, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Vale Smerdis of Tlön
I just found out that our dear colleague (Steve Gustafson) passed into Atheist Heaven on 19 December. Here's the Facebook obituary, and another. Hope you'll have a drink of something old and not new-fangled in his name this evening - David Gerard (talk) 02:17, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Rest in peace, Smerdis. 02:46, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to hear that. He was a sensible person who made good contributions here. Facebook hates me (and the feeling's mutual); I can't login to my account anymore. Any chance of posting a non-password-wall link or putting something on his RW talk page? Bongolian (talk) 04:28, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Damn. Sad loss of a good dude. 04:46, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * A user who did a great deal to change this place from a bunch of bad goat jokes and out of place digs at fundies into an actual source of interesting information. We are the poorer without him. His passing has made me determined to do more translations of articles on which he worked so hard into other languages. I think that's a fitting way to pay tribute to him. And I hope that toasting him with beer is OK because it's all I've got. Spud (talk) 04:48, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I wish I had something better to say, but you will be missed ol' buddy. 05:49, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This is unfortunate and makes me sad. He will be missed-Hastur! (talk) 06:35, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Damn. That sucks. Rest in peace Smerdis. -- Techpriest (talk) 11:38, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't always see eye-to-eye with him but he was undoubtedly, smart, well-educated and articulate. His passing is a loss to the site but, more importantly, for his friends and family. It's sad news.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 13:28, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * He always had something interesting to say from his stoic perspective. His passing is deleterious to RW. Ariel31459 (talk) 18:18, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Smerdis was a passionate linguist and an overall smart person. It's a shame I didn't get to know him much. He will be missed. LongStylus (talk) 20:11, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * From his sister Karen:


 * My favourite text from Steve will always be his obituary for Isaac Hayes:

- David Gerard (talk) 19:10, 24 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Rest in Peace Smerdis. Sit tibi terra levis. 21:19, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Definitely the most upsetting SB post I've seen. May they rest in peace. Andrew5 (talk) 21:28, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Can't say I knew him very well, for it seems he was before my time, but he nevertheless seemed like an upstanding guy. Shame to see him gone. DietMondrian (talk) 21:45, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Damn! I’m really gonna miss Smerdis. Always interesting takes on things, and while I might’ve not always agreed with them, they were always well reasoned, argued and presented. His contributions will surely be missed in these parts and while there are fortunately plenty of other good editors, this wiki and its community is nevertheless left poorer by his passing. I’ll be sure to raise a glass to his memory, ideas and sterling work. And, of course, my condolences to his friends and family. ScepticWombat (talk) 23:02, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * RIP. Ushit the dipshit (talk) 00:05, 25 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Well fuck. That sucks. I feel like shit for not noticing this topic sooner. 01:45, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Rest in peace Smerdis. I respected your honesty and integrity. 02:04, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Christmas gifts
Anyone else make Christmas gifts for family, friends, neighbors? My preparation of a citrus zest-infused chocolate ganache batch today to make truffles (you read that right folks, my daily activities are not limited to political trivia postings) was met with an unfortunate lack of mini bags to place in (and instead resorted to a small Ziploc bag), though my neighbors were still quite happy about the gift. Ushit the dipshit (talk) 00:41, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That sounds nice, however I don't celebrate Christmas...Andrew5 🎄 (talk) 00:43, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I just prepared some raspberry jam to go on some cinnamon bread for my family, and I'm hoping that they like it. Your truffles sound very good though. Revenant Raven (talk) 06:48, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

The revisionist fiction of Joy Reid
"Past racist KKK Democrats were right-wing!!!11!11!!"

Reminds me of when I read The Rise of the Ku Klux Klan: Right-Wing Movements and National Politics, which arbitrarily assigns a random label to "right-wing" and *accidentally* admits the Second Klan was, in actuality, a progressive movement! And the advocacy of gun control shown by the First Klan is indisputable. Then comes the "KKK opposed labor unions!!" argument, which is deceitful propaganda as highlighted in this Cambridge University publication. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 21:26, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Honestly, as the sun sets where I live, I can honestly say this was your best saloon post I ever saw. Good job. Andrew5 (talk) 21:30, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, this is the same old points you've been trying to advance using your flawed, narrow definitions of what's "right wing" and "left wing". I'm tired of it. 21:32, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You know, if you actually bothered looking into this issue you might make good points about how oversimplified the modern conception of left/right is in regards to historical figures. Or you could engage in terminal tribalism like an utter hack. The choice is yours. 01:16, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Actually, the left/right spectrum is a French Revolution concept, but historical context matters so much, and I still believe the development of those terms were ongoing, with modern definitions of them most likely not cleanly fitting the political beliefs of people back then. I think a lot of what made up some ideological lenses such as class conflict and such wasn't really organized and put forward until Marx and such. Trying to apply modern lenses and definitions of the ideological spectrum, which is already flawed by design of being a linear gradient, to these historical figures is gonna put you into oversimplification territory, so it's not a really recommended thing to fixate on. It hasn't been since the first time you first got criticized (rather harshly too) for your trite "analyses" of historical political figures and ideas, and you're still engaging in that fixation.  01:28, 5 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't get your point. The old South politics was partywise Democratic. They certainly were not liberals. What about them them was not overall right-wing? They were conservatives favoring wealthy agricultural interests. The northern rightwing were conservatives favoring wealthy industrial interests. Ariel31459 (talk) 03:58, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The agrarian politics of the Old South preceding the Second New Deal era was left-wing and progressive. 1920s progressives thought of Southern Democrats as allies. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 04:23, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The founding of the Democratic party in 1828 and Jacksonian Democracy was a reaction against the elite rich landowners of the Jeffersonian Democrats and founding fathers. It traces its origin back to the when the first Congress and George Washington tried to tax backwoods hillbillies to fund the government founded and run by slave-owning aristocrats. By this definition, the Democrats were the oppressed 99%. Dutchbag (talk) 06:01, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The mistake both of you are making is viewing Big Tent style parties as internally homogeneous, rather than a loosely aligned group of factions, each with their own goals. But like I said, the choice is yours on whether to acknowledge the complexities of history or whether to try to smear people you don't like in the present. 16:14, 5 December 2021 (UTC)  16:14, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, and USHA cited a wordpress blog. Really going for prestigious academic sources there ain'tcha buddy? 16:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Anyhow, the Democratic Party isn't really "the oppressed 99%". Both parties representatives were generally pretty well off. Sure, Jackson himself had poorer beginnings but iirc he always had strong ties to Southern gentry. 18:40, 5 December 2021 (UTC)


 * This type of originalist argument is typical of Southern apologists. Whatever Jackson thought or did, by the time 1860 rolled around sentiment in the American south was anti-free labor where about one third of the labor force was enslaved. In fact, at that time it was argued that chattel slavery was more humane than the "wage system" as practiced in the north. That doesn't make them left-wing. The American left in 1860 was largely Republican and anti-slavery. Ariel31459 (talk) 19:04, 5 December 2021 (UTC)


 * The hillbillies and moonshiners were hardly well off. The three/fifths rule made the landed elite powerful. Andrew Jackson's use of the spoils system is the only thing that empowered Democrats. Conscription into the Confederate Army of non-slave-owning whites created no loyalties or stake in Confederacy, either.  Dutchbag (talk) 20:39, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * OK! I'm glad you understand their problems, but hillbillies and moonshiners were not in control at anytime. The militaristic right-wing southern states compelled service when necessary. But hostility towards the invading north was sufficient to supply Southern armies with enlistees. Overabundant patriotism is a cornerstone of the American right. Ariel31459more history for you!20:49, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The Republican party of 1860 (founded in 1854) was a single-issue party - Abolitionism (kinda like single-issue Pro-Lifers). By 1865, having achieved its goals, had no reason for further existence.
 * The hillbillies and moonshiners can be compared to tax protesters who resented domination by the rich slave owning elite, be it Confederate or heirs of the founding fathers. In a sense they were anarchists, but "Jacksonian Democracy" empowered them through the spoils system, a payoff with postal jobs for voting Democrat (and the spoils system trickled down to state and local government jobs, too). Dutchbag (talk) 21:34, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Lol, that's not what any of those labels mean. 22:09, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

The 1860 Republican Party Platform included the plank " That the history of the nation during the last four years, has fully established the propriety and necessity of the organization and perpetuation of the Republican party, and that the causes which called it into existence are permanent in their nature, and now, more than ever before, demand its peaceful and constitutional triumph." And no, antislavery was not their only interest. The platform included planks concerning tariffs, immigration, vituperous anti-democrat sentiment, pro states rights exclamations (excepting the spread of slavery), denouncements of federal spending, denouncing slave trade, advocations for squatters rights on public lands, that congress should pay for river and harbor improvements (you know, infra-structure), and that a railroad to the Pacific Ocean is imperatively demanded (completed in 1869).
 * Ariel31459let me know if I missed anything22:47, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Wow, truly amazing. It's almost like these two sprawling parties are more analogous the party coalitions of European style parliaments than actual parties proper. 22:56, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. Yes it is.Ariel31459 (talk) 23:11, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The GOP of 1856 simply absorbed the issues of the defunct Whigs in its platform. But the founding Republicans were single-issue voters cause the Whigs rejected their issue. And the pro-civil rights "Radical Republicans" of Reconstruction were leftists, demanding Black equality. Dutchbag (talk) 00:26, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * As to "Big Tent" parties, it is the Electoral College that requires a 51% majority to win the Executive branch. So the Big Tents are made up of coalitions. For example, the United Autoworkers labor union in bed with environmental and climate change groups who want to destroy their jobs in the Democratic party coalition. Dutchbag (talk) 00:31, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * How come we don't hear anything from climate activists and public transit proponents everytime Biden jumps behind the wheel of big rig gasguzzler and claims he used to be a redneck trucker? Dutchbag (talk) 00:40, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Joy Reid is a fucking idiot, enough that she makes regular appearances on BadLegalTakes (side note, absolutely one of the best things to come out of Twitter, and strictly non-partisan). No political movement is remotely honest with itself, the most obvious I can think of are the conservative "anti-censors" squawking about "Big Tech" and the environmentalists who crap in their hands and fling it at anyone who even suggests nuclear power as a solution. None of them in history do either, Cesar Chavez (to use one) was an insufferable dick if you were unfortunate enough to actually know him and the anti-union Reaganites hated unions but were always fine with police unions. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose; what more is there to say? The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 01:14, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * And none of that has anything to do with the central topic, namely the political classification of the Democratic party historically and presently. Firstly, no they are not, not in the sense of parliamentary coalitions no. Each caucus within either the Democratic party or the Republican party can be understood to be its own narrow focus faction, which will in turn have a very specific set of demands which the party overall must meet if it hopes to win the support of that caucus. Therein lies the central problem with USHA's inane pseudo-history by the way. The Dixiecrats' demands were not met by the Democrats, so they swapped party loyalty. Secondly, your post about environmentalist groups supposed hypocrisy is such a juvenile attempt at a "gotcha" as to be laughable. Such groups are only partly aligned with Biden and the Democratic party as a whole. Ergo, they do not see Biden as a member of their group, but as an avenue to enacting their goals. Ergo, they do not condemn Biden for supposed hypocrisy because they don't need to. He is part of a group they are only partly aligned with, not a member of their ingroup. I know you kids really want to "own the libs" but Jesus fucking Christ get better arguments, you sound like fucking 14 year olds.  01:33, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh and learn to hide your "gotcha" attempts better, that one was so obvious that it's frankly insulting that you bothered posting it. You might as well have used child level ad homs and been done with it. 01:34, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh and USHA? When operating a sock, some level of discretion is generally required. Vomiting the same talking points in a near identical manner on both accounts gives the game away to anyone with basic literacy skills. 01:37, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you are misreading everything. Tell me, Who were the Radical Republicans?, and why were they called 'radical'? Dutchbag (talk) 02:43, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I love how A) You aren't denying the sock accusation and B) you're trying to pivot away from the points I made. This tells me two things. Firstly, that you're second account is indeed a sock, and secondly that you're terminally dishonest. 03:01, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Easy. The Democratic Party is two things. On a local level, in any city with a critical mass, it's about the slug monster who's paid off enough people to get in office (lest you think I jest, just look up ). On a national level, it's split between older and younger people; the younger ones are a parody of the lyrics to the song War Paint (to the beautiful and the wise, the mirror always lies), the older ones are stuck dealing with a Republican party that started with a mission of minimal government and lost its way long ago. And absolutely nothing that any of us do will fix it; trust me, on a personal level I'd love to take a left out of my street on my daily walks, but it's not going to happen anytime soon. What can you do besides live with the hand you're dealt and terrorize the uppity suburbs while you're at it? (Seriously, with my height, long hair, and increasingly long beard the police in the town to the west have suddenly taken an interest in me; profiling is fine if it's not racial or ethnic, I guess) The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 04:42, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * to whom and/or what are you replying to? It certainly wasn't anything I said, since I didn't ask how the Democratic party voter base operates. 04:55, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I find that I have to shave whenever I go on an airplane, or I get "randomly" selected for more screenings.
 * As for the Dems, I would say that if the don't stop getting either the crazies (the squad) or the geriatric slug monsters (Pelosi, Biden) to represent them they are doomed to become ever more obscure, but the Republicans have done an absolutely piss poor job of appealing to the general public as well. "NO ABORTIONS!!!" might appeal to evangelicals, but no one else.  "TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH" pisses off something like 5 voters for every 1 voter it appeals to.  If the Republicans could ever get their act together and rally behind a moderate with a decent track record (e.g., McCain pre-Bush, John Kasich or Pataki in 2016), they'd slaughter the Democrats from now until forever.  It's as if they are allergic to victory.  16:05, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * My bad, my indentation was off; was replying to Dutchbag. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 17:18, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Firstly, as I've repeatedly pointed out, "radical" does not automatically translate into unreasonable, nor does "moderate" de facto translate into reasonable. Those labels merely speak to the subject's position relative to the mainstream, which itself is only a highly subjective "consensus" (for lack of a better word) on what is acceptable to discuss, which is extremely period dependent. Abolishing monarchies was once radical, abolishing slavery was considered radical, etc etc etc. Secondly, you mistake the GOP and the Dems as having equal ideological cohesion and diversity. Proportionally, the Dems have more ideological diversity than the GOP, which is actually one of their biggest weaknesses since it increases infighting and prevents them from unifying behind anything more substantial than "not the GOP". Meanwhile, the GOP has steadily narrowed it's platform to series of, what appear at first glance, idiosyncratic positions, but are on closer inspection all built around the idea of placating their base and increasing turnout on their side. In terms of behind the scenes mechanics this also works to decrease the number of people able to vote for the Dems. That is to say, the racism and such of the GOP is far more cynical and manipulative than most people give them credit for.
 * Ah, fair. 17:46, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "Radical Republicans" were deemed "radical" because post-1865, they were Abolitionists who had moved past abolition and unto Black equality, which was a 'radical' concept outside the mainstream. Dutchbag (talk) 16:33, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The Abolitionist amendment (12th Amendment) which abolished slavery and involuntary servitude in the United States, did not empower equal rights for blacks. So the 'radical' 13th and 14th Amendments empowered blacks ("All persons born or naturalized in the United States...are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside" regardless of "race, color, or previous condition of servitude.") This nullified early attempts at Jim Crow laws. And there the Civil rights movement rested for 100 years. Dutchbag (talk) 18:27, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Above Ariel quotes the 1860 GOP platform, "the history of the nation during the last four years, has fully established the propriety and necessity of the organization and perpetuation of the Republican party, and that the causes which called it into existence are permanent in their nature...". This is a reference to the, which ruled "having lived in a free state and territory did not entitle an enslaved person, Dred Scott, to his freedom."  So the program of the 'Radical Republicans' of equality, beyond abolition, was fully articulated in the platform as "permanent".  Sure, many Union soldiers signed up to share the spoils of victory under the spoils system and abandoned the cause of black equality after 1865, but the Radical Abolitionists remained Radical proponents of equal rights for Blacks after 1865 when the limited aims of the Abolition movement were achieved. Dutchbag (talk) 19:07, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * And these are the same as the modern Republican party how exactly? These milestones are enforced by what? Magic? 19:37, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. The idea the modern GOP wants to "put ya'll back in chains" is ludicrous. Dutchbag (talk) 19:52, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I think no one will disagree that the 'radical' program of the Radical Republicans of Reconstruction has become mainstream after 1965, even by the Democrats. This is essentially what the 1619 Project teaches. Dutchbag (talk) 19:58, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Why? Because in the past people who flew that flag opposed racism? So? Further, they don't want to "Put us back in chains" they want to enact certain polices, which having racist qualities, will appeal to their base. Why? Because in the mid to late 1900s the GOP decided that racists were a more viable demographic than black people. Because the GOP is a political party and not a fucking fairy tale social club. Its primary concern as a group entity is the perpetuation of its power, by any means necessary. To address your aside, the 1619 project is not an accredited historical body. 20:03, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You aren't actually interested in discussing this issue, just spouting shit. I say this because you aren't addressing anything I said and are continuing to cite a political landscape from around two hundred years ago, whereas I cited a shift that occurred withing the last 60-70 years. (If we wanted to be really technical it'd be withing the last hundred years.) 20:32, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I am addressing the historical question, which you want to edit war over. Go ahead. prove your ignorance of the subject matter. Dutchbag (talk) 20:42, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Before you go a step further, answer my original question: Who were the Radical Republicans?, and why were they called 'radical'? Dutchbag (talk) 20:44, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * To prove your case that the modern GOP is in fact not racist you're citing historical examples from so far in the past as to be obsolete. Perhaps, if you were more honest, you'd cite more recent examples that are more applicable to the present. Unless of course you don't have those... 20:46, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I've said nothing on the modern GOP. What the hell are you talking about? Dutchbag (talk) 20:53, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't lie. 20:57, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * My apologies. And my apologies for responding to you. It's obvious you are not interested or capable of engaging in a historical discussion, which is what I thought this thread was about. Dutchbag (talk) 21:02, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Nah, this thread was started by someone who denies the reality of the Southern Strategy, mainly because he's a right winger who can't handle the fact that he supports a party that by and large supports racist policies. You came along and started carrying water for him. Obviously, I have a low opinion of that kind of weaselly bullshit. 00:01, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You don't know shit. You sound like contemporary Blacks who say "Radical Republicans" were called radical cause they were too hard on the South. Dutchbag (talk) 09:33, 10 December 2021 (UTC)


 * If you are talking about felony disenfranchisement and voter ID, I'm not opposed to those on principle, they just need to be done properly. Id's need to be free and no more onerous to obtain than anything required for the paperwork needed to get a job.  As for felony disenfranchisement, the process for re-enfranchisement needs to streamlined, because it's such a convoluted mess with regards to states, counties and cities it's often hard to tell if you are breaking the law or not by voting.  If you are talking about defunding polling centers in working class neighborhoods such that a guy making minimum wage has to spend 4 hours waiting to vote and risk getting written up for performing his most "sacred" of civic duties, or making it impossible to do mail-in ballots for someone who is planning in advance, Fuck. That. Noise.  18:07, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The fact that you're confused by such a straightforward reference betrays your ignorance on this subject. 19:27, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Just saying, allowed USHA back from their ban they decided to post two big ole turds on the Saloon Bar.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 22:32, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That is true, but the decision was made to do a pi month block, and since he was allowed back in late November, he hasn't done anything blockworthy (being annoying isn't blockworthy unless they're is something else going on.) Andrew5 (talk) 18:15, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Please read the article about the Southern strategy before you give everyone in the bar a giant fucking migraine arguing about concepts that are generally already understood and not denied by people who aren't Tucker Carlson hacks. -- Techpriest (talk) 20:47, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * More of an aside. Given the "Southern Strategy", which Democratic presidents are actually Republicans?  E.g., were any of FDR, JFK, Truman and Wilson Republican?  20:50, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I've told you this before, so it annoys me that I have to tell you it again, but calling the "Southern Strategy" a switch is severely oversimplifying the events in question. It was a less switch and more a period of platform realignment for both parties due to a shifting political landscape that they each sought to navigate, as well as internal party power dynamics. 20:53, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The major shift at play with the southern strategy race politics; the Democrats and Republicans already had their economic positions solidified at this point thanks to the New Deal (and many years after that truth be told). Roosevelt basically defined the general economic line the Democrats and Republicans would follow later; Roosevelt happened to be a Democrat, so Republicans became the counter party to that idea. It's like many things in history not a hard and fast "now dems are republicans" thing. Everything is gradual and even right now party positions are always moving. (Just look at how Sanders went from a 2012 failure candidate to a 2016 contender to a 2020 contender whose ideas were actually considered by the rest of the party or how ~4 decades of Reaganism led to Trump and the current GOP). The Republican party feared their voterbase (which was originally supportive of civil rights, since Republicans were the anti-slavery party at one point) evaporating since even Republicans are aware that their economic positions are at best unworkable, so they began appealing to racist sentiments in the south with a soft coat of paint so it wouldn't be immediately obvious who it would affect the worst. -- Techpriest (talk) 20:57, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * As a matter or fact, they are still evolving, as both are becoming more extreme, and it appears it will move that way for a while. (Albeit Maryland did let Andy Harris stay intact - .- Andrew5 (talk) 22:43, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * So much of this is a crock of shit. Hillbillies in 1789, who didn't own slaves and took part in the Whiskey Rebellion, were the first 99%. And Hillbillies today are still Democrats. And if that were not true, Joe Manchin would be a Republican. Dutchbag (talk) 09:25, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Scranton Joe, the coalminer and redneck trucker, family came to America during the pre-Civil War Irish potato famine. They were Democrats then and they are Democrats now  ("That's only because we couldn't figure out how to get to the South. There were a couple of states in the way.")  150 years later, Joe Biden finally figured out "poor kids are just as smart as white kids." Dutchbag (talk) 10:20, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * There's so much red herring in those the above sentences, it's moving into not even wrong territory. In light of this strange conflation of past and present, I look forward to modern "hillbillies" raising a big boycott over in protest of his complete bullshit excise task on whiskey. (And did you know "Let's Go Brandon" actually means "Fuck George Washington"? Yeah, fuck the Federalists!) PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 15:33, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Pardon my occupation in the past days with other matters. To respond: UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 20:21, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually no, for your information, I do not support the party headed by a man who praised Talmadge and Eastland, says blacks who don't support him "ain't black", and calls black advisers "boy".
 * It is evidently difficult for you accept the truth that RationalWiki's "Southern Strategy" article is deceitful. I will address your minuscule understanding of United States history with several refuting points:
 * The first "Southern strategy" occurrence was in 1876.
 * The lasting Republican inroads into the South first appealed to middle-class residents on the motivation of economic mobility. The example of the re-established Florida Republican Party under highlights a coalition of Northern migrants and Cuban voters among St. Petersburg residents breaking the Democratic stranglehold. The similarly re-established Mississippi Republican Party under Wirt A. Yerger, Jr. relied on appeals to economic mobility.
 * Thurmond/Wright supporters, in other words the Dixiecrats, became a bloc throwing backing to liberal Adlai Stevenson. The End of Southern Exceptionalism: Class, Race, and Partisan Change in the Postwar South attributes '52 Eisenhower Southern inroads by congressional district primarily to '48 Truman supporters, not '48 Dixiecrats.
 * The trend towards Southern Republicanism among agrarian rural counties was not solidified until decades following the 60s.
 * The popular vote of the Deep South went to Jimmy Carter in '76 and '80.
 * Abolitionists and Radical Republicans were leftists? Sure! So long as you ignore      . The "Radical" aspect of RRs only pertained to abolitionism/war policy/Reconstruction and no rigid bloc unity was maintained on monetary policy, tariffs, nor railroads. So    while others conservative.
 * The problem is the Left/Right paradigm is a flawed paradigm, especially when applied to the United States, as LGM rightly pointed out far above. Dutchbag (talk) 07:51, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, Benjamin "capitalism is wrong" Wade was very right-leaning.Buck (talk) 06:29, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Wade's backing of railroad business interests in his moderate conservative voting record is to be noted. Oh, and because you missed the NOMINATE rankings, here they are. Ushit the dipshit (talk) 00:05, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * What fascinating links. Clearly, we can take imagined, but TOTALLY realistic, objections that modern leftists might have to some 19th C. policies and couple that with the totally reasonable axiom that "Republican=conservative 4eva" to confidently say that Benjamin "every man... who [is] subject to a capitalist ought to leave him" Wade sure did vote Republican a lot, and must therefore be very conservative indeed (Hey, don't worry about him declaring conservatism itself "cowardice in the fairest sense of the term."). This way, we don't need to actually look at what the context of the day was or what the votes were actually for (massively expanded and free public education? Who cares! Proposing that foreigners NOT YET IN THE US could partake in the free land offered by the 1862 Homestead Act? Sounds conservative! Some of the most radical support for labor rights and unions? Doesn't matter, because he is a Republican!). History analyzed!Buck (talk) 08:07, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * What intriguing word salad ramblings you have there, Buck. If only your reply also provided some links/cites to bolster your claims! Ushit the dipshit (talk) 18:05, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, that's my mistake. I can see how the post might be confusing to people unfamiliar with Wade. Let me be more clear. I was mocking the strength of the arguments largely based around "Republican= conservative, therefore Wade is conservative" and "boy, I bet leftists today sure wouldn't like this" that you provided. The rest was imagining how you would cope with specific progressive policies/positions of Wade. I imagine you do this to avoid reconciling yourself to the fact that one of the premier Radical Republicans intentionally condemned conservatism (and what that says about the *general* position of many of these dudes). I really think the main point now is to avoid acknowledging that you were a bit sloppy in your research, probably because your particular approach to history is called "mythmaking" in the biz. There is lots of info about Wade out there, not like the guy is unknown or anything. Here is a good write-up about the speech that probably sank his chances of being prez as he was too "radical" of a Republican: https://resources.ohiohistory.org/ohj/browse/displaypages.php?display[]=0065&display[]=44&display[]=52 Buck (talk) 08:30, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I am so thrilled you invoked those points. The relativistic attribution of "Conservative" as a designation to anti-civil rights Republicans in the 1860s used at the time does not hold true for political ideology in a consistent manner when discussed by modern-day folks like ourselves. The desire to expand free-market capitalism (conspicuously a conservative position) and spur economic growth in the South were by Radical Republicans to the opposition to alleged "Conservatives," per the writings of Eric Foner. The formation of the actually conservative Stalwarts (WP page too brief, linking to LT's page instead) were by Radicals in the likes of Wade, Butler, Conkling, Morton, Chandler (Zachariah, not William E.) and Logan (see book sources such as "Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution, 1863 - 1877"). And the alleged "Conservatives" attributed to anti-civil rights Republicans were in favor of civil service reform and lower tariffs (liberal positions), evident in their joining the . Ushit the dipshit (talk) 16:45, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * First of all, there are so many walls of text it is hard to even follow along at this point, and this discussion seems to have stemmed into multiple. Second of all, despite the WP page being too short, that doesn't give you the right to link to CP, I would instead go to an article like this. Andrew5 (talk) 17:15, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Likewise, I am thrilled the mythmaking continues unabated. As you say, "The relativistic attribution of 'Conservative' as a designation to anti-civil rights Republicans in the 1860s" is a great encapsulation of the conservative position Wade cemented his radical position by railing against.  The deep irony is you simultaneously asserting that certain terms do not "hold true for political ideology in a consistent manner when discussed by modern-day folks like ourselves" while citing Foner's excellent assessment of what Free Labor meant in the Republican Party, (hint: free land, unionism, and an attack on "money capitalism" for labor to rise above capital) as a "desire to expand free-market capitalism" and thinking the "Liberal" Republican party of the 19th C. was "Liberal" in the modern sense. You can tell how modernly liberal they are with their support for low taxation, states' rights, and slashing the Fed. It's positively amazing how you assert that Radical Free Labor positions were the true (modern) conservative positions based on their union support and free Fed doles, while the "conservative" Liberal Republicans supported lower tariffs ("liberal positions") in support of free market trade ("the conspicuously conservative position"???) making them the true (modern) liberals. If this feels like a convoluted mess, it's because it is. What you support as a modern, continuous conservative positon isn't where you think it is, and you have to tie yourself into rhetorical knots to find it.
 * In sum: You are right that that is a conspicuous "conservative position." You are wrong that that was a (especially for the Radicals) Republican position. Probably for the same reason you are wrong about Wade, Foner, etc. etc. because quotes and actual examination of positions are anathema to the mythmaker. Buck (talk) 17:54, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This discussion meandered off more. Anyhow, what Buck's complaining about is basically what nearly everyone else has been complaining about regarding USHA's criticisms: USHA twisting semantics around and using these as gotchas. 19:22, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I won't go further, because I think you got to the heart of it. Further explanation of why a capitalist-bashing, public works-supporting, proto-suffragette, complete racial equalist politician described as a "revolutionist" shouldn't be described as "right-leaning" will probably just lead to more twisted terms. Buck (talk) 17:00, 26 December 2021 (UTC)


 * [EC] You speculate I am erroneous to state the Radical Republicans advocated free-market capitalism? Observe the writings of Foner, pal:

If the once-popular description of Radical Republicanism as an expression of the interests of Northern business is untenable when couched in terms of specific issues like the tariff, it remains true that Radicals hoped to reshape Southern society in the image of the small-scale competitive capitalism of the North. As Carl Schurz put it, “ a free labor society must be established and built up on the ruins of the slave labor society.”
 * Pertaining to the Liberal Republican Party, the common contemporary notion of "states' rights = conservative" was not applicable to those times. In general terms, they were politically liberal as observed of their leaders. When RR-turned-Liberals in the likes of Schurz, Trumbull, and Greeley abandoned commitment to Radical Republicanism and opposed the Enforcement Acts, they simultaneously turned increasingly leftward and advocated civil service reform. Ushit the dipshit (talk) 19:45, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This needs subsections, or else this is literally one chunk of text where comments are disjumbled by time order, and ultimately this whole thing is extremely long and is almost worth it's on Saloon Bar archive. Not to mention this is now 20 days old and very unorganized, the most unorganized section I've ever seen since I began frequently beginning the Saloon Bar in the end of August. Andrew5 (talk) 21:27, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * USH, I really don't see what this changes about my greater point, which is that Dutchbag is arguing about certain concepts as if they don't exist. I don't mind a greater summary (although with due respect, I will not take these as permanent fact given obvious bias from your end; allow me to do my own quick research, I am not an American and thank god for that), but in the end all you're proving to me is that as I said later, history and party affiliations aren't set in stone; stuff changes over time. I appreciate the examination of the way that Republicans dropped slavery from their agenda because it wasn't appealing to the South, but all that really leaves you with is two parties with a distinctive lack of care as to what happened to the freed slaves, which just allowed the states (general because of migrations, leading to northern states doing this as well) to put the Jim Crow laws in place. That said, that is not exactly the same thing as the Southern Strategy. The goal of Hayes and his ilk seems to have been to merely get the federal government to drop any serious decisions on the matters of race to permit states to just put the Jim Crow laws in place. That is not the same thing as the Southern Strategy (although they did employ similar tactics, see "states rights" balking from Republicans nowadays). The Southern Strategy is more akin to a several decades long attempt by the Republican party by now to be a "counter voice" for those who wanted the civil rights of the 60s gone (and notably did not want any further civil rights or reparations for those damaged by it and those still suffering from the lack of those reparations), which I will say is rather inherently racist. (This is where I do diverge from our article; I don't believe the Southern Strategy ever really ended, nor do I think you can encompass it in a single attempt (it failed with Goldwater, it barely succeeded with Nixon due to a third party candidate who promised to be more extreme and managed to push "Republicans are the party of Lincoln" one last time and it only worked when Reagan employed Lee Atwater, who was clever enough to realize that you can't do it as openly anymore). Rather the Strategy eventually solidified into Reaganism and is now morphing into Trumpism, where Republicans don't even pretend to be about anything other than "what the Democrats are not" while appealing to their financial donors by givig the wealthy as many tax breaks as possible and don't try to "play fair" anymore). By this end, I do not consider our article of the Southern Strategy to be deceitful, it's just that which you consider to be the Southern Strategy is not really tied to what is considered to be the Southern Strategy these days. It would belong more in an article about the Jim Crow laws to explain how these were brought about (and the Jim Crow laws led to the Civil Rights movement...). Your examination is historically interesting (assuming it holds water) but it does not directly map onto the modern day Southern Strategy as cleanly as you try to put it. -- Techpriest (talk) 22:16, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I never for a moment thought you supported the Dems. You're insecurity with the idea of the GOP embracing racism to hold on to power dispels that notion pretty damn quickly. 02:42, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Let's get back to facts; Kamala Harris called Joe Biden a racist in a primary debate. He was rewarded with the nomination while she didn't even make the first round of voting. More currently, Biden snubs her, won't sit next to her at Bob Dole's funeral, and sends her to the back of the bus. And if you think Blacks don't notice these slights, you're living in la-la land. Dutchbag (talk) 07:51, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Techpriest, it's hard to begin where your understanding is off base. Jim Crow laws existed only in the South, passed by Southern Democrat legislatures which violated the 14th Amendment rights of blacks for 100 years. You'd be hard-pressed to find any Republican-controlled state legislature anywhere in the United States from 1863 onwards that passed what is commonly referred to as "Jim Crow laws", because you can't. The fact that you mention "Jim Crow" in the same sentence with "Republican" shows a glaring ignorance or understanding of U.S. history and politics. Dutchbag (talk) 07:59, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Let's talk about this comment, momentarilly:
 *  what happened to the freed slaves, which just allowed the states (general because of migrations, leading to northern states doing this as well) to put the Jim Crow laws in place.
 * It is true, many Freedmen migrated to the North after the Civil War & Reconstruction. They were often brought into Northern cities as strike breakers. That's how a town like Kenosha, Wisconsin today has a 10% Black population. There was no minimum wage until 1941. Blacks were used as scab labor, driving wages down. If there were state laws in Northern states that discriminated, it would be in union states (as opposed to Right-to-Work states) that required membership in a labor union to hold a job, because it would be difficult then, by law, for an African American to obtain membership in a labor union. Dutchbag (talk) 08:21, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I find it discouraging that the first thing you say is a lie. Harris did not call Joe Biden a racist in any debate.Ariel31459 (talk) 02:02, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "Right to work" laws exist specifically to break unions, nothing more. The implication that they're "good actually" is either extremely ignorant or extremely dishonest. 03:27, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know why y'all are bothering, especially given the other link, quality Youtube "whargarbl Democrats bad" fake news shitposting from a channel with the description of "We have been temporarily banned. For the next 7 days we will post new videos on our backup channel." Place your bets on whether the ban was for bullshit on COVID-19 or bullshit on the 2021 U.S. Capitol riot... PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 04:01, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no implication that "right to work" is good; the simple fact is that organized labor and collective bargaining rights prior to 1936 often discriminated against unskilled black scab labor. Dutchbag (talk) 23:28, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Anyone here circumcised (partially or totally)?
Thoughts and feelings on it? (I am uncut.) F0reskin intact (talk) 04:20, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Better question: does anybody else think men care too much about their penises?-Hastur! (talk) 05:41, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Even better question, why would someone care so much to make their username as such? KarmaPolice (talk) 08:59, 23 December 2021 (UTC)


 * It's a bit odd isn't it. I've looked into the issue before.  This is actually one issue where both sides seem to be genuinely very cranky, though the pro-circumcision people are quite a lot worse than the antis, the antis can be pretty weird.  Duncan from Teflpedia (talk) 12:49, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The antis also have a false equivalence with FGM, due to the mechanics of sex. Less sensitive man = slightly longer time for mangasm = more ladygasms = more sex = more mangasms.  Less sensitive woman = fewer ladygasms = less sex = fewer mangasms.  14:16, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Can speak to the crankiness on both sides: have been a vocal proponent of the uncut state. There’s a downright Freudian well of untapped energy there, just waiting for release as from a dam or a geyser. Once, during that time when I thought all people can and do argue from purely rational and objective positions then adopt the resulting synthetic view without fuss, I’d (probably, don’t remember who started it, but ten to one…) broached the subject in an office setting (yes, unprofessional, but this was the Navy. Wasn’t the first time we’d talked about our dicks, wasn’t the last, probably even that day). The guy on the other end started out sarcastic and dismissive, then proceeded to anger when that didn’t dissuade the autistically driven matter of alteration without consent – which I strongly suspect is the motivator of this whole subject due to the following – and finally said in a huff: “well if we leave it up to [the kids as] adults, then no one would get them.” Yeah, no shit. There’s not a lot of science either way - can’t imagine why – but my personal objection to the practice is that it exerts an undue measure of control over someone’s life when they can’t possibly consent. To admit it may not have much functional consequence would critically undercut the uncircumcised camp and so they seem to get a little shrill here, and there’s a similar effect in play for the cutters strangely enough: they often hang their hats on what little science there is showing marginal health benefits despite the whole shebang being fundamentally religious (moral hygiene isn't as sexy as the physical?).
 * At the end of the day it comes down to who’s got the weird dicks and who’s been marked for life, left holding the bag. Who will be the bigger man and admit it? Artificius (talk) 15:01, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 'a question of consent' is not applicable to new borns generally, the parents are the ones who 'consent' aand what they are consenting to here results in no real difference to the outcomes if the procedure is performed or not, and consenting to all kinds of things for their children that have real impacts on their lives. the only 'real' question is medical efficacy of a procedure when done as routine for all new born males. when answered it removes or keeps something from the surgeons to do list, it does not fix any great injustice or mean there was any to begin with. it is only the fgm false equivalence by mens rights types who think there is anything of interest to discuss. there are not two sides here, there is the one aggrieved group of men who only became aggrieved when they noticed people listening to women and then is there is everyone else. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:11, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * There's also the issue of "I have problem X, I also had procedure Y, therefore Y must be the reason I have problem X!!!" There's a lot that can be said about Incels and MRA types that are oddly explained by the final episode of The Midnight Gospel.  Long story short, TMG is a podcast with some cool animation, created by Pendelton Ward (Adventure Time).  The last episode was actually created by bittersweet luck; the main character's voice actor's mother had terminal cancer, so they decided to just have the dying mother and the voice actor just talk about the meaning of motherhood and maternal love for a half hour and then animated a bunch of imagery regarding the circle of life and what motherly love is about.  During this conversation, one of the things the mother mentions are starving babies, and how they bite the teat in anger.  The baby thinks "I've been hungry for so long, you've abused me, and now you are providing what I demanded as a form of mockery!"  And so they bite.  Yet, that perfectly explains MRA's.  "I need Woman, there's a woman right there who seems interested in me, how dare her it's all a mockery, and wait why is she running away?  I knew it, it's all a giant insult!"  Which is why I propose that the perfect euphemism for MRA's is "tit-biters".  16:36, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * it womens fault obviously. if these guys were more familiar with lady gardens they'd might notice that mens and womens bits are are quite a bit different and maybe there is less of the double standard they first thought. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:18, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, I am totally referring to that area as the "giardina". "Giardino" is Italian for "garden", but add "-a" and it's feminine.  Better yet, "Giardina" is a not-too-rare last name for some Italian families, so...  18:45, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I might be strange, but this is one of those things I find mildly interesting from a sociological point of few, similar to my fascination for confusing correlations (left handedness = double crown hair) and the occasional study which leaks into the lazy media ('lesbians more likely to be obese') etc. Plus, I'm disinclined to throw Freud et al into the argument without due cause. Even if we're talking about the sausage, it may be just a sausage.

I think the best question to ask here is why Americans (and the regions closely aligned to them medically, like Canada/Australia) are so willing to do the deed. As a good Marxist, I'm first drawn to economics - because as the British NHS does not do the snip as a matter of routine, I'm going to say it does not meet a cost/benefit analysis long-term (plus, not capable of making medical arguments). So why would American docs do it? I shall argue mainly because of 'busywork'.

American heath is a commodity. You must please customer so they return. Therefore, throw in 'extras' which makes people think they're getting 'value for money'. Plus, you get paid for that too, so it will be done. Similar can be said about wisdom teeth; American removal semi-routine (apparently), while Brits only have them pulled if they're actually causing problems.

Another thing which I noticed is that according to Google, it's not covered by Medicare. Does this mean there's a class divide here; a guy is branded in the underpants regarding their parent's economic situation when he was born?

Lastly, the relative over-representation of Jewish folks in the American health system may also be a contributing factor. I suspect they'd generally be more pro-snip and more likely to know how to do it too. Some of these would teach new doctors, and the cycle continues.

And anyway according to the blurb I read on the BMJ site strongly implies in the UK it's required for a doctor to confirm the parental consent for 'non-therapeutic' snips. So, ideally the doc will be watching for the baby's interests. However, I seriously doubt in Blighty it would be done unless you were Jewish, Muslim or a few Orthodox factions (so it would normally be granted). KarmaPolice (talk) 17:36, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Part of the whole point of circumcision is to separate Jews from non-Jews; Jewish doctors would oppose circumcision as the norm for non-Jews. 18:36, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thought it was to accept the compact between God and Abraham (if I remember my OT right)? Plus, it's only that if done on the eighth day.


 * Anyway, they've paid for that 'separation' repeatedly in history; the snip being used as prima facie evidence of 'Jewishness' during pogroms, which is why 'restoration devices' were used during such periods. (similar 'evidence' was used in Hindu/Muslim clashes in India). If I was Jewish, I might actually look on mass Gentile snipping as a rather nice piece of 'reverse assimilation'.


 * Lastly, Jewish/Muslim doctors may have mild confirmation bias towards snipping in general. 'Our compact with the Lord/Allah' might sit fine with the soul, but their logical brain needs more than that - and believing it's medically advantageous too would do that (leading them to push it for Gentiles too). KarmaPolice (talk) 19:28, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

EC the us and uk both once favoured circumcision as standard, but the us really grew attached from looking at lots of cock in medical exams of immigrants on ellis island, adding a racial/class element to notions of cleanliness common for circumcision at times (as a anti masturbation measure was what gave it a big start in the west - a true failure that one) the uk dropped circumcision with the nhs and cost/benefits looked doubtful. the us cant make its mind up either way it seems with medical benefit vs insurance coverage being the main push/pull grist. though hiv transmission rates making them slightly more pro snip? wikipedia tells me circumcision = cheaper insurance premiums.

there is more to the world than the us and britain, or more usefully, us and western europe. circumcision questions are done and dusted in europe - its an elective procedure not standard nor encouraged for neww borns with no theraputic value. its uncontroversial because theres never been a tradition of non theraputic circumcision (exceptions for some communities whose traditions most of europe was not exactly suportive of). its common all over the world though for non medical reasons and in places were non essential surgery however minor carries risk, not fgm level of risk, but still risk. dont often hear about that from (us based) men rights groups though which is unfortunate because claims of a double standard might carry a hell of a lot more weight if they stopped playing with their own cocks for five minutes and thought about the plights of others, but the concern for people not them is the opposite of what mens rights want and involve them not being a bunch playing with their owns cocks-ers. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:34, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * and entirely unrelated except it concerns absolute fucking bollocks - tested positive covid this morning. no symptoms and ive already done xmas - my family get it done early for practical reasosns - so im not really inconvenienced. but my flatmatre was 30 mins from heading to essex for the period (giving me the one time of year i get an empty flat for a few days so was looing forward to) and ive cancelled his xmas for him. absolute fucking bollocks with or without foreskin AMassiveGay (talk) 19:46, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

The thing sounds super invasive no matter how you dice this (blegh). I wouldn't wish largely unnecessary harm on newborn boys like that. Now, fgm sounds horrific. Even something as much as a pocket knife to the labia makes me cringe. 19:47, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I did a USA/UK comparison because culturally, we're quite similar which allows to better chance of pinpointing the reasons why the former does it. Trying to do a comparison between the USA and say China would be much more difficult. And as far as I can tell, snipping was never that popular in the UK - stats say it peaked in the 1930s with ~35%, and many of the snips done in the early NHS was done due to an over-diagnosis of 'phimosis' and an too-quick rush to the scalpel solution (a problem with many parts of the NHS before around 1990) rather than a generic 'well it's better' view which the USA had/has. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:57, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * its just not an interesting question. the us and britain circumcision became popular mid 19th century, a period of many great medical advancements and when medical science was mixed in with racial and morality which made become ingrained into us culture more than the uk because of the immigration to us at this period cementing race and morality with a pseudoscientific base. it peaking in in the 30s for uk because ww2 and the nhs, and large scale immigration to uk was post war we hadnt built the same associations with race and morality around circumcision for any great attachment to what was already falling out of favour in medical establishment everywhere and never really a thing in europe or britain to begin. its secondary to the noise circumcision generates among a vocal minority in the us, as for whatever reasons its a thing there, its a minor issue of medical efficacy in europe or us with the level of healthcare and access to it doesnt justify the noise its given. which is kinda the point. arguments concerning circumcision are focused on the practice in a country where there isnt really a great issue of rights or heathcare using arguments for or against the the practice in countries where it isnt or ever has been much a of thing. this becomes even more obviously a case of a particular group dishonestly interested in genuine concern for real issue ignored by the supposed misandry of a supposed double standard with fgm, because those same arguments concerning european attitudes and those in the us are dogshit in those regions, all over africa, various tribes not just in islamic areas practice circumscision for varying reasons in various ways make those same dogshit arguments actually have weight. tribes of in varying cultures around asia are the same, lets not forget how significant islam is across asia and africa, with significance variation in practices and culture not least around circumcision where the this dogshit double standard argument has actual merit but we focus on the noise of a group concerned only in an area where there opinions have no merit and too short sighted to look further than the end of their own cocks for examples that would go some way to not make them look like entitled pricks. one does not need exhaustive comparisons of all regions of the world to be able find enough meat and perspective look at least like mens rights groups yaping about it having genuine and perhaps under reported concerns if they really have them. but they dont, they look like pricks and they poison the well for where there are genuine issues. the wikipedia page has plenty to get ones teeth into to outside of western culture wars.AMassiveGay (talk) 22:54, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I just wonder how this bizarre ritual started. Let's imagine a group of guys standing around at some ancient time and one of them says, "Hey chaps, I've just had this fantastic idea - let's all cut off that really sensitive bit of skin at the end of our man-things! Won't that be fun!" It's just hard to believe that the suggestion would be accepted with enthusiasm. Nevertheless it's found in many cultures around the world.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 20:30, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is found in many cultures. The main correlation snipping has is the levels of Jews/Muslims in that country. In this respect, the USA is the outlier (at least as far as I can tell). KarmaPolice (talk) 20:59, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * @bob - cultural norms of bravery masculinity and and all that kind of stuff outside the the obvious religious based, which is something to do identity i read somewhere maybe for the jewish practice. with african tribes and many in asia, marking your cultural identity or status with somthing you to have your cock out, gives me the feeling its a choice that is dependent on the climate. maybe why europe has less of tradition of the practice, but im just guessing. tribes from all over the place do stuff with tattoos and scarring and the like as tests of manhood, rites of passage. its hot enough and socially acceptable for your cock to be flapping in the wind, men everywhere will always end up doing something with it. body modification for locally culturally significant reasons are common all over the place and seem bizarre and exotic to western eyes. those native americans with extended lips for example. prince alberts and piercings and tats are common these days on ya bits. in the west places were happy being naked with other men, and i suspect getting laid is ultimately the starting point for every strange tradition whose origins are lost in time. there is a tribe of bush men in south africa who are genetically with permanant semi hard ons. they are very proud of them - its there 'thing'. there are nore things in heaven and earth and so forth. its not so long ago that trans people where more or less invisibleAMassiveGay (talk) 22:54, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * its really not invasive necessarily and so simple you could do it with a pair of scissors and a tiny modicum of care, with zero training (if you really had to. really not a recommendation, just with access to 1st world health care make it as about trivial a procedure you can get) just removal of surplus skin thats only really apparent when ya bits are flaccid. if you gonna have it done probably best to have it done as a babe being less traumatic in the long run.. honestly in the uk absolutely no one thinks about circumcision. straight men either have or havent themselves and not generally too interested in the status of anyone elses cock, circumcision (snip is not the right euphemism thinking about it - thats vasectomy generally) maybe associate it with jews ands muslims, or that one guy at school who got it stuck in his flies something about mary style (theres always one)its just a thing folk know about jews and muslims, no ones actually looking. as a gay man it is not something i have ever for more than a split second gave any thought about beyond minor differences in ones approach and only ever an issue if foreskin is present but unretractable for a reason. some folk might enquire for reasons of a fetish or preference, probably dont open with it though. on grindr cock pics will show you all and more should you really need to know before your physically in contact.


 * i am unsure what ladies feel about foreskins either way its not really a subject ive ever needed to broach with my female friends. i suspect straight men arent that much more enlightened in that area either for reasons, and i really think they'd benefit more from that knowledge than i am likely to. maybe the non mens right guys are more informed, but i dont think straight men are keen talking about other mens cock in general, and women traditionally and probably still today in most places supposed to be not at all interested but suddenly supposed to be super interested with her bf's cock and only privately interested. and probably best not discuss it with anyone else or say anything that might suggest disappointment, and stress that no its ok, its quality not quantity, and look the kettle has just boiled - perfect timing for a cup of tea. im sure men will know plenty (and everyone else will too) of what a girlfriend thought of their cock if they split acrimoniously. smell and cleanliness being the more common female critiques in mixed company ive heard. at least thats constructive criticism - if you needed telling to wash your cock. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:27, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a different feeling with the pulling of the skin and all. As I said, circumcised men last a tad longer, so if you get used to both you'll prefer them cut.  As for sanitation and 1st world health care, if you DON'T have access to 1st world healthcare you actually would want to be circumcised, given that it's more than 50% effective against HIV.  22:44, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * duration is less a factor as one gets more practice, or as is common in the circles i move in, a factor decided by the social lubricant of choice. duration can be measured in hours and sometimes days. chems and sex is a fantastically toxic and frighteningly addictive combination that i cannot warn against strongly enough. but if dont you mind sending your life into a death spiral, wholly shit can the sex be fantastic. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:19, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Back to the original question - I'm a baby boomer, and most of us in New Zealand are circumcised as I understand it (my own sample is of course just 1) - I was once told that here in New Zealand it became common after WW1, when men came back from the Desert and Western Front campaigns where penis hygiene was a lot more difficult to maintain at was than at peace, and again after WW2 where the NZ Division fought in North Africa and Italy. I have no idea if that story is true.  My own sons are in their 20's and the matter never arose with me  or their mother - no need, so why would you? Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 00:33, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Assuming Wikipedia is not being overrun by an over-biased editor (a cursory search suggests this article checks out, but y'know...), the article on the suggests that a fad for non-religious circumcision basically originated in Victorian times, and was due to a combination of primitive pseudo-scientific concerns regarding health (some sources suggest a bit of "da Jews live longer" like the Wiki infers, and others also suggest that this was advocated as a cure-all like modern bullshit alternative medicine) as well as the good ol' Victorian fear of (gasp!) masturbation and how circumcision might "cure" this (har har). Most nations, if they embraced Victorian norms, are over it, but given that the United States seems to enjoy clinging onto pseudo-scientific health (it's interesting looking at the reporting differences between American sites and non-American sites on this subject) and Victorian puritanical morality a wee bit more than other Western nations, it actually isn't surprising in some respects that the US is the only non-Jewish/Islam country with large circumcision rates. Per the Google, NZ's circumcision rate is 10%-20%. US is 60-70% (a decline from 85% in the 1960s, with some areas like the West declining even more, but still).
 * So it goes, eh? On the other hand, given the subject division, I'm in some ways legitimately surprised that I really haven't heard the International Jewish Conspiracy/Islamophobia type crowds latch onto circumcision in some weird racist fashion... 50.229.121.3 (talk) 02:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Recent changes
I have normal colour vision - has anyone checked whether the 'Happy Boxing Day! Merry Christmas!' banner on the Recent Changes page is OK for those with red-green visual issues? (Do they appear visually different, as is the intention?) Anna Livia (talk) 19:20, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I think they can see the text fine (they can see contrasts in tone), just that distinguishing red and green is a challenge. 21:25, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I have red-green color blindness and I can read it just fine. Might be harder for someone with total color blindness. 07:41, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * What's a good slur for people who are color blind? Canids?-Hastur! (talk)  08:14, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Just say they're 'genetically defective'. Is it just me, does the mix of colours make anyone else feel slightly ill when reading it? KarmaPolice (talk) 08:34, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The point was more - are the grey-scale equivalents of the two colours different enough to produce the intended visual variation? (And has there been any recent research on the topic of 'colour-blindness and detecting camouflage'? This would be no more than an interesting note for RW purposes.) Anna Livia (talk) 18:44, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Red-green color blindness, eh? So are Mario and Luigi like a pair of dudes in yellowish clothing to you? 22:47, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Nah, but i do see the number in the picture at the top right of the wikipedia article as 21. And I was diagnosed as a 9-10 year old anyway.
 * But I can tell the difference between the colors of streetlights or the front page letters or Mario and Luigis hats and whatever. I don't know how the stuff works, I just know that my eyes are abnormal. 08:59, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I said 'normal colour vision' - and my question indicates that I cannot see if there is an issue. ('Somebody I knew somewhere said' - most people have issues in distinguishing certain colours - but usually close pairs etc). Anna Livia (talk) 11:00, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

O God! Make it stop!
So I've just endured Christmas lunch with the family. But I discovered many things!

I have discovered that Covid was created in a laboratory. That it is a bacteria (sic) which can't be treated because it's new and if it wasn't new we would have a treatment so it must have been created (I think that was the argument). Furthermore we don't know the full protein (sic) of the virus (a different person talking on this one) because it's been kept hidden (for some reason) and that's why we don't have an effective treatment. After some debate I find that this person can read DNA sequences (I guess the AGCT sequences) with the naked eye and interpret them. (An impressive feat!)

Furthermore, Covid passports have been introduced in order to perform some obscure population control system, and that even looking at a Covid passport contravenes European GDPR regulations. And more stuff I can't remember. I ended with my head in my hands.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 21:29, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * How did you endure that? I would have snapped and called them a bunch of complete morons (along with plenty of other insults and vulgarities). --Non-Binary EAS Creator (talk) 21:42, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I put up with it for a while and then got into a "bit" of an argument. After voices got raised for a while there was a tacit agreement to change the subject.  The bizarre thing was that there were only seven of us there - 6 over 65 years old. Everyone at least double vaccinated and wearing masks a lot of the time.
 * But even so, a mind-boggling level of misinformation. Weird or what?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 09:06, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * First they said it was a virus, now it's a bacteria? COVID should call itself COBAD. Which spells out BAD. 22:17, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The most racist explanation I've heard is that COVID was accidentally released from the lab when one of the scientists got greedy and decided to sell one of the lab animals at the local wet market. I mean, it could be true, but the only way to make it more racist would be if the lab tech drove over there, accidentally swerved because Asian driver, and ran over 3000 people because China has so many people.  08:40, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * What does that have to do with racism? SARS 1 escaped a Chinese lab on multiple occasions, and Chinese lab animals have been sold as food before. Do you imagine that every place in the world has the same attitude towards corruption or safety standards? 192․168․1․42 (talk) 09:33, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Or a couple of British examples; the 1978 Smallpox outbreak and the 2007 Foot & Mouth. That's the thing with random events; you simply don't know whether the screw-up will actually matter, or if it does it's something you can 'sort out' if it does matter. Like the start of The Stand, which I'm watching right now. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:54, 26 December 2021 (UTC)


 * EC 'multiple occasions' the linked article says twice specifically. granted 2 is a multiple of one so twice is technically multiple occasions but still, it gives an impression of a higher frequency than the article, reporting very specifically on 2 seperate incidents of staff becoming infected within the lab same. in 2004. one would hope that they've had time since to fix the initial failings there. may be lots of similar out breaks of sars since from labs, but article just mentipned the one lab and 2 incidents in 2004. second article for context references those incidents from the first but not other incidents. what does that tell us about frequency of 'multiple occasions'.


 * second article talks about steps being taken to beef up protocols especially regarding inadequate regs for disposal of lab material, suggesting some researchers discharging stuff in the sewers but theres no specific mechanism covering this. what the article does not say is that this is the source of covid, or a likely source, or anything suggesting lax protocols at wuhan lab is the source of the outbreak. pointedly denying there is any evidence for this, nor a evidence for a us claim that its covid is a bioweapon released n accident. there is no suggesting that selling if specimens to wet markets happened at wuhan or has ever happened, and the sole example  of someone having done something similar of that nature is a reference to conviction for an unrelated researcher selling off lab animals illegally providing context along with the earlier mentioned sars outbreak and another persons conviction not connected to the wuhan lab for graft, for the bigger picture of issues involved, including similar issues in us based labs.


 * neither article show selling of lab animals as meat widespread or mentioned it at all honestly, the conviction earned for selling 'lab animals and experimental milk' but does not to say to who or for what, the money they made does not suggest to me flogging cheap meat down the market. specific examples count 4, two of which are te sars outbreak happened nearly 20 years ago, issues with disposal of materials but not of the nature specifically claimed nor in general responsible for releasing covid. the article goes to great lengths to say covid occurred naturally in the wild, and that there is no evidence at to say it was man made. the intention is for these pieces to show corruption and incompetence was common and widespread enough and of a kind that it is an avenue worth investigating as the source of covid. they do not do this and the 2nd article pointedly tells us it doesnt. and even if they did show its worth considering, still no evidence that it china did cause/was the source for covid in this way.


 * the consensus is for covid naturally occcurring. but repeatedly without evidence china is being accused of being its source against this consensus. after all thats happened, still no evidence for the china claims, no real evidence to seriously consider the claims based on nothing to begin with but suspicion and distrust of china that does nothing but compound suspicion and distrust of china. with nothing concrete to add, its just racist scapegoating at this pointAMassiveGay (talk) 18:08, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

as for family members spouting covid misinformation, think yourself luck bullshit is all they gave you. pretty sure mine gave me covid (pcr test confirmed today, flatmate came up negative his xmas ben cancelled needlessly) AMassiveGay (talk) 18:18, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a real bummer!Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 09:02, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * If COVID is bacteria, it must be superbacteria. Andrew5 (talk) 02:41, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * When the time is ripe, Bob's family shall discover the difference between a virion and a bacterium. It will be an unbearable epiphany. Moreover, I find it rather hysterical that these scientific geniuses called the disease caused by the virus to be the virus itself.--A p r i l Chat?

Mandatory Vaccination Policies.
A number of European states are going to bring in mandatory vaccination and the EU has said that it's something which should be examined generally.

Obviously it's a good idea to get as many people as possible vaccinated. But I'm in two minds about the policy as it could be difficult to implement and counter-productive.

In some EU countries up to thirty percent of the people have not been vaccinated. Let's imagine that that number is reduced to 20 percent after the mandate. That's still a whopping 20 percent of your population your are a loggerheads with. And if you make it a legal requirement: what will the sanction be? You clearly can't imprison them, but fining so many people might prove difficult as well.

The other option would be to insist they stay at home unless they present a vaccine passport. But in many countries the vaccine passport is becoming the norm anyway - so what difference would the extra layer of mandatory vaccination make?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 11:13, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * To me, it might be counter productive. Take the mask mandates, many places outright refused to enforce it ("assault on muh freewdom"). How many government and law enforcement would refuse to enforce it? Campaigning to get people vaccinated is probably the best choice. --Resident Evil 7 (talk) 20:04, 11 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Western societies have become very individualistic which is not a terribly helpful mindset for fighting a pandemic. The more individualistic a society is, the worse it is at handling this pandemic as can be seen via the graph at the bottom of the article Are individualistic societies worse at responding to pandemics?. If you are very concerned about catching Covid-19, move to Japan where the coronavirus cases are low. In Japan, they have a saying: "The nail that sticks up gets hammered down." Sandmore (talk) 19:57, 12 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm looking at the Our World Data vaccination rates. Japan certainly has a higher vaccination rate at 79% than the UK (75%) and the US (72%).  But on the other hand rather anarchic Spain has 82% and its neighbor Portugal has a whopping 89%. (All percentages for at least one jab.)
 * So I can't say that I'm completely convinced by the argument.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 20:46, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The Japanese have a 100 year history of wearing masks. In Japan, if you're overweight, there is a "fat tax". Slim people have a lower morbidity rate and infection rate for Covid-19. The only strike Japan has against it when it comes to the coronavirus pandemic is an aging population. Portugal is a Catholic country and Catholic countries tend to be less individualistic than Protestant countries. Portugal also put a military man in charge of the vaccination program who executed the vaccination program with military efficiency (And many people trust military men more than politicians). Sandmore (talk) 21:12, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * All that may well be true. I'm just pointing out that there are European countries with higher vaccination rates than Japan's. And others with lower ones.
 * So there is a lot more than national national rates of individualism involved when looking at vaccine take-up rates, including - as you point out - how well vaccination campaigns are run. I would also suggest that initial levels of vaccine skepticism would also play a significant role than individualism.
 * I would certainly accept that trust in the state (or otherwise) is also very important. Something reflected in Russia's miserable vaccination rates for example.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 07:37, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I would say yes, but on the other hand there's also the unfortunate truth that a lot of the unvaccinated also happen to work in the hospitals which are already short-staffed (mostly due to deliberate anti-vax attempts to target medical professionals). -- Techpriest (talk) 11:52, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * There's a bit of government idiocy surrounding the vax mandates. Someone who already had COVID might benefit from a booster shot, but there's not much benefit to the vaccine if you already had COVID itself.  Yet, proof of having been COVID+ doesn't exempt you from the mandates.  When anti-vaxxers claims that Pfizer and Moderna are calling the shots, since more vaccines = more revenue, there's a nugget or two of truth there...  15:16, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Welcome to capitalism. To all, yes the gov can and should mandate vaccination. This isn't controversial or even new. People are just selfish and lazy, as per usual. 16:33, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * And all current medical advice is that vaccines are a good idea even after natural infection.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:40, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * If you compare someone who got the vaccine vs had COVID, the person who had COVID but not the vaccine has less than half the rate of infection as someone who had the vaccine but not COVID.
 * Relevant tidbits "In the unvaccinated recovered cohort, the infection rate was 10.5 per 100,000 person-days at risk, if previously infected 4-6 months before the study, but this went up three times, to 30, when those infected more than a year before the study were examined"
 * "For vaccination in uninfected individuals, the rate per 100,000 person-days was 21 for vaccination within the last two months, to almost 90 if vaccinated more than six months before the study"
 * Note the timeframes; the unvax-recov cohort has much longer timeframes and thus more time for immunity to wane, yet still has between a half and a third the rate of infection compared to the vaccine. Of course, the lowest risk is from someone who recovered and got the vaccine, which is why it's recommended that even those who recovered get the vaccine/booster. In terms of risk, your coworker who got the vaccine but not COVID is a much, much greater risk than the person who got COVID but not the vaccine. 18:02, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

(EC) I don't know if you've ever read my article on Walter Block, which was my first, and I still believe, one of the best contributions to our little site. A couple of months ago I found out that even he kinda supports mandatory vaccinations. It's kinda weird how even the nuttiest anarcho-capitalist libertarian seems to be right on this subject and yet some people still use the "freedom" token to oppose mandatory vaccination. GeeJayK (talk) 18:08, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, that pretty much settles the issue doesn't it? 20:18, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Eh, not exactly. Any Imam or Rabbi worth their beard will tell you "savings lives is more important than worrying about a bit of porkfat", but there will always be some that deserves a shave.  Furthermore, extreme vegans might be horrified that vaccines are tested on animals, and they will have objections too.  While a lot of people hide behind bullshit of "safety", the truth is that the first COVID vaccines weren't FDA approved, merely that the FDA decided to skip parts of the approval process because emergency.  The public had a right to be hesitant about the vaccine then, but much less so now that the results are in.
 * As I said before, there's a lot of nonsensical policies around the vaccine mandates. Recovering from COVID is far more effective at providing immunity than the vaccine itself, and while getting a booster should still be encouraged, the recovered non-vaxxed workers should still be allowed to work given that they are less likely to contract/transmit than the vaccinated non-recovered workers.  20:30, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * (EC)I think it's fair to say that a one-size fit all approach just really isn't going to work, each country has their own historical context that may reflect their feelings about mandates. I will say that the "Make Life Hard" policy instituted by France, Italy, New York City and Austria, probably is the best of bad options. Just like those people who don't vaccinate their children for MMR or Polio, they are allowed to be in society but are denied public schooling, amusement parks and libraries. You have a right to control what goes in your body, but not the right to threaten others. I know a friend of mine was perfectly happy not being vaccinated, until he couldn't go to a college football game.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 20:35, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Let's use a non-COVID metaphor.
 * "Due to drunk driving accidents, all cab drivers are required to have a breathalyzer-ignition installed, just in case!"
 * "But I've been driving 10 years without an incident, I don't even drink, can I skip this?"
 * "No! Studies show you'll be safer still with the breathalyzer even if you are already a good driver."
 * "But even without the breathalyzer I'm still better than your average driver. If you get rid of me and use the other drives more, you are increasing the chance one of your drivers has an accident!"
 * "Accept it or find another job."
 * "How much do these breathalyzers cost; is the manufacturer friends with the owner?"
 * "You're fired!" 20:43, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

On the vague libertarian angle, I ask the utilitarian question; does denial of the individual freedom (to be stupid) *plus* the disquiet such a policy would cause get outweighed by the general societal benefit? I am not sure it is, at least in the UK.

Current vaccines don't stop entirely transmission/infection, merely drastically cut down the risk of the jabbed from getting seriously ill. Therefore, most of the benefit is for the vaccinated, not wider society. So, I shall rate 'getting vaccinated' as a element of what folks can do to help themselves - like eating right, not smoking, keeping fit etc. Is it within the state's remit to enforce such things?

If you have a nation (like the UK) where (most) healthcare is paid via taxation, it could be argued that it is the state's remit - my (and everyone elses) taxes paying for that avoidable treatment, and the state in this case is merely watching my interest. This is pretty much the same argument for say, anti-smoking campaigns. Which leads to an idea; like smoking, make the refuseniks carry the excess costs of their obstinacy. If you insist on doing vaccine passports, allow the idiots to buy an exemption pass for say, 1%-3% of their annual income. Also allow travel insurance / private health cover to do charge more due to their higher risk.

If your 'freedom' to not be vaccinated leads to you taking that hospital bed which was meant for me and my hip operation, well I want you to buy your own damn bed. KarmaPolice (talk) 20:52, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * First off, depends on the numbers. My right to be a drunken idiot gets further and further reduced depending on what I'm driving.  If I'm walking down the street drunk, I'm not much of a threat to society.  If I drive a car, I might kill someone so that's not allowed.  If I'm flying a space shuttle, the disaster involved means I can't even enjoy a drink the night before being strapped to the world's largest conventional bomb.
 * Vaccines DO lower transmission/infection. They aren't perfect, but saying it isn't 100% effective therefore it's pointless is like saying that condoms aren't 100% effective therefor they don't reduce the chance of pregnancy.  21:03, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I mentioned the vaccine efficacy not as an excuse not to have it, but as pointing out that 'covid elimination' is an impossible task right now. If we get a vaccine which reduces transmission/infection rates down to the floor (thus making elimination viable as a strategy again) then I'll re-ask the question (for the facts have changed). While this phrase has been stolen by the crazies, we do have to 'learn to live with Covid' and this involves working out what measures need to be introduced/stay/repealed.

Nor do I deal with the situation regarding, for example workers in higher-risk occupations (say hospitals). That's another question too. And it could be said that some of the damage alcohol causes in society is 'paid for' through the taxes on the stuff (at least in some countries). KarmaPolice (talk) 21:21, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You don't NEED to get transmission rates down to 0; you just need to get it below 1. If the vaccine is 90% effective and COVID has a base reproductive rate of 5 (i.e., 1 person will infect 5 others), everyone getting the vaccine reduces the rate to .5, and the number of people with COVID will keep going down by half until it's gone completely.  21:57, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Which is why I didn't deny vaccines playing a big part in public health vs Covid. But it's merely part of our armoury. We need to work out doing cost-benefits on all the options and pick the best ones, and compulsary vaccinations may not be the best - if nothing else, it will cost quite a bit to introduce, run and enforce and that cash might be more effectively spent on say, better cleaning and ventilation for public transport or making it easier for the sick to self-isolate. Part of me suspects that we in the advanced world have basically forgotten on how to handle highly contagious diseases like Covid and we've had to re-learn old lessons our grandparents did all the time.

What's more, the vaccines have reduced the severity of the virus in the vaccinated (at the moment), which has made Covid a less serious a public health risk. This means there's less a general benefit for violating that bit of liberty; esp as some folks their refusal is down to complete lack of trust of 'them', healthy scepticism regarding the long-term safety, poor personal medical experiences and suchlike. Bullying them into doing it may backfire long-term because next time (you never know) their 'hesitancy' might have deepened into soured, full-blown refusal. KarmaPolice (talk) 22:59, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * These comparisons are all rather silly when the nature of an infectious disease, and the history of dealing with infectious disease is so deeply rooted, it can be found religious texts for all three major monotheisms (Leviticus 12-14 comes to mind), as well as case law, at least in the US, dating back to the countries founding. Ostensibly, this whole conversation isn't one about whether a government has the right to enforce public health measures including vaccinations, it does. Nor is it really that it should, because it must, even the most extreme anti-mask/anti-vax people still admit there need to be protections for the most at risk. The real question should be, what privileges can be denied.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 00:34, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "If the vaccine is 90% effective and COVID has a base reproductive rate of 5" Using actual numbers for the Omicron variant, vaccines are about 23% effective, and the basic reproduction rate is around 10 (via preliminary comparisons with Delta spread, which is estimated at 5-ish). As should not be news, leaky vaccines are not capable of ending epidemics. Anyway, that aside, I find it interesting how different camps regard "my body, my choice" in different contexts. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 12:52, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Precedent isn't the same as 'collective memory' or capabilities; when was the last time public health in advanced nations had to deal with something like this – the 1950s? It's partly why we were caught on the hop; our medical systems no longer had the capacity for widespread infectious disease (it's why the elderly are most pro-vax in UK; they remember the 'bad old days'.)

There's a difference between the right (of the state) to do something, the ability to do it and lastly, the wisdom of doing it. We need to remember that.

Lastly, the UK is an excellent case in point. We got our vaccination rates close to adult herd immunity and then took a gamble on ditching most other measures, hoping the vaccines will keep hospitalisations low while 'topping up' our resistance via mass asymptomatic infections. And this looked like it might actually pay off as infections boomed but deaths remained low-ish - it's only this new variant which put the frighteners on UKGov. And winter (but that's a different issue).

Question: if the UK had been more gung-ho in vaccinating kids (it was this hesitancy which caused our % rates to stall in the summer) and more coercion of our refuseniks (so getting to herd immunity level) do you think we'd be in a completely different position than now? KarmaPolice (talk) 18:27, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It's worth noting that in the United States precedent has been well established, beginning with in 1905, that the states have the authority to enforce compulsory vaccination laws. I'm on the fence with full-on government mandates with the COVID vaccine though, since COVID is far less of a concern compared to diseases like polio and smallpox, and the COVID vaccine is not quite as effective at the vaccines of those disease for preventing one from catching it (though it seems to do a great job in reducing deaths and ICU visits, and the later, being something that very much impacts overall public health, leans me into not minding a stricter protocol just a wee bit). I do think that the right of private businesses to enforce whatever COVID protocol they decide is their own damn business and I do think that the right of local government agencies and districts to experiment with what works best (since there were a lot of unknowns) should be allowed.
 * One thing that makes me think compulsory vaccination laws is not the way to go at the moment, though, is that the developing world is sorely in much more need of the vaccines than the developed world. There's probably much greater impact in getting the vaccine to those who want it in developing nations right now, versus forcing the anti-vaxx crowd in the developed world to get vaccinated instead. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 18:50, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "We got our vaccination rates close to adult herd immunity" No, you didn't. Leaky vaccines do not produce herd immunity at any level of vaccination. COVID-19 spreads uncontrollably in 100% vaccinated populations, and travel / social restrictions on unvaccinated people are breeding for vaccine resistance. Which group do you think is spreading new variants through air travel?


 * "beginning with in 1905" It didn't end there. It led to Buck vs. Bell in 1927, which is also still on the books. Bodily integrity is not a right to give up lightly. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 19:05, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "Leaky vaccines do not produce herd immunity at any level of vaccination"
 * Bovine Stool. Every vaccine is a "leaky" vaccine.  The original Polio vaccine was only 60-70% effective against Polio 1, but with everyone vaccinated it didn't matter; the virus reproduced too slowly to sustain itself, and now Polio is extinct in nearly every country on the planet.  19:12, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Okay, a bit of verbal slippage there - the UK got close to the point of Covid being (mainly) endemic/asymptomatic, thus something we could 'live with'. Plus, our refusenik level is much lower than say, the USA. Want another example? How about Israel? They did perhaps even better on this than we did but still were unable to 'get out of this' entirely. Aka forced vaccination for all is *not* the silver bullet.

Anyway, while smallpox as precedent is legally correct, it looks to the layperson kinda dumb as Covid is *really* not smallpox and they know it. Similar could be said for using TB precedent to force the Covid-positives into sanatoriums. This fails on my third strand; 'is it wise to do this?' KarmaPolice (talk) 19:20, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Israel has sick tourists constantly coming into the country. "Herd Immunity" doesn't mean no one can get sick, it means that enough people are immune that the virus can't replicate fast enough to sustain the number of infected people.  If 20,000 people with measles came into the US every single month, there'd be thousands of Americans catching measles too but it wouldn't be self-sustaining.  19:27, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This is stupid. Going for herd immunity means you're ok with a fuck ton of people dying/being seriously injured to achieve an end that does not require those casualties. You get vaxxed, you have minimal risk, you become resistant, the virus ceases to be a major threat. There isn't an actual case opposing this, just a bunch of political bullshit that primarily exists to benefit one party in one country, the American Republican Party. 20:54, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You do realize that public vaccination creates herd immunity, right, bro? 21:00, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, and "herd immunity" is also used as term to describe simply letting enough people become infected to achieve that state. Realistically, we have two major options. Either we vax the unvaxed, or we shoot them dead. This farce cannot continue indefinitely. Our medical system cannot support this insanity. 21:04, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Umm... literally the first sentence on our page refers to vaccination. I'm not sure where you got the impression that I felt that mass infections were "better", only that someone who recovered was less likely to contract again and thus safer to be around than someone who only had the vaccine, ergo they should be allowed to work even if we'd all be better off if they got vaxxed too.
 * As for "shoot the unvaxxed", look, there are lots of people who I truly believe the world would be better without. However, somewhere out there is someone who also truly believes the world would be better without either me or you.  So be very, very careful about advocating that we shoot people...  22:25, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "Herd immunity" was floated as a talking point during the lockdowns as an alternative to lockdowns and/or vaccination. You can hardly blame me for being suspicious. As for shooting people, I don't want that. Jesus Christ, my whole point about vax mandates was that they'd reduce casualties from covid, and really, the freedom to spread a plague is like the freedom to rape, something we're all better off without. Side note, I say "casualties" rather than "deaths" because even if covid doesn't kill you it can really fuck you up. So yeah, again, we should bring the numbers down, and freedom to be stupid be damned. 23:42, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comrade... you do realise that neither recovery or (current) vaccination confers immunity, right? A combination of 'leaky vaccine' and fading coverage, with a large enough pool means it's quite possible for it to float around indefinitely... KarmaPolice (talk) 07:35, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I know the basics of how vaccines work yes. I just don't buy into your crap. 21:50, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * And which bit is 'crap'? The bit which says that even if we literally got to 100% vaccination rates we still wouldn't be rid of Covid? Or that the efforts to nailing down that last 10% by big stick might outwiegh the costs?
 * I never denied vaccine coverage was one of the best tools in the arsenal - I'm looking at Cuba, with their ~90% coverage rates and resultant reduction of Covid to 'managable levels'. We're actually closer than you think; I merely reject *forcing* it on the most stubborn refuseniks on pragmatic reasons (basically, is not worth the effort). However, I'm all fine putting in fines on them, and/or making it somewhat a pain to live without it.
 * Anyway, in advanced nations vaccine rates appear to have stalled around 75%. I'm working on the theory ~5% can't be and perhaps half of the remainder can be *gently* stick'ed into getting it. Screw the final hardcores, shore up the vaccine defences of the rest with boosters then work on the mitigations side of things. KarmaPolice (talk) 04:23, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Ok, this "Leaky Vaccine" bullshit has to stop. It isn't a real thing. Most effective vaccinations have an efficacy between 60% and 90%. It was a stroke of luck that we managed to produce multiple vaccines to a disease in less than a year, that have that level of efficacy. mentioned this, but the reason new variants keep popping up is because the virus keeps mutating in places where vaccination rates are low and spread of the disease is high. Society is so interconnected, international travel opened to a degree, which created new spaces for variants to spread. To end the pandemic requires herd immunity through vaccination, not infection, which requires way more vaccine in general. Those same companies that put a massive effort into developing the vaccines have frankly failed to live up to their commitment to produce enough. But moving to an endemic stage would be likely with more serious measures, especially during the colder months of each country where virus's in general spread more.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:54, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "Every vaccine is a "leaky" vaccine." "Ok, this "Leaky Vaccine" bullshit has to stop" No vaccine is 100% effective, but with normal vaccines, the options are sterilizing immunity or no immunity. If a vaccine allows infection and transmission while reducing the severity of symptoms (the current prevailing narrative for why people should get it), it is by definition leaky. This is worse than a merely ineffective vaccine because it can reverse the normal selective pressure towards more infectious but less severe strains. An ineffective vaccine wouldn't have much effect on the course of a pandemic, but a leaky vaccine can not only make it permanent, it can make it worse over time. This is the sort of thing that would ordinarily have been caught in the 5-10 years of testing that vaccines have traditionally faced.


 * "The original Polio vaccine was only 60-70% effective against Polio 1, but with everyone vaccinated it didn't matter" Because polio is primarily spread through fecal-oral contamination rather than infectious airborne particles. Most of the reduction in polio cases was from things like the increase in indoor plumbing that improved sanitation and hygiene, though the vaccine did help finish the disease off in much of the world. The effective reproduction number was already low enough that a 60-70% effective vaccine was enough to drop it below 1. That's nowhere close to good enough for COVID-19. Though the Salk vaccine was over 90% effective against PV2 and PV3, which would have been enough to stop COVID-19 because it produced sterilizing immunity.


 * "Want another example?" There are 99% and 100% vaccinated populations still experiencing COVID-19. The data is already in that no level of vaccination will end the pandemic.


 * "If 20,000 people with measles came into the US every single month, there'd be thousands of Americans catching measles too" Measles has a base reproduction rate of about 14, and the measles vaccine produces about 99.7% sterilizing immunity (meaning that never mind symptoms, only 3 in a thousand vaccinated people can even catch it). So those 20k infected people expose 280k people to what would be an infectious dose of virus (assuming no duplication in exposure). 840 become infected (supposing a 100% vaccinated population), and in turn infect 35 people, who infect one, where the spread ends. Total domestic infections: 876. Now compare the situation with a single person infected with the omicron variant. Base reproduction number of ten, 23% vaccine effectiveness. Supposing a 100% vaccinated population, the one infected traveler infects eight, who infect 59, who infect 457, etc. eventually resulting in 77% of the population becoming infected.


 * "the virus ceases to be a major threat" Vaccinated people currently make up the majority of hospitalizations and deaths in various places.


 * "There isn't an actual case opposing this" Systemically, leaky vaccines are worse than no vaccine at all. Good thing that the COVID-19 vaccines are also highly ineffective, or we'd have a real problem on our hands. The Marek's disease vaccine is almost 100% effective at preventing severe symptoms, and a selective pressure like that would turn SARS-CoV-2 into Captain Trips given time.


 * "the reason new variants keep popping up is because the virus keeps mutating in places where vaccination rates are low" Why would a strain with vaccine resistance spread due to the presence of unvaccinated people? Keep in mind that vaccination does not prevent infection or transmission, and that travel and socialization restrictions have beent targeted at unvaccinted people. Do you think that the people who spread the omicron variant around the world through air travel were unvaccinated?


 * "To end the pandemic requires herd immunity through vaccination, not infection, which requires way more vaccine in general." 100% vaccination rates have been achieved in some populations, as linked above, and have failed to end the disease locally. Because the vaccines do not prevent infection or transmission. In contrast, Japan has more or less eliminated it. Have you ever wondered what other countries have been doing and how effective their policies have been? 192․168․1․42 (talk) 13:47, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * To paraphrase all the people I know in healthcare; "please don't confuse your Google Search with my medical degree". Guess what, Coronavirus itself produces "leaky" immunity, given that so many people have had COVID more than once.  Do you know how many Americans have had COVID?  By the end of 2020, just one year ago, it was already 1 in 3.  16:08, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Just to add to this, "leaky immunity" is horse excrement. Do you know what the AVERAGE efficacy of the yearly flu vaccine is? 40-60%. (50%) You have a halved chance of getting the flu or spreading it. The Pfizer series has an 80% efficacy rate, the Moderna series has a 90% efficacy rate. I have literally never heard a medical professional worth their doctorate use "leaky vaccines" as an argument for not vaccinating against flu, and you wanna know why?
 * Getting flu is worse immunity, as it rapidly mutates.
 * Your risk of dying from flu after vaccination is essentially 0%.
 * It reduces the spread of the flu with significantly less risks than mass infection.
 * COVID is a quickly mutating virus, with an almost insignificant chance of death after vaccination, with significantly less risks in vaccination than actually getting infected. The reason why some countries have most cases be vaccinated is actually twofold.
 * A majority of the population is vaccinated, therefore a majority of cases will also be vaccinated (regardless of how many cases there actually are, the percentage is the same).
 * Immunity against COVID fades substantially 6 months after vaccination. Hence, boosters. Ozzyboo (talk) 03:14, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * ""please don't confuse your Google Search with my medical degree"" If this is intended as an argument, that's a remarkable fallacy density.


 * "Coronavirus itself produces "leaky" immunity" Two different things here. Non-immunocompromized individuals apparently clear the virus from their systems with a normal sterilizing immune response. But, as with other coronaviruses (notably the common cold one), the memory of the adaptive response is poor, apparently fading over the scale of months. The difference between a "leaky" vaccine and a non-leaky one is that the leaky vaccine permits asymptomatic infection while the non-leaky one does not. The infections that occur with leaky vaccines are still normally cleared out in time with an immune response.


 * "Do you know what the AVERAGE efficacy of the yearly flu vaccine is?" This largely has to do with multiple strains of flu being in circulation, and vaccine makers having to predict months in advance which will be dominant during a given flu season. Much of the ineffectiveness is from a mismatch between the strains used to make the vaccine and the ones actually circulating. This is an overall stat indicating effectiveness against the mix of strains that happens to be circulating, not effectiveness against a specific strain. But yes, the flu vaccine is the least effective set of vaccines in widespread use, with the recent exception of the COVID-19 vaccines. It even appears that it may be leaky, which may relate to the increasing lethality of the flu over the last few decades as flu vaccine use has become widespread.


 * "The Pfizer series has an 80% efficacy rate, the Moderna series has a 90% efficacy rate" Supposing that were true, what results would you then expect to see in 99% or 100% vaccinated populations?


 * "and you wanna know why" Because it's heretofore been a niche issue that no one but epidemiologists or poultry farmers would have a professional interesting in knowing about.


 * "A majority of the population is vaccinated, therefore a majority of cases will also be vaccinated" In the US, the meales vaccination rate is a bit above 90%. Nearly all measles infections and deaths are in unvaccinated people. Because the measles vaccine is highly effective at producing sterilizing immunity. Note also that the point I was addressing was that "the virus ceases to be a major threat". With most people hospitalized being vaccinated, that's obviously not the case. Also, in case you were unaware, some places have higher case fatality rates among vaccinated people than among unvaccinated. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 10:40, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * COVID is different. Pfizer only has 55% efficacy against Omricron without booster, Moderna is 36%. It is restored with boosters, but, only 62 million Americans have boosters. Also, Pfizer is still only 70% against the booster. Johnson and Johnson offers little to no protection, meanwhile (though it was weaker to begin with, 66% from original and 33% from Delta whereas Pfizer was 95% at the beggining and 66% against Delta). Vaccines aren't enough. Andrew5 (talk) 20:43, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Green Christmas's: Something I will have to get used to
Thanks to climate change, the number of times in which Christmas has been warmer and without snow has become more frequent. Might as well get used to it as climate change is continuing. --Non-Binary EAS Creator (talk) 01:45, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * True, but at least it wasn't as bad as, , , or when . Andrew5 (talk) 00:19, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I give you that. Got to take my wins where I can get them. The main weather issues have been hot and very dry summers which seem to get worse each year. --Non-Binary EAS Creator (talk) 01:45, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I have only had two 'proper' White Christmases, and both of those were in Austria so don't really count. I think '99 was technically that in the Greater London region, but we're talking a few flakes or a slight dusting. Purely anecdotally, I'd hazard that January is the most likely for snow at least now - but it's long been an iffy proposition, because it relies on a collision of the wet Atlantic air to collide with the cold Eastern right over the UK. KarmaPolice (talk) 10:13, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This has been the whitest Christmas that we've had in Helsinki for years. Probably the first white one since early 2010s. Even at our cabin almost 200km north from here we've had several green/black Christmases in the past decade, something that would have been unheard of in the 90s (as would have been the possibility that we'd go mushroom picking on Boxing Day).
 * I'd all but given up hope of getting snow this early in the winter. And happy as I am to have been wrong there, I'm not under delusion that this is going to be a common occurrence in the future. 10:28, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * it occurs to me ive never seen a depiction of christmas in australia. xmas is in the summer down there. do they still sell the winter wonderland or do more a summer themed christmas? reindeers and snow and robins and sleighs all wintery things but what christmas is 'meant' to look like. is there a wierd ozzy xmas which no one outside of australia knows about with beaches and barbeques and surfing and santa in speedoes? how come in 40 plus years of living ie never thought about this before or have any idea what it looks? i cnat even think what xmas on neighbours or home and away looked like - did they do xmas on thse shows? i bet its really creepy and unsettling and a horrific lovecraftian secret that would shatter our sanity to witness. santa wear a thong? AMassiveGay (talk) 11:37, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I have no idea as to how Christmas advertising works outside the US or Canada. --Non-Binary EAS Creator (talk) 21:43, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Search results show me they blend elements together, like putting Christmas trees on the beaches, "sand"people" rather than snowpeople, surfboarding, and it might not be too different for Christmas in places where there's zero snow. Another article says Aussies and other south hemisphere people celebrate in July. 22:30, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * im not convinced. they are hiding something. what is that they not saying? all im saying is there are probably human sacrifices. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:19, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Some places just never get cold. Miami and the Bahamas only saw snow once in a cold wave back in January of 1977. Dubai's record low temperature was still 36°F or 2°C. None of America's territories dipped below 37°F or 3°C.
 * Also, I would recommend watching out for a potential storm on December 29 if you live in the area in yellow. Andrew5 (talk) 00:12, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

I once spent Christmas (and New Years) in Sydney and it was a weird experience coming from the Northern Hemisphere. Still, I could see the attraction of celebrating with a barbecue on the beach, but the combination of sweltering heat and massive bushfires with faux snow in the shopping windows and Santas in shorts and t-shirts was a bit jarring… ScepticWombat (talk) 12:44, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Does subtext actually exist?
It's something I didn't really get. If it isn't explicitly said then how can you be sure that it exists? Isn't it just imagination at that point? I mean people are talking about how the original intent of an artist doesn't matter in a work (meaning people can read what they want into it) so how can it be said there is something there when it isn't explicitly said.Machina (talk) 17:17, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Simply, that's the power of interpretation. Even if you make something relatively straightforward, everyone who reads it will have a slightly different interpretation. There is no guarantee that everyone will see something the same way. Take something like Supernatual. The characters of Cas and Dean were never meant to be in a romantic/sexual relationship, as far as the writers were concerned, but many in the online community saw aspects of their relationship and character as being indicative of gay romance. Some part of it comes down to imagination, as you say, or just personal headcannon, but the ultimate truth is that subtext, whether intentional, present, or neither, will always be around. Some subtext is projected and some is interpretation. Jake Holmes ''yell at me 19:36, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I like Jake's example. "Subtext" is a critical term. When one observes a play, for example, the critic can claim all sorts of implications that one may or may not take notice of. Do they exist? Well, they are implications. You eith an experience, the critic calls interpretation due to subtext. Ariel31459 (talk) 21:00, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * How are thoughts real though? A lot of philosophies I have read say that thoughts aren't real, they don't actually exist. It's all in your head, just like sound and color. In reality there is no subtext, at least that's what the conclusion is. It's like how we take our personal reality to be objective truth which is where these head cannons take place that people try to make real and claim the "subtext" says so. But as you say it is interpretation and it doesn't matter how many people interpret it like that, that doesn't make it fact. Doesn't the Bible have similar issues?Machina (talk) 19:25, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not so much that people take subjective thoughts to be objective truth as it is that people project their own traits onto characters because their interpretation of the character fits with their headcannons. I myself have projected certain characters I like as being autistic, not because the author intended them to be, but because intentionally or not their behavior is close enough to typical autistic behavior (or my own, as I am ASD) that I project this trait onto them as a way of relating to them. The bottom line is that subtext is never truly correct; subjective interpretation of media necessitates that every person will see something differently. People will completely miss intentional subtext and see unintentional subtext in its place. In a sense it goes back to what you said: thoughts aren't real. When someone makes a headcannon, they essentially create a separate interpretation of the original media, which they can do with what they please. Jake Holmes ''yell at me 14:52, 13 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Not a lot of philosophy maintains thoughts don't exist. If you think about it, you have to have the thought to make the claim. It is a self refuting idea.Ariel31459 (talk) 01:29, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not self refuting though. You can't point to a thought, you can't reach out and grab it, you can't even precisely locate one (if at all, assuming it has a form). So how can you say such a thing exists? From the looks of it sounds like they don't exist, just like color and sound.Machina (talk) 07:40, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * If, by your logic, our thoughts don't exist, then the ideas that created media to begin with don't exist at all, and any abstract concept like love or hatred or symbolism also doesn't exist. Thoughts aren't tangible, and neither are intentions. To say as much concedes that any interpretation can be made and that all interpretations are equally valid, since the thought never existed to begin with. Jake Holmes ''yell at me 20:49, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Short answer: yes.Machina (talk) 00:10, 16 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Things exist because we experience sense evidence that they exist. Since our ideas are constructed from our sense evidence it would be incoherent to assume that they did not really exist. Take color or sound. What does it mean for sound to exist? Sound is caused by a vibration in the air to which ones eardrums react, it is created as sense data. If the sound did not exist, how would physiologists explain perfect pitch? How would human ears discern the many possible messages afforded by the human voice? No, it is clearly incoherent to assume sound does not exist. It exists as information. Now, one could claim that information doesn't exist. But, it basically denies the relation between things and our ideas of things, which is incoherent. What we are telling you is you must assume ideas don't really exist, and doing so leads nowhere. Ariel31459 (talk) 22:03, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * But sound does not exist though, that's the point. You are, again, trying to project subjective experience as reality. Sounds itself is just in our mind it's not real. Color is the same way, nothing is red or blue except in the head. Thoughts aren't real either as you cannot directly interact with them or point to them. It's not an assumption it is fact. Even information cannot be said to exist as it is just mental, not real. Neither do things as they are really just concepts of "things" and not static objects (Vsauce did a good video on why chairs don't exist).Machina (talk) 00:10, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * For someone who has unambiguously declared philosophy as useless, you are spending a shit-ton of time on philosophical questions. There are multiple theories on what thoughts, abstract concepts and even phenomena like "the transfer of heat" are. "Emergent phenomena" and/or "cultural constructs" are two concepts which may be useful to helping you explore things such as "thought" and "subtext". Just stay the fuck away from blogs, non-philosophy led discussion groups and quora on these subjects. If you are pressed from time, get the Oxford a very short introduction to books. Ones I would recommend for you are (in order of relevance): Reality, Consciousness, Objectivity, Thought, Metaphysics, Causation, Knowledge, Perception. I have read Consciousness, Objectivity and Thought. I have read two dozen books on totally different topics as well. They are extremely well written and give a solid introduction to all of these topics. If your library doesn't have it and you are poor and have no problem with pirating, they can be pirated. Shabi  DOO  00:54, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yet despite reading all that you have no idea what is going on. I already know you don't know what you're talking about and are more of an emotional reactionary than anything else.Machina (talk) 01:31, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh no, Machina has sharpened his defensive claws again. One day you will learn to concede something (anything) by at least a micrometer and drop your intellectual dipshittery. My lord...what astounding intellectual dipshittery. Shabi  DOO  02:40, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * A visual aid of what I mean.Machina (talk) 08:12, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You also misunderstand the argument. Real things are represented by sense data in consciousness. The sense data is also real, as it exists. Who told you that subjective experiences are not real? They are ontologically objective, while epistemologically they may fail to be universal. You keep using this word "real." I do not think it means what you think it means.Ariel31459 (talk) 03:47, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Not really. If there is nothing to receive the data then it effectively does not exist. So in a sense "sensory data isn't real" as it doesn't exist out in the world but is dependent on there being something to "pick it up". Nothing is soft or hard, hot or cold, not ultimately.Machina (talk) 01:31, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * What it comes down to is that people see what they want to see, whether it's actually there or not. If you want to see subtext, then you can find evidence for it in the narrative. It's like a self-fulfilling prophecy, I suppose. Jake Holmes ''yell at me 15:10, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The fuck is this about sound not being real? Do you know how many accelerometers I've calibrated to detect bearing faults in engineering blocks?  Sound is shockwaves with a frequency greater than 0, which are absolutely real.  Now all sensory information must be rendered in an abstract way, such as for my system where we often convert vibrational energy into voltage and then measure it with a voltmeter, but the information can also be digital.  Now was the original vibrational energy (sound) voltage?  No, we converted it into that so our customer's computer system can register it.  That is all your brain is doing, converting sensory data into an easily parseable form for internal calculations.  Those internal calculations are absolutely real, but they are an abstraction of the original.  Where is the problem exactly?  Same thing goes for color.  When I calibrate tlcamera systems, we very carefully generate specific frequencies of light (which is what color is), and this color is usually represented in the parent system by a 16 bit integer.  Is color a 16 bit integer?  No it is an abstraction for ease of calculation.  How your brain perceives color is again just an abstraction for ease of calculation, and it absolutely exists and is functioning properly.  If I ask people who aren't color blind to sort 20 objects based on whether they are red, blue, or green, I will get very consistent results (unless I play some trick like make all the cups weird color mixes or stripes or some petty shit).  MirrorIrorriM (talk) 18:52, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Except they aren't. In reality sound is purely pressure waves, anything you "hear" is, in a sense, fantasy. Color itself also DOES NOT EXIST. It's again, just the brain's imagination. It's based on past experience, so in a sense all of humanity is delusional and seeing something that does not actually exist. Asking someone else to sort based on color proves nothing since we all share in this delusion we call color.Machina (talk) 01:31, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That's not right either, though. What we call color, and the names of the colors we have, are societal and social constructs. But color, whether perceptible or not, does exist. The world isn't black and white; the existence of rainbows shows us that light can pass through different spectrums and form new wavelengths, which due to our color rods we understand to be color. If there were no people around to interpret colors, everything would still have color. The same is true for sound; the fact that we live on a world with an atmosphere allows for sound to travel and move, and even in space things make noise that we can detect. Just because something isn't physical per se doesn't make it not real, and even then light waves and sound waves are physical, they're just not touchable. To bring the point back home, the same is true for subtext. Subtext exists whether or not you perceive it. That's the bottom line. Jake Holmes ''yell at me 01:51, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, no. Color does not exist. It is NOT light, it's purely an invention of the brain. It does not exist in the world. One light can take on any color as optical illusions illustrate. Without things to "interpret color" it would not exist. Same with sound, it's also just in our heads. It doesn't exist out in the world. IT's just pressure waves. Without a human or some other biological entity there is no sound. You technically aren't perceiving anything. IT's just your brain deluding you. That is what color is, a delusion.Machina (talk) 08:12, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Machina, these are tiresome first year student arguments. You argue as though you have some sophisticated understanding of these concepts when you don't. Pick up a book and read and for the love of God...learn to concede arguments at least, say, once a year or two. Intellectual stubbornness is not a virtue, it stunts your own development, contributes nothing to any conversation and wastes people's time. Again...pick up some books and read. Shabi  DOO  10:14, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Except they aren't. All the search results for the question say it does not exist and is just a delusion of our brains, not an abstraction. You are attempting to fix a property that doesn't exist onto something. The only stubborn ones here are you guys insisting something is real when it's not. You're like the people insisting god exists. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14421303 Machina (talk) 06:35, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Pick up a book and read Machina. Not blogs, news articles, forums, quoras or the like. A book. Pick up some relevant books and read. Shabi  DOO  13:02, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * @Machina an abstraction is not the same as a delusion. Just because information is interpreted based on sensors and isn't the original information does not make it a delusion.  It *does* mean it can be incorrect, but it doesn't mean it *is* incorrect either.  In fact, it is incredibly useful and repeatable for not only survival, but interacting with one's environment.  Color is literally the wavelength of light, our perception of color is based on chemical responses to specific frequency bands of light.  Our eyes are not imagining color, they are color sensors and are perceiving real phenomena (albeit at a level which is not great by modern tech standards).  An X-ray is literally just taking a picture of you at a different color of light, but at a color beyond the spectrum of human vision.  The amount of work that goes into creating precision thermal imaging systems (again just a different color than what we see) and you are going to say it isn't real?  That's just silly.  Satellites communicate through Frequency Modulated radio waves (again just a different color band of light).  Frequency Modulated means they communicate the information *with color*.  By varying the color of the signal the satellites communicate information so you can watch a VSauce video that apparently convinces you that chairs don't exist or some shit.  Abstractions are not the original, they are representations of the original.  The abstraction can still be valid and verifiable without being tangible.  MirrorIrorriM (talk) 09:08, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Except it isn't the wavelength of light. It's purely a fiction of our own brains, it doesn't exist out there just like sounds dont technically exist out there. Light might have wavelengths and intensity but color is not a property of light. You keep using something that doesn't exist and has been proven not to. It's just a fiction of our brain we take to be real and assign it as a property onto something else that it does not possess. Just like nothing is hot or cold, that is just our sensory interpretation of it.Machina (talk) 06:35, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Machina this is literally tiresome and, not to be rude, but you're wrong about all of this "it's a figment of our imagination" shit. Light, color, sound, etc existed before we evolved and will continue to exist after every one of us dies and this planet collapses to dust. Human interpretation isn't the deciding factor of the existence of astrophysics. Jake Holmes ''yell at me 15:28, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Machina, did you stub your toe? Does it actually hurt or is it just some "chemical reaction"?  15:47, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Nearly 1 year since the US Capitol Insurrection or US Capitol Terrorist Attack (Call it like it is)
You can't go wrong with calling it an insurrection or terrorist attack

I keep thinking how these traitors have the nerve to lecture people about patriotism. How can traitors call themselves patriots when they are the farthest thing from it (Much like Benedict Arnold). --Non-Binary EAS Creator (talk) 21:54, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybes it’s just part of trolling since most of them are rich. Darubrub (talk) 22:43, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Most of the Jan 6 participants were not rich. 22:44, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Even then, their conditions aren’t as bad as the lower classes (not trying to say that there aren’t misinformed exceptions). I wonder how they afforded the plane tickets. Darubrub (talk) 22:51, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Just a clarification: how's "rich" being defined here? 23:00, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It was probably pretty easy for the rioters to call themselves patriots when they think that their enemies are a Cultural Marxist cabal of pedophiles. Conservatism is funny that way.-Flandres (talk) 23:03, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I wonder how they feel knowing that they ruined their own lives by following a con artist? --Non-Binary EAS Creator (talk) 23:07, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe pain from the inside. But from the outside, nothing but this. Darubrub (talk) 23:12, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, let's all laugh at the rubes, just like the grifters who sucked them will laugh. After all, it'd never happen to you... right? 23:20, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yesterday also marked the one year anniversary of my block at Wikipedia :( Andrew5 (talk) 01:46, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * From as far as I could tell, none of them were actually poor. That's not to say they didn't have any poor supporters, but I suspect they didn't attend for the simple reason they couldn't afford to take time off / get there (which is why you should always take this into account on seeing protests numbers). It helped put paid to the fiction that they were just a bunch of Cletuses and were no real threat.
 * As for the term, I use 'insurrection' because I feel it was too disorganised to be an 'attack'. KarmaPolice (talk) 02:31, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I have not found income demographics for the insurrection but a University of Chicago PDF from a page on the study of extremism seems to suggest to me that it's all over the place, though not super-rich.
 * Poverty though in the study (<$25K) though has a negative correlation. So definitely not super-poor either.
 * Huge positive correlations relate to social media usage ("7+ hours", not sure if that is per day or week) and belief in bullshit like Great Replacement Theory and QAnon. In other words, while Donald Trump certainly played a huge part in the riot, one cannot discount the pervasive algorithms of Facebook and the like in helping this thing. Income probably mattered less than how many racist fringe Facebook groups the user got suckered into. 50.229.121.3 (talk) 03:11, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * There was a positive correlation between military/law enforcement experience and being an insurrectionist, though it's possible this is over-shown due to the fact the former are more likely to be more 'adventurous' and thus, do the latter. And/or that the kind of person who'd be an insurrectionist would be attracted to such careers. Or that the military/law enforcement has elements of a toxic culture which makes them more likely to do such stuff afterwards.
 * But we have to remember, there's lots of people - liberal, conservative and apolitical - who do not want this answer to be properly answered. To take a quip from defence lawyers - 'don't ask a question if you don't already know the answer'. The truth is highly unlikely to fit anyone's desired narrative. KarmaPolice (talk) 03:45, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a good tip. Someone should synopsize that analysis for our 2021 U.S. Capitol riot page. Bongolian (talk) 03:49, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This BoN understands. This was not the rise of the Petite bourgeoisie against the haute bourgeoisie, but the Republican base being mobilized en mass. By Republican party operatives, by paramility groups, by each other, they were mobilized to that spot to challenge the election. It would be a massive mistake to view these people as rich fucks, or to think that such an event could only occur through centralized scheming. 04:35, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Honestly I can understand why those people were so angry considering the amount of electoral fraud in the 2020 election. I, myself, rememember the pain when more and more evidence was being collected online of dead people voting, people voting twice and ballots being changed from Trump to Biden. Its scares so much how people didn't notice all that fraud. Im glad that politicans are now creating new laws rescriting voter fraud. Hopefully Trump will win for a third time so we can be pulled out of this woke bullshit Reckt (talk) 05:12, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, for the troll - dead people vote in every election. You could have if you died in a fatal accident a day before Voting Day but had done a postal ballot and sent it in a week before. The true question is 'did that ineligible vote throw the result'? And the answer is in this case 'no' - the margin of victory was solid enough by the end. What you're suggesting is a monster conspiracy against the Orange One including the media, legal system, electoral officers and a myriad of professional/expert observers. And I don't think the American 'elite' is competent enough to pull of such a thing without leaving some evidence, for starters. I cite the 'Sagan standard' here, or as I would say - 'put up or shut up'. Better and much richer folks than you have tried to find their Deep Throat / Panama Papers etc and have failed. (KarmaPolice)

Why is my comment put under troll collapse? Do I not have the right to an opinion? Reckt (talk) 00:54, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It's because the RW mob thinks your a sockpuppet of a banned user, and it's up to you to prove otherwise probably. Andrew5 (talk) 00:57, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * What? I am not a banned user at all, I have only found this site a few days ago. Why don't you CheckUser me? Reckt (talk) 01:03, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * RW doesn't have checkuser. But I suppose if you don't know that, you don't have enough knowledge of the wiki to be a sock. Andrew5 (talk) 01:11, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * no the collapse is there because obvious troll was obviously trolling and we should not feed trolls. i dont care about who is a sock of who, no one should give a shit about who is a sock or not, of banned users or otherwise. are shitposting trolls? collapse/delete/revert as applicable, ban/vandalbin in as per guidelines. honestly, people in the business of banning socks on this wiki are pretty fucking shit at it, and think every troll is a sock of x, every new user is a sock of y etc. just ban trolls when they start trolling. its the trolling thats a problem not the sock. AMassiveGay (talk) 01:35, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * How am I a troll? I haven't trolled anybody on this wiki. Why have you guys took my political opinion personally? Reckt (talk) 01:51, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Socks are banned when they are ban evading, such as Ken or Mike. As far as are you a troll, this is a harsh reality that RW does not tolerate people who believe in election fraud. Doubt Wikipedia would either. Multiple governments confirmed them false. Andrew5 (talk) 02:18, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Not a sock just a user with shitty conspiracy theorist shit whose takes are highly frowned upon for being shitty conspiracy theory shit that fueled the insurrection last year. Try figuring out why that take doesn't sit well first before being upset you were labeled a troll. 02:27, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

in case this wasn't clear enough 02:35, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Reckt: being a new account and instantly trotting out the same, tired 'the election was stolen!' crud with zero evidence kinda loses the room quickly. Like Anna said below, occupying a clearly 'outlier' position means your time on the podium is very short to sway the mob to at least refrain from the hurling of food items.


 * Plus, you have the right of opinion, but no right to express them here. This is a pseudo-public space, in which the rules and norms of the location apply. Said space can be open, it can be tolerant and it can try it's best to accomidate a wide set of opinions as possible but it is under nil *obligation* to do as such. KarmaPolice (talk) 02:45, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

There's so many different definitions of what constitutes terrorism; you could argue it was a terrorist attack and have someone recriminate that it was merely an insurrection; both individuals would have good points. I personally lean towards calling it a terrorist attack simply because those fascists would have taken it immeasurably further had they the ability to do so.--A p r i l Chat? 05:24, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * (CW: mentions of the death penalty) I am aware I'm erroneously engaging in historical determinism, but...let's be quite frank here. They ran into the senate chamber and one notably stated "we might as well set up a government." Others merrily built the gallows and prayed that they could be utilized. I highly doubt their murderous fury would have crumbled had no action been taken against them.--A p r i l Chat? 05:35, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I actually think there is some legs for Marxist interpretation for the Storming. If we go back the the Floyd protests in the spring/summer (the true 'danger moment' for American democracy, in my opinion), 'Big Capital' generally speaking refused to throw their lot into the Trumpian dream. Then a majority of 'the Establishment' refused to collude in rigging the election or overturning it afterwards. The Storming was the last-ditch, confused assault by our angry/scared 'petite bourgeoisie' alone, feeling even more betrayed by those two previous groups, egged on by their God-King.


 * The complete insanity of 'the plan' testament to the fact that our MAGA stormtroopers had no 'generals' and precious few 'NCOs' to actually plan the thing. After all, it had 0% of success. And the Orange One would have had members of their retinue who knew this. KarmaPolice (talk) 05:52, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "What you're suggesting is a monster conspiracy against the Orange One" You mean this? 192․168․1․42 (talk) 08:24, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * (Laughs). I don't think it counts if it's done openly, for starters. I actually have a bit of grudging respect for the proper reactionaries/fascists - at least they have the guts to openly say democracy should be ended - no mealy-mouthed BS about whataboutism, molehill-mountaineering and lying crud seen by the Orange obsessives.


 * Plus, can someone better than I sort out the troll thing so the non-trolly bits are outside of it again? KarmaPolice (talk) 09:27, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * And, as is variously said, with those openly adopting 'outlier or particular positions' you know what you are facing - it is those who are 'not pin-down-able' who are the actual issue. (One interpretation of the first lines of the Mack the Knife/Die Moritat von Mackie Messer song is that it is making this distinction.) Anna Livia (talk) 12:40, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a mistake to think that Trump supporters are lying and hate democracy. It's far worse than that. They were trying to save American democracy, from their viewpoint at least. 13:44, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * My previous comment aimed more at the leadership than the rank/file MAGA-hats. Like the Evangelical leaders who damn their souls by worshiping Orange Images merely because they feel he'll back their dreams for a Gilead.
 * Oh, sorted out troll box for non-troll comments. Revert if I did bad. KarmaPolice (talk) 02:45, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I think you're underestimating the intelligence of the American far-right. Indeed, most of them are just misguided, but many know exactly what they are doing. GeeJayK (talk) 18:10, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I would dispute that they know exactly what they're doing. Sure, they have agency, even their own goals and agendas, but most of the GOP's voter base are normal mooks who've gotten it in their heads, through misinformation and/or bias that the Dems are pure evil and that scary USSR communism is just around the corner. Thusly, they act in accordance with those beliefs in a vague, sometimes aimless, and often nonsensical manner. 02:41, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, the rioters knew what they were doing. Trump's supporters in general knew what statement they were making by abetting him. We simply are dealing with a more clandestine fascism; a crypto-fascism so to speak. Their goals and intentions aren't openly stated and thus give a semblance of normalcy to the untrained eye. I argue the nonsensical and aimless manner of their movement merely reinforces the aforenamed theory; fascism is beyond reason because it promulgates palingenetic (white) ultranationalism, hence it's a murderous, suicide ideology based upon eugenocide (eugenics and genocide), famine, mass incarceration, policing, mass surveillance and societal collapse. Simultaneously, fascism can develop much more strategically and less aimlessly, such as with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. Fascism can generate with specific aims and goals (that advance fascism; such as planning a coup beforehand) or without them (other than palingenetic ultranationalism itself; such as aimlessly running into a government building without prior planning). It's paradoxical, but fascism is inherently illogical, which, therefore, makes it paradoxical. Hence, there's paradoxical manifestations of fascism. That is why I have always and will always see the political party of the GOP itself as fascist, they simply can hide it much more effectively. Their supporters, too, do a splendid job at veiling their fascist ideologies. It's all thrown behind opaque notions of anti-communism, "resisting 'anti-americanism'", "national security", "peace and stability", "law and order", (pseudo)skepticism, etc.--A <font color="Pink">p <font color="EBECF0">r <font color="Pink">i <font color="55CDFC">l Chat? 15:22, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I sort of agree. The insurrectionists 'knew what they were doing', but they were either stupid, ignorant or so beyond the u-bend they were unable to realise there was 0% of success.


 * Organic fascism needs four elements to succeed. #1: public 'support' (including acquiescence) for it by a plurality. #2, 'support' of the forces of Big Capital. #3, 'support' by the vital state structures and #4, a charismatic leader(s) and top team to pull all the threads together.


 * America clearly has #1 sorted. I think they've actually lost a bit of #2 over the four years, and they didn't have enough of #3 to hold the door open for them. And while they have the Orange One he's too damn chaotic, unfocused and selfish to forge a competent 'inner circle' for #4.


 * I do not believe the whole Republicans are fascist. What I think is that Trump (like Johnson here in the UK) has cottoned onto an important fact - that the 'moderate' Republican/Conservative has no balls. That they will bitch, they'll roll their eyes and even occasionally stamp feet but they never walk away from 'the Party' regardless of how demented, corrupt and stupid they become.


 * This is important because it's only when the dreks become unelectable will the hollow careerists knife them and throw them overboard. Until then, they'll continue to support them because they love a winner, regardless of their actual positions, competence and final goals. After all, the Fuhrer and Duce were only moved against when their failures had become glaringly apparrent... KarmaPolice (talk) 19:24, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I totally agree with you. The purportedly "moderate" wing of the GOP quickly acquiesced to openly fascist statements; thus it certainly attests to them being craven. Some of these folx may have incited much ado over the proliferation of Trump — but at the end of the day, they gave into the GOP, even whilst its fascist ideologues went mask off. These "moderates" henceforth will likely pretend the GOP has been liberated of Trumpism, but in reality, his ideology fits perfectly within the GOP, it shall continue to exist openly regardless of Trump's presence.--<font color="55CDFC">A <font color="Pink">p <font color="EBECF0">r <font color="Pink">i <font color="55CDFC">l Chat? 18:22, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thing is, I don't actually think it's a cunning plan from the GOP moderates, on the whole. The officials in the the more socially liberal areas (like New England, or the major metros) can - and do - make some water between them and 'the Crazies'. But I think a lot will say 'Trump is over' because they'd *like* it to be. Easiest way to deal with a problem is to close eyes and hope it goes away of own accord. In a way I say it's a battle of two historical viewpoints; they think/hope Trump is the 'Big Man' in which he created the dung-heap (and so will vanish when he does), while I hold to the deterministic viewpoint that the dung-heap created Trump.


 * However, the primary issue is that these 'RINOs' remain, well Republicans. For all the crud dumped on them by 'the Crazies' they still need them to deny Democrats in the more liberal zones for electoral victories. Which leads to the question; just how far do they have to be pushed befure they decide 'for the good of the party, we need to lose, and bad so to burn out the poison.' I felt we'd got to that point at Jan 7 - but polling shows they've basically rowed back on that.


 * I would argue this shows the two critical flaws in the current American political setup. One, extreme two-party systems lead to this - them RINOs will continue voting GOP because Trump is *very slightly* closer to them than Clinton/Biden was. Here in the UK, for example we have the centrist 'Liberal Democrats' who (traditionally at least) helped keep the Conservatives from becoming too crazy by threatening them electorally in the rural and wealthy suburbs (who generally saw Labour as 'too urban/left-wing').


 * The second part is the fact there's no controls over party membership. This, in my opinion is the reason why the GOP has become poisoned - the GOP leadership doesn't have much ability to purge them even if they desired to. KarmaPolice (talk) 12:33, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

White Christmas? More like ninety-four degree Christmas!
[https://www.al.com/news/2021/12/christmas-2021-hottest-on-record-in-the-us-national-weather-service-says.html#:~:text=Rio%20Grande%20Village%20in%20Texas,Texas%20AND%20the%20United%20States.&text=Christmas%202021%20was%20the%20hottest,to%20the%20National%20Weather%20Service. US sets record for warmest temperautre on Christmas in southern Texas], which got to 94°F (34°C). Of course where I lived it had a high of 48°F (9°C), but the heat in the plains was record breaking. The average high there is 69°F (21°C). My location only hit 93°F (34°C) for the whole year. Andrew5 (talk) 19:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Meanwhile, I'm buried in snow just outside Portland, OR -- and that is a rare occurrence at 200 ft elevation. Going on day 3...
 * This winter has been sponsored by your local oil extractor!--<font color="55CDFC">A <font color="Pink">p <font color="EBECF0">r <font color="Pink">i <font color="55CDFC">l Chat? 19:34, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The weather keeps getting whackier in my neck of the woods. First unseasonable warmth with rain. The next day extremely cold with plenty of snow. One time on New Year's Eve in 2004, it was 70 degrees but two days later- snow. Climate change works on both extremes as you are destabilizing. What happens when you throw a very delicate system out of balance, you will get extreme weather of both extremes before settling on a single climate pattern. --Non-Binary EAS Creator (talk) 01:50, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Does consciousness "make" reality?
https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-possible-solutions-if-any-for-solipsism/answer/Bert-Leysath?comment_id=239035366&comment_type=2

So I ended up in a protracted argument with this guy about his (not)solipsism, don't ask why. I don't get it myself but I just get anxiety that I'll lose the argument if I give up. But anyway this idea about consciousness making reality is weird. To me consciousness doesn't make anything it just takes stuff in. Also it generally is awareness of something else, to which his reply was something like how consciousness is primary and there is awareness of awareness (something like that, his reply is buried in there). Then saying I've a naive realist and mentioning how optical illusions disprove that, and then showed me a wiki article saying the same thing.

Though it's not an old idea though: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJ_ERQ7ZlGs

I'll admit I don't have an answer to the topic of optical illusions or the other illusions presented in the YouTube video. Regardless of what it might be I don't see how it affects my day to day life, though the guy's irrealist position in the YouTube video give's me doubts about ethics (I messaged him about it and he just pointed me to his book without saying anything). But that doesn't mean consciousness makes reality right? I mean how one know that to be true?Machina (talk) 20:17, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Elon Musk seems to be using his 'not' solipsism to rationalize his 'not' narcissistic sociopathy. It could work for others with similar amounts of lucre. Bongolian (talk) 21:04, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes in a way, consciousness makes reality. Your consciousness makes your copy of reality. Every success or failure you have had in life is a consequence of the quality of that copy. It does not make the original, at least I don't see any reason to assume that it does because doing so doesn't explain anything. Solipsists are never very popular wherever they go. Why would they be? Every poem, painting work of art of any kind had to have been made by them. That's vanity for you. Ariel31459 (talk) 22:18, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * do solipsists read a good book, or watch a good film, hear some great tunes and think 'wow, i know its all in my head, but, wow im a fucking genius to have come up with this stuff. i really phoned it in for the star wars prequels though' AMassiveGay (talk) 23:26, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Shitty meme for you: atheists coming in to say that a good argument for solipsism does not exist since no one has ever seen one. An Advocate (talk) 00:06, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't think consciousness makes reality and I don't buy what he is saying to me either. He just keeps saying I don't understand even though I try saying that if you start from solipsism you can't have a body of knowledge, by definition, because it just denies anything else can be known except you. It doesn't say it doesn't exist either but you can't know either way. It's as dead a dead end you can get. The argument is the conclusion, period. Do not pass go, do not collect $200. He tries to tie in superposition, which I say doesn't have anything to do with his argument, to which he just says you don't get it. Tries to apply the p-zombie thought experiment as though it were an actual thing. It's a mess. Every attempt to get an explanation just has him repeat the same points and say I don't get it. Even I could tell his argument was nonsense. Doesn't even explain how one arrives at such things (if you ignore that he starts from solipsism which nullifies his whole argument). Solipsism is a dead end philosophy, you can't build from it.Machina (talk) 19:53, 28 December 2021 (UTC)


 * As stated before, don't unfold this topic. These subjects are tiring and mostly annoying for people browsing the bar. I can't stop you from posting this sorta crap, but for the mental health of all involved, the collapse template and sollipsism template stay. -- Techpriest (talk) 20:01, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Just archive it? Scream!! (talk) 15:51, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Ouch!
Temps in SE and MW US could go from 25-30 degrees above average fahrenheit to 10-15 below. Andrew5 (talk) 02:49, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Point of order - can we have folks if using obsolete units also use SIs? I cannot be arsed to work out what that means in Celsius... KarmaPolice (talk) 04:19, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The temperature in those regions had been roughly 9.8E-32 to 1.2E-31 TP above average for this time of year, and this is predicted to change to about 3.9E-32 to 5.9E-32 TP below average. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 11:02, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Example of why so many Americans cling on to 'US Customary'... *rolls eyes*. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:30, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I can basically count what Fahrenheit degrees are in centigrade by knowing two things. 1: 0°C = 32°F and 2: -40°C = -40°F.
 * I consider it a way of exercising my brain.
 * Anyway, negative 10-15°F would be something like negative 45-48°C. 17:38, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You are doing it wrong. 32F = 0C, 212F = 100C.  180 degree difference Fahrenheit is 100 degree diff Celsius.  This was originally done because 180 degrees is half a circle but for some stupid reason, OF wasn't set at freezing point...  17:53, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Looked it up. Nope, that's wrong.  0F was originally set at some mixture of brine, whereas it's a coincidence that ice and water vapor are 180 degrees apart...  17:55, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * (ec)Wrong or not, it works for me. 17:56, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Quick easy in-your-head Fahrenheit to Celsius: Subtract 32, divide by 2, add 10%. That's two significant digits.  Add 1% more for three.  Dave Wise 2 (talk) 18:12, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Or even better... convert to Celsius. Come on, join the rest of the world! KarmaPolice (talk) 18:28, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Normally I convert, but I was rushed and too brain dead to do that. 25-30°F is 14-17°C. 10-15°F is 6-8°C. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 18:41, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * If you don't like natural units for temperature, how about electronvolts? At any rate, different unit systems are suited to different tasks, and an inability to switch between them as appropriate limits you. SI is nice for analytic chemistry, but US customary is better for baking. I use Celcius for 3D printer parameters, Fahrenheit for metalworking, and Kelvin for gas analysis. US and Metric (and number and letter) drill sizes are useful to have, as are wrenches and sockets in different standards. A 19mm socket, for example, fits a standard-tolerance 3/4" nut better than a 3/4" socket does.


 * Also, the 180-degree difference between freezing and boiling was a later modification to Fahrenheit's scale. Back before that, when it had normal human body temperature as 96 degrees, there were 64 degrees between freezing and human body temeprature. This meant that you could construct a Fahrenheit thermometer by making an unmarked thermometer, sticking it in ice water and marking that temperature, sticking it under your tongue and marking that temperature, then bisecting that distance six times to get individual degrees. Something that's handy when you're inventing your own temperature scale. The particular mixture of brine was chosen to reproduce this relation when used as a zero point.


 * Also also, to convert (exactly) from Fahrenheit to Celsius, add 40, multiply by 5/9, then subtract 40. To convert from Celsius to Fahrenheit, add 40, multiply by 9/5, then subtract 40. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 12:28, 29 December 2021 (UTC)


 * You're kinda not selling Fahrenheit to me, people. Plus, I'm the one editing the metric system page here. Lastly, easier to complain and make others change than learn another obsolete thing. You'll be urging me to learn how to use a slide-rule next. *smirks* KarmaPolice (talk) 08:59, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

What's the difference between gender, sex and sexual orientation?
Could someone please explain this to me as I am very confused when this topic comes up.
 * Gender generally refers to an identity. Sex is usually referred to what you were assigned with at birth. Sexual orientation refers to sexual attraction to others. All three aren't very neatly defined, with gender coming in a spectrum, sex having intersex and things like androgen insensitivity, and sexual orientation having loads of preferences and even strengths of preferences. 07:54, 28 December 2021 (UTC)


 * https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gender
 * https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biological_sex
 * https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Sexual_orientation


 * (I think producing a 'bare-bones, at a glance' article on the differences between might be an idea). KarmaPolice (talk) 08:07, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, but all of this does not makes a full lot of sense to me. What do you mean by "identity"? I can identify this shape ♦ as a diamond but how does the word identity refer to gender?
 * And what do you mean "assigned at birth"? Who assigns my sex? My parents, doctors, the government?
 * And you said sexual orientation refers to sexual attraction to others. How do I know I am sexually attracted to someone like Person A and not Person B?


 * As for "who" assigns the sex, in most people it's assigned by your chromosomes. You're either born with female or male sexual organs and that defines your biological sex. There's a rare condition called ambiguous genitalia, where an infant doesn't have clearly defined external genitals. In these cases those need to be constructed surgically. A doctor friend of mine told that in most cases female genitals are made for these children, as this is easier. But in the end, I guess it's the parents together with doctors who decide there. 11:13, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I dislike the term "assigned at birth". While yes, intersex babies are often subject to invasive surgeries (and we as a society MUST have a conversation about that), for most people you aren't "assigned" anything.  A document doesn't make you biologically male, you are either born a boy, a girl, or rarely something not quite either.  What we do in those unusual cases has varied throughout history and culture, but it's actually rare that it was anything we today would consider "good".
 * So anyway, "sex" refers to your biology and plumbing, and there's currently a debate whether or not surgically altering said plumbing really does change the sex. "Gender" is different categories of humans, in much the same way that ants can have 20+ "genders" based on the female ants' morphology and role in the colony.  Honestly though, "gender" is a bit too nebulous a concept without clear demarcations, but it could be useful once we all agree on what the genders are.  "Sexual orientation" is what types of people you are sexually attracted to.  Generally it refers to the sex or gender of the person, but it's not unheard of for sexual orientations to describe other factors such as weight or age.  "Chubby chaser" is indeed a sexual orientation, albeit one with an unscientific name.  "Pedophile" is also a sexual orientation, albeit one whose existence is generally met with revulsion for reasons that should be obvious.  We also used to think that sexual orientation was immalleable, but it turns out that a lot more people have hidden/suppressed desires than we used to think.  I've met a lot of lesbians that weren't only attracted to women, they just weren't attracted to overly aggressive men whether it was due to disgust or... trauma.  14:43, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I strongly agree with you on how intersex children are subject to highly invasive surgeries that could easily endanger them or possibly kill them. The very idea of surgery should wait until the intersex people are old enough to understand and consent to surgery. To me, young intersex children unable to understand or consent to surgery should not be forced to. That is merely a civil rights violation. --Non-Binary EAS Creator (talk) 16:21, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Can I mention Lady Colin Campbell, and also John Maynard Keynes (who changed orientation upon marriage) as potentially relevant to the discussion.
 * Is it better to consider 'the whole topic' as a 2D or more complex matrix (or even several matrices) than 'a single linear thing'? Anna Livia (talk) 16:32, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "Civil Rights Violation" doesn't evoke the right tone. When the State sterilizes women for committing the crime of being poor/minority or committing the most heinous felony of "not keeping quiet after being raped", something that occurred in the US all the way until 1974 and in parts of Europe until the fuqqing 90's, I wouldn't refer to that atrocity as a "Civil Rights Violation".  16:43, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Getting back on-topic, advances in medicine has shown us that 'biological sex' is a lot less binary than we originally thought (example, that female athlete who was 'caught cheating' by her too-high testosterone levels which turned out to be natural for her). Plus, there's a debate on what is the bar for it too. Example, for fully transitioned trans persons. If you were to take a blood sample, it would show (I believe) most if not all the hormones for the desired sex but a DNA sample would still fixed on their at-birth. After all, transitioning is basically a fight against the DNA programming to develop the undesired secondary characteristics. So I would say biological sex should be defined by a DNA sample aloneand left unchanged on the few places that matter (example, medical notes).
 * 'Assigned at birth' is a term which is now technically obsolete, like 'cut and paste'. In this case, it comes from the days when a baby's sex would be defined by the doctor looking at the baby's bits and working out which they are. That's why the intersex cases confused. Oh, and I was told that they generally went with female because in the days before hormone therapy intersexes were generally judged to find it easier to pass as female on adulthood. These days, I assume in confusing cases, they'd perform genetic testing and go from there.
 * As with gender... the point is that as it's a human construct there can be as many or as few as we say there are. In fact, our species may eventually go *beyond* gender, where everyone is themselves and the biological sex is only brought up when it's required (such as reproduction).
 * But still hold it's worth doing an FAQ on this subject. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:07, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * If it's produced naturally, then she is just a "better" woman and should be allowed to compete. If the testosterone is the result of tumors in her ovaries, then it's actually a good question we should discuss; we don't countries to discourage Chemo just because they might lose their shot at an Olympic medal.  If it's the result of either injecting hormones or taking things which prevent testosterone from being converted into other hormones, that's obviously something that should be banned.  If it's the result of her having testicles, I have to question whether she's trans or intersex, but even then I'm not sure what the answer should be...  18:23, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The first one, I believe. But the IOC now define 'sex' for competing by test levels (apparently), and she came over the bar meaning she was 'male' for sport purposes (or 'cheating'). That's how that trans NZ lifter was allowed to compete; their test levels were sufficently low to be classed as 'female'.
 * But I cited this merely as an example why when it comes to sex, I think we should go on DNA and *only* DNA. Everything else has too many vagaries. Like the first example was ding'd for the 'extra' test gave them an unfair advantage, but then ignored the fact the lifter's 'male' bone density / size might have given them an unfair advantage. Then there's the hypothetical third case, a trans (MtF) athlete who were on blockers on puberty so none of the undesired secondaries ever showed, and could be argued they never got any advantages from their possession of a Y chromosone.
 * A very marginal problem in the grand scheme of things, but does provide a decent example of the wider issue. Like it or not, but a line needs to be drawn *somewhere* as long as we continue to have binary divisions in our world. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:42, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * DNA is weird. There's XXX females, XY females, XX males, XXYY males, etc etc.  I say that for Intersex, we should go by however we agree to categorize them as "woman" and "man".  Trans is, well, we as a society still have not come to a conclusion on the definitions yet, and I don't think there is a "right" answer there, only "less wrong" answers...  19:42, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * One thing I've always wondered is if XXY is male or female. And X. Andrew5 (talk) 20:32, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

It all depends on the condition and the life of the person involved. Might be anywhere from their birth to death; I remember an ex-athlete only got discovered as such after they underwent an autopsy. But generally speaking, I'll argue that sex-wise, they are strictly speaking, neither.

But on the other bit; trans folks have almost completely broken the traditional sex paradigm - watching a TERF trying to cut a definition of 'female' that caters to their misandry shows this. And the presence of intersex has long been ignored - their existance alone suggests a third sex option is required for medical documentation etc.

Part of me wonders whether it's best explained as three-layered; #1: sex (ie DNA), #2: gender (hormones etc) and #3: identity (what you feel you are) and draw the lines in this manner. Would, I think scotch a lot of the more cranky talking-points and confirms (I think) how a decent % of people think of it already. KarmaPolice (talk) 22:54, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Why do you oppose surgical procedures for intersex babies? Do you believe that parents and doctors have the right to do these surgeries if they believe it is in the child's best interest? Also do you believe that baby boys should have parts of their foreskin removed a few days after their born? Epic Games (talk) 04:28, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey can someone please tell me what extactly is gender? I am sorry for sounding so overtly pandantic but I can't really understand what you mean when you say "gender is an identity".
 * What also extactly is sexual attraction? How can one be sexually attracted to someone?Epic Games (talk) 05:17, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Read the articles. 05:18, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I did but it didnt make a load of sense. That's why I'm asking here. Also sorry for my shit spelling!Epic Games (talk) 05:28, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * As I have asked before what is gender?
 * What is sexual attraction? Epic Games (talk) 11:47, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Gender = your biological sex (male or female) + *society* (man or woman). Gender is the set of stuff that society wants you to adhere to based on your sex (men go to work, women cook and care for babies etc.)
 * Sexual attraction is who you want to fuck. You are a man, and want to fuck other men? You are gay. Woman wants to fuck women? Lesbian. Both come under homosexuality (fucking someone of the same sex).
 * Hope this helps lol 12:49, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That first example is wrong. Your biological sex merely refers to sexual characteristics, such as breasts or genitalia. Your gender is a bit more complicated. Gender is not only how society interprets your outward presentation, but part of your internal identity.


 * Ok, since I've now opened up that can of worms I might as well lay out some basic psychology. Your identity consists of your internal identity (how you see yourself) and your external identity(how others see you). The former includes tings such as your name, favorite things, emotions, psychological state, what gendered traits you identify with, what gendered traits and/or sexual traits you find arousing/appealing, and a whole host of other things I can't remember off the top of my head. You external identity is how you express this internal state. I beg of people to learn basic psychology. 13:22, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes GC I would add that human psychology is time dependent, that is, because of neuroplasticity people have a tendency to generally think alike during a given period of time and can change drastically from one generation to another. Mature adults often have a hard time understanding the significance of gender distinctions. This is not surprising, because though gender distinctions are often permanent, sometimes they are ephemeral. First you love someone, then after a few years you discover that you don't. This occasionally happens. So, in this case, we don't understand the love, where it came from and why it is no longer present. Without the emotions of love and affection gender is rather incomprehensible as a psychological condition.

An interesting experiment would be to imagine yourself alone on a desert island. No need for sexual preferences and nobody to react to with regard to the affects of others. Who would you be? Suppose you were just old enough to care for yourself, before your identity developed. The facts of identity would be imperceptible to you without even a mirror to manage your appearance. Gender is in fact an aspect of the story that one makes up about oneself. One really believes it and cannot be dissuaded from investigating the nature of ones own story. Sometimes the story ends after a few years, and sometimes it goes on for a lifetime. Who can say why? The science of ourselves is more art than science. The rainbow analogy is very good for gender. People rarely have exactly the same identity, even when they are telling the same story about themselves. UncleKrampus (talk) 19:21, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm wondering if this clarification might help: gender is something that people get to decide for themselves. For instance, I am a transgender man, so my gender is, well, man. Other genders might be totally neutral, more than one, no gender at all, or different genders that are specific to ethnic groups (usually called "third genders", but that's kind of a gross term--for instance, Two-Spirit people in some Indigenous groups in North America). As someone else said earlier, "biological sex" is kind of a BS concept because there's a lot that could be relevant to that designation apart from genitals--e.g., your chromosomes, hormone levels, internal organs, your chest, bone structure...regardless of what genitals I have (which I won't discuss), I don't like being described as "biologically female" because, not only does it piss me off, but it's also not really accurate given that I've had top surgery and been on testosterone for five and a half years. Quantumgeek333 (talk) 00:16, 30 December 2021 (UTC) So if I am right gender is merely stereotyping? Like women like to cook and stuff? I wonder if Gordan Ramsey is actually a woman? What exactly is "gendered traits"? And ewww, I hate fuckimg. Do you know how many diease get passed through such animalistic acts? Epic Games (talk) 01:32, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No, you got it pretty wrong. Please read my post (assuming you're being serious). No one I know, self included, has arrived to a conclusion about what gender they are because of stereotypes.Quantumgeek333 (talk) 01:44, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You aren't really deciding your gender for yourself, more expressing a set of internal characteristics. So, you are a man, and have had procedures done to make your external presentation more conform with your internal sense of self. Apologies but the way you explained gender seems less clear than this method.
 * While true to some extent I didn't feel the need to go into the nature vs nurture debate about identity, self, and psychology for a brief explanation of the relevant points. 02:09, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You know, that's a fair assessment--no need to apologize. Let me offer a rephrase: gender identity isn't something that you choose, but you might have to figure it out with time and exploration. And, of course, you get to choose how you label your gender identity. Quantumgeek333 (talk) 02:15, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That seems clearer. 02:45, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * So if I am right gender is a set of internal characterisations and external identity? GrammarCommie states a lot about "gendered traits" in regard to both IC and EI. Could you give an example of several gendered traits? Epic Games (talk) 03:38, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I will let define what they mean by gendered traits, but here is what I would argue: what "gendered traits" are will depend on if you're talking about your own individual gender or societal perceptions. I'll expand more in a second but have to take some time to write it out. And, yes, I think defining gender that way works well. Quantumgeek333 (talk) 04:03, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, so here's an example: masculinity. Masculinity in the society I live in is associated with a few different traits--such as aggression, being "rational" instead of "emotional", or sexual prowess, and in regards to physical appearance, stuff like short hair and wearing pants. But, for me as an individual, I can define my masculinity however I want--it's my gender and I can do what I like with it, right? I don't define my masculinity based on what behavioral traits my culture says is masculine. I'm definitely not what my culture calls stereotypically masculine--I'm a fairly flamboyant gay man, and that flamboyance makes me happy, so it's part of how I express my masculinity. That might beg the question of why I'm a man if masculinity can be whatever I want it to be, and the answer is, I just am. Of course, I certainly don't want to be pigeon-holed into the typical "man's role" in the US--shouldn't everyone be able to fill whatever roles feel most comfortable to them in life?--but I'm happier living as a man than as a woman. Quantumgeek333 (talk) 04:20, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

That might beg the question of why I'm a man if masculinity can be whatever I want it to be, and the answer is, I just am. Im even more confused now. Epic Games (talk) 04:39, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

What are you confused about/what are you thinking right now? Quantumgeek333 (talk) 04:47, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * So gender is based on internal characteristics and external identites which are not based on sterotypes and you think you are a dude becouse your "just am". Like gender does and doesn't exist at the same time. And your only a dude if you have the body of one which is why surgery exist. Epic Games (talk) 05:28, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 1/ This are relatively new ideas and so the definitions are not yet set. I, for example disagree with several of the above points - such as while I accept 'masculinity'/'femininity' are defined by culture/society, I don't hold that every person can define it to be whatever they like (so basically, I say QGeek is wrong).
 * 2/ If you think you're going to get clear-cut answers in two lines you're mistaken. People can help clarify points etc but you *are* going to need to do some of your own 'independent learning' here.
 * 3/ I would say you're a male because of the contents of your underwear, you're biologically male because your DNA made said contents. Neither of these has anything to do with how much 'masculinity' you show. For this is defined by society and culture, not nature or biology. Classic case in point; tomboys. They reject 'femininity' (the societial/cultural norms) but they don't deny the fact they're still women. Because women ≠ femininity. Same applies for men too.


 * I see it best as a sliding scale. You have hyper-femininity on one end, hyper-masculinity on the other and 'gender neutral' in the middle. Everyone sits somewhere on this scale, and some may be so far off the 'traditional norms' that they don't feel masculine/feminine at all. KarmaPolice (talk) 05:41, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * OK whats the difference between being a tomboy and a transman?Epic Games (talk) 05:50, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Also I feel like that the word "gender" is merely a dogwhistle for "outdated stereotypes" Epic Games (talk) 05:50, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Tomboy: https://gender.fandom.com/wiki/Tomboy. Trans man: https://gender.fandom.com/wiki/Trans_Man. These are also terms that Google can pull up definitions for. Quantumgeek333 (talk) 05:55, 30 December 2021 (UTC)


 * First of all, I don't think I'm a dude, I am one. Whether or not that's your intent, that phrasing makes it sound a lot like you're disagreeing with my gender, and it's not appreciated.


 * "You're only a dude if you have the body of one" is also an extremely offensive thing to say. That's also not why gender-affirming surgeries exist. Gender affirming surgeries exist so that trans people can choose to make whatever changes they want to their bodies. Sometimes this is because we feel really uncomfortable with our bodies (called dysphoria), and sometimes it's not because of dysphoria but just because we want to make those changes. Not every trans person has surgery or gendered medical treatment.


 * In reference to your comment about gender existing and not existing at the same time, have you heard the phrase "gender is a social construct" before? Even though gender as a whole is something that exists because of the societies we live in, that doesn't mean that one's gender can't mean different things for different people. Gender is weird, but it can be really meaningful for some people. Maybe there's some list of reasons why I'm a man that I don't know, but honestly, the only other more detailed answer I can give for my gender is "well, I explored, and this feels right". Heck, why is anyone a man, or a woman, or nonbinary? Quantumgeek333 (talk) 05:47, 30 December 2021 (UTC)


 * (EC) "Sex" is predominantly binary, with some very rare exceptions. "Gender" is a category we use to classify things, and can mean whatever we say it means.  But just as someone could argue there are twenty genders, it's no less valid to assert there are only two genders.  Though if that assertion is made using religion, bear in mind that the bible actually refers to six genders. 05:51, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * QG333 if gender is merely a social construct that means we only consider you a dude because society (or yourself) says so. Like I don't consider myself black because black is a meaningless made up term from long ago. If gender is just a "social construct" why do you considered yourself a dude?Epic Games (talk) 06:01, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Could you please tell me the def of transman and tomboy without links? I don't links for security reasons. Epic Games (talk) 06:04, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * And you basically said the same thing when it came to surgery.Many Trans are uncomfortable in their own bodies because they feel like they are iin wrong body Epic Games (talk) 06:15, 30 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Unless you are also offering a full justification of whatever gender you are that does not involve what your body looks like, I'm totally unwilling to justify my gender. Fair warning, asking most trans people that same question is also probably going to result in them telling you to eff off.


 * In regards to the defintions of a trans man and tomboy, do you remember what KarmaPolice said about doing independent learning? This is where this comes in. Tomboy and trans man are common terms, so I'm going to have to ask you to google them. Something you should also keep in mind is that it can be absolutely exhausting talking to people on the internet who don't know a lot about trans issues and say offensive things, which is also why it's important that you look up some of this stuff on your own. There are also several pages about transgender topics on this wiki right at your fingertips that have those definitions.Quantumgeek333 (talk) 06:16, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I did try to research about it yet I was still terribly confused. Epic Games (talk) 06:36, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Also why do you believe that trans people will tell me to eff off? Thats not terribly productive. Epic Games (talk) 06:36, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Why do I need to justify my gender if gender is merely a "social construct"? You need to jusify your gender since to you gender means something to you unlike me. Epic Games (talk) 06:36, 30 December 2021 (UTC)


 * This is the only thing I'm going willing to say in this conversation: so, when I said that most trans people would tell you to eff off, that was not meant as an insult. Sorry that it came across that way. Rather, I was saying that most trans people really do not want to have to justify their gender and might respond angrily. This is because it's tiring and it can often result in being verbally attacked. Does that make sense? Quantumgeek333 (talk) 06:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Im sorry that those people get verbally attacked, honestly those that do verbally attack people dont help anybodyEpic Games (talk) 06:57, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Honestly though why do you consider yourself a dude if to you gender is merely a social construct? That means it doesnt really exist in any kiteral sense. Only biological sex is anything you would consider literal. Epic Games (talk) 06:57, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Epic Games: Your questions may have had an legitimacy at first, even if absurdly basic-level to the point of being questionable, but persistent posing questions after multiple explanations, especially your last question right before my comment, has come off as dishonest transphobic concern trolling and has made other users uncomfortable in this discussion. Please end this discussion. 06:58, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

California releases map
While not gerrymandered, it does now give Democrorats the advantage (currently polling 117-106). Also, all states but 5 have either published or proposed maps. We're probably gonna see the GOP lose 2 seats and Dems gain 1 in Michigan (albeit from partisian averages, this means Michigan right now is 8-4 with 2 tossups, which it isn't as Democrats control the tossups and a Republican leaning seat). New Hampshire is probably going to gerrymander NH-01 red and make NH-02 more solid for Democrats, Kansas hasn't proposed one but is probably either gonna make it 4-0 with 2 seats as more competitve or make it 3 safe red, 1 safe blue. Arkansas also slightly gerrymandered, which is supposed to go into effect 1/14. Besides that, nothing really new, Andrew5 (talk) 20:16, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Update - Michigan map published. Andrew5 (talk) 01:29, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Another politician dies
Harry Reid, former Senate majority leader, dies at 82. RIP. Andrew5 (talk) 18:44, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * And in Spain Jean-Marie Rossi. Amazing.  People die.
 * But one does not know which future-famous/notable/notorious person is born today. Anna Livia (talk) 13:21, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Except for people like . Andrew5 (talk) 16:51, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

There might be a big tornado outbreak in the SE US today and tonight but a possible tornado touched down in Washington
Bainbridge. If confirmed, and strong, it could gain notability similar to the, which was 1 of only 4 tornado (outbreaks) to gain area. Andrew5 (talk) 21:42, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * We are told to expect 🌧️🌧️ SHOWERS 🌧️🌧️ tomorrow in England! Scream!! (talk) 22:04, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * There were a fair amount of European windstorms, but none right now. Also here in New York we had extreme mist. Andrew5 (talk) 22:11, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile in northern Spain it's very warm for the time of the year.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 10:02, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Whoops, Bainbridge is actually in Georgia. Also - outbreak busted.Andrew5 (talk) 13:25, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * And being here in Georgia, at the time of this comment, it's bouncing between a mild drizzle and a moderate rain, with occasional thunder pops. Kencolt (talk) 22:20, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It's mizzling here i t'UK. Scream!! (talk) 13:36, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Like summer where I am at the moment.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:03, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Summery now. Lots of sun, no wind here. Scream!! (talk) 13:31, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Wow. It's almost like there is a whole world which has weather which is not in the US.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:00, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It might be mild over Europe and Asia, but even Canada will recieve blizzards, and northern Mexico is also getting poured on. However, the tornado outbreak over the next few days is projected to be big, bigger then the which busted. January 1 has a very large area with a 10+% chance of having EF2+ tornadoes, and it could turn out catastrophic. Andrew5 (talk) 16:46, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * HEY!! It's gone all dark - the sun's invisible. Scream!! (talk) 17:55, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Astronomical twilight in London ends 6:04pm. Andrew5 (talk) 18:13, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

. More to come. Andrew5 (talk) 23:27, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

I feel bad for a coffee shop in town
Next to the coffee shop was a restaurant called "Lula's Louisiana Cook House" which went up in flames. The upstairs apartment was charred but the buildings next to it were just fine and are open. However police tape is covering a large portion of sidewalk making going to other businesses much more annoying and is impeding business of the coffee shop next to it. --Non-Binary EAS Creator (talk) 22:44, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

🎉
We did it, we survived another year into 2022 (in UTC). It is currently still 10:12 in Greenland, 8:42 in Saint John, 8:12 in Halifax,, 7:12 near where I live in NY, 6:12 in Chicago, 5:12 in Phoenix, 4:12 in LA, 3:12 in Alaska and 2:12 in Hawaii, but it is midnight in UTC. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 00:13, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Also it’s 11:13 in Cape Verde, how could I forget? And 1:13 in American Samoa. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 00:13, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't want to survive. I want to live. *sobs* LongStylus (talk) 00:39, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Precursor to official J.R. "Bob" Dobbs image.jpg
 * Life continues in 2022. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 02:38, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, I still need 111 more minutes. Andrew5 (talk) 03:09, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Ooh only 18 minutes later till the ball drops and it's 2022 for me. But I'll be going to bed like immediately after so I won't post about it until around 13:00-14:00 UTC (8-9am for me tomorrow). Andrew5 (talk) 04:42, 1 January 2022 (UTC)