RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive430

looks like some people have never heard of "don't judge a book by its cover"
i'm not one of this site's older users (i'm in my mid-20s), but i guess i'm a little old school in that i actually read articles before i insert my opinion. first, a few of people misunderstood my previous topic (ignoring the ken trolling, of course) – so much so, that i had to edit the subject of the topic (even though i linked to an article and i merely reused its headline). then i posted an article in wigo blogs offering a fresh perspective on the brazil riots only for the keyboard warriors to downvote the hell out of it. i'm willing to bet that in either case, people didn't read the article i posted. The G (talk) 14:29, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I did read it, and I liked it a lot. Dunno if you're talking about me though. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 15:10, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * nah, you're good. i appreciate you reading it, and i'm glad you liked it. this is more of an "if the shoe fits" type of post. The G (talk) 15:37, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Everybody gets WIGO entries go in the red sometimes. I do all the time. 15:50, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * all right, i'll just end this discussion here. i suppose i'm making a mountain out of a molehill. The G (talk) 17:39, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If it makes you feel better, I never vote. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:42, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * no worries. i'm just having one of my petty moments. :) The G (talk) 17:48, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Is mid-20's really older for this site? Oh damn in 2025 I am going to be 30. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 21:01, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No. We just had a thread about people going on about how old they are, several of them are older than I expected. I'm actually one of the younger mods here lol, as I was told. I'm gonna turn 28 this year. :p 22:23, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * i don't actually know what the median age of this site's users is. i have the impression that it's somewhere in the 20s (i.e. close to my age). needless to say, there certainly are some editors who are quite a bit older (statistically speaking).
 * anyway, my point was, i'm not that old, but i must be old fashioned; not that it really matters, because i was only trying to make a rhetorical introduction to my pointless rant. i'm over it now, though. The G (talk) 01:04, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

History of Science fun fact
https://www.salon.com/2023/01/02/the-scientist-discovered-sperm-was-so-grossed-out-he-hoped-his-findings-would-be-repressed/?utm_campaign=trueanthem&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook

The guy who discovered sperm cells, Antonie Philips van Leeuwenhoek (father of microbiology), was so horrified by how sperm cells worked that he wished that the data was covered up.

To be fair, if I was in his shoes I would be disturbed by it. Imagine if you were in the 1600s and you discovered something that acted like parasitic worms in male reproductive fluids. --Trans Zombie Queen (talk) 01:19, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Honestly, after reading it, I think it sounds like he was more embarrassed to admit having peeked inside some semen than what he saw. Namako (talk) 15:24, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

not to sound like a crank but....
can jet fuel really melt steel beams? i hear that it can't and can from many websites and videos. Wheelson ( professor grug arc ) (talk) 16:17, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Read all of this and then ask again.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:48, 13 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Steel doesn't need to melt to lose its strength. YouTube demonstration Enix150 (talk) 18:47, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * At the typical temperature that jet fuels burns technically steel doesn't meet it's melting point, but to loose structural integrity the temperature requirements are much much lower. You can bend a steel beam like a spaghetti noodle at the temperature that jet fuels burns at, and given that you can infer that it will start to bend due to the weight of the above floors in the circumstances of 9/11. A lot of what people say about what "real" uncontrolled collapses look like is really just mental heuristics they made from watching too many movies. Every reason why the buildings would have collapsed was present. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 19:21, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Steel expands when heated. Even at full strength, the beams will pop out of their joints or be in a configuration where they are no longer bearing the loads they should.  19:44, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * TL;DR: Jet Fuel will mess up your steel so badly it will make it wish it just melted.
 * The term you look for when researching the "strength" of steel is the "Ultimate Failure Strength" and the Young's Modulus. The Young's Modulus is a measure of how "stiff" a material is, with something like silly putty having a very low Modulus.  This is a resource for the change in the Young's modulus of common metals at different temperatures (link).  As you can see from the chart, at temperatures exceeding 1100 degrees, the expected Youngs Modulus is only 60% of normal for carbon steel.  The chart cuts out at 1100 degrees, and jet fuel burns at 1500+ F, so we can expect it to be even lower rigidity.  The ultimate failure strength is also dramatically effected, lowering to only 30% by 1100 degrees as shown here (link).  Both these factors are very important when combined, as the lowering of the Young's Modulus means the structure will be going under greater deformation, causing stress concentrations and putting the structural elements under ever more load than normal.  Combine this with them being dramatically weakened and there wasn't a snowballs chance in hell the towers could survive that.  And it gets worse.  The reason the chart cuts out at temperatures above 1100 F is because the metal starts to chemically break down at that point.  It starts free exchanging molecules with its surroundings causing the alloy to become inconsistent and it loses its crystal grain structure.  Essentially, the alloy is being reforged and it is a big question mark what will come out of that transformation process.  If you don't do it in a relatively clean and controlled environment, you're just going to get junk that is either too soft to use or brittle like glass.  And what is the environment it is being forged within?  Corrosive improperly burned jet exhaust.  That steel is going to come out the other end of that so warped and polluted it would be easier to fix had it simply melted.  MirrorIrorriM (talk) 19:10, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * JET FUEL CAN'T MELT STEEL BEAMS THE EMAILS PROVE IT Vee (talk) 20:42, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Who's emails are we talking about, Hillary's or Hunter's?-RipCityLiberal (talk) 17:56, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Why are some people mean for no reason?
Like people who call young girls the c word, black people the n word, etc when they don't even know that person? Kuihniuh (talk) 19:26, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * People can be filled with hate and ignorant prejudice. Not good but fact of life. --Trans Zombie Queen (talk) 19:29, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That is a form of bigotry. People are bigoted for different reasons: ignorance, what could be called a natural tendency towards xenophobia, upbringing, or trying to gain political advantage. In the case of the c and n words, it is also a form of dehumanization, not calling a person by their name, calling them an x (i.e., not human). Bongolian (talk) 20:00, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Bigotry sucks. Seriously, some guy (an adult, based on her description) called my little sister (middle school aged) the c-word (preceded by the words "spoiled" "ugly" and "little") for no reason when she got out of school on Friday and she came home crying. Now she doesn't want to come out of her room. I just don't understand it! Ugh. I just need to vent. Scientifically speaking, do these people get anything out of being mean, or is it just a matter of refusing to let go of hate? Is it wrong to want to hurt jackasses like that? Am I wrong to think this person is a jackass? I suppose homophobes, Islamaphobes, etc are all under the same umbrella. Kuihniuh (talk) 21:25, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Well they may get a sense of superiority out the interaction, and the bigotry and attitudes themselves often stem from affording them privileges when implemented institutionally. So you can argue the behaviour is in some sense incentivized and rewarded. Misogyny has boosted some men’s careers, and pedophobia and adultism is almost actively rewarded and celebrated on the internet. It’s likely that this adult thought he was “putting someone in their place” who deserves it when in reality they were simply expressing a sense of domination and power over a literal powerless child. For some people especially when they lack empathy to who they deem as part of an out-group it becomes gratifying.  If you have any idea who this guy is, I would think it would be worth it to confront and challenge him about this behaviour. He may be walking around thinking he did “the right thing” for his imagined in-group. That internal narrative needs deconstructing, and it needs revealing that within the community as a whole that he actually lives in — this is not acceptable behaviour. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 22:36, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * People often aren’t motivated to be mean for the sake of it. Very often it’s about domination, control, or reinforcing an existing status quo. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 22:38, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Make sure she knows that she has your support and she did nothing wrong. It would be a good to notify the school of what happened, particularly the the man is somehow connected to the school (parent or staff) and/or shows up again. Bongolian (talk) 23:05, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If it was for quite literally 'no reason' [we don't know the details of the example, never shall and not really important] it's not about 'superiority' or 'bigotry', it's more a simple case of the person being filled with hate and having sociopathic tendencies. Going up 'to challenge them on their behavior' is - in my experience - is really not advisable. That is, unless you've got the physical abilities to take them down within moments.


 * As for the kid... well, it sounds like it's time for an older person to go and have a 'this is the way it is' talk with them. Sad to say, but if they're gone into hiding from a few nasty words they're going to be spending most of their lives under the duvet if they don't develop a thicker skin. KarmaPolice (talk) 12:31, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

to answer your first question, i've been asking myself that same question for the past three years. i can't for the life of me understand why people think it's cool to blame the victims of scams and quackery. case in point, people keep rationalizing covid deaths by saying they deserved to die because they lived a "poor lifestyle" to justify their continued downplaying of the disease. on the flip side, i've seen people mocking the deaths (by covid) of those who refused to take the vaccine.

am I wrong for thinking that it's wrong to mock people's deaths in either case? The G (talk) 19:25, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Simple. If it's the victim's fault, that means it's nobody else's, nor is the fault of any structure of society. The easiest [and 'coincidentally', cheapest] way you can 'help' someone is hector them on 'personal responsibility'.


 * The other aspect is the desire to feel 'superior', however low on the ladder you are. If you only have cardboard shoes, you feel a bit better if you look at those in clogs [while they look down on those who are barefoot]. In fact, you can get proud of these little markers; Terry Pratchett described these as 'Cockbill Street people'; the 'proud, keeping up appearances' poor who however bare their house was had clean windows and would spend their last coin on a bar of soap than bread. These markers can be others; 'taste', 'education' and yes, ethnicity/race [I suspect this might be an element of our primitive minds in play; always comparing ourselves to others and seeking to 'position' ourselves]. Lastly, I think impostor syndrome has a part to play; if you're [for example] fairly well-educated and intelligent but believe you're 'average', you might marvel at your supposed equals 'being so stupid' and so on.


 * This is often exploited by the ruling class in 'divide and rule tactics'; white working class vs black working class, native vs immigrant, working class vs underclass and so on. KarmaPolice (talk) 20:05, 16 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Beyond the societal reasons as well, meanness sort of functioned as a defense mechanism or a replacement for real violence. It's a lot easier to say bad things about a person or group than it is to actually act on them. It could also help with self sorting, like being mean to the same people can create bonds over it. Maybe I'm full of sh*t, don't want to get dragged too deep. Sometimes humans suck and it's easier to move on then get worked up.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:33, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * yeah, i've accepted that some people simply have stone-cold hearts and lack empathy of any kind for anyone but themselves. just avoid toxic people. if you can't, push back firmly, and they'll at least know not to mess with you. The G (talk) 15:38, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

RationalWiki and Conservapedia fakemon concepts
I don't believe I've ever mentioned it here before due to having no reason to, but I used to be a fairly prolific fakemon creator, and I still dabble in the art. For my latest designs, I decided to model them on RationalWiki and Conservapedia and the ideologies those two sites represent. As such, I figured that it was only fair to share the concepts here before potentially discussing them anywhere else. So, without further ado, I'd like to present my rough-draft concepts for Azureality and Crimsolusion!


 * Azureality: Psychic/Electric-type. Category: Progress Pokémon. Ability: Empirical Stage (sets up Psychic Terrain upon entering battle, boosts Special Defense by 33% on Psychic Terrain, and allows the user to ignore the anti-priority effect of Psychic Terrain with its moves). (Alternative Ability names: Reason's Grace, Mental Bulwark, Mind Palace, Illusion Breaker, Science Field, Scientific Method, Empirical Destiny, Empirical Law, Empirical Manifesto.) Stats: 85 HP/90 Atk/120 Def/120 Sp. Atk/150 Sp. Def/115 Spd. Major-rank Legendary Pokémon inspired by RationalWiki and representing liberal/left-wing ideology — tolerance, rationality, etc. Resembles a blue donkey crossed with a goat, with fur frills that make it appear to be wearing a lab coat. Debuts in Gen IX. Name derives from "azure" (i.e. blue, the color of the Democratic Party) and "reality" (because this Pokémon represents seeing the world as it actually is and striving to make it better; as RationalWiki says, reality has a liberal bias). The Psychic-type represents critical thinking, open-mindedness, intelligence, and logic (yes, it's literal psychic powers in the context of Pokémon, but it usually symbolizes high intelligence), while the Electric-type represents science, novelty, and technology (I briefly considered the Steel-type instead of Electric, but we already got a Psychic/Steel major legendary Pokémon in Gen VII). Apart from the symbolism, the typing was deliberately chosen to have a simultaneous advantage and disadvantage to its counterpart, Crimsolusion (Psychic is super-effective against Poison, but Electric is weak to Ground). Azureality is faster than its counterpart, but has less HP, representing science and liberal ideology looking towards the future and seeking to improve humanity and the world. The signature move is Rational Flash, a Special Psychic-type move with 75 Base Power, 100% accuracy, and 10 PP that deals more damage when hitting super-effectively, ignores all stat changes that would impede its usage (lowered Special Attack and accuracy on the user, increased Special Defense and evasion on the target; it does not ignore Abilities, held items, and field conditions that affect Special Attack, Special Defense, accuracy, and evasion, so it can miss if the target holds Bright Powder and/or has an Ability such as Tangled Feet, Sand Veil, or Snow Cloak), and something else that symbolizes liberal/rational debate tactics (use of evidence and logic, etc.) Theme song: "Land of Confusion" by Disturbed or "Superstitious" by Stevie Wonder.
 * Overall, Azureality is intended to have a slight advantage over Crimsolusion in a one-on-one, head-to-head battle due to higher speed, a more useful signature Ability, and a signature move that more effectively negates its counterpart's than vice versa, but Crimsolusion should be able to have a decent chance to defeat Azureality, reflecting the fact that despite liberalism and reason being an inherently better way to run a society than conservatism and denial, the former has historically not been able to completely overcome the latter (much to the dismay of everyone with a properly-functioning brain).
 * Crimsolusion: Poison/Ground-type. Category: Regress Pokémon. Ability: Sands of Denial (sets up a sandstorm upon entering battle, boosts Defense by 33% in a sandstorm, and negates sandstorm damage (in case Crimsolusion's typing is changed to something that doesn't have Sandstorm damage immunity)). Stats: 115 HP/120 Atk/150 Def/90 Sp. Atk/120 Sp. Def/85 Spd. Major-rank Legendary Pokémon inspired by Conservapedia and representing conservative/right-wing ideology — insularity (i.e. hatred of outgroup), dogma, tradition, etc. Resembles a red elephant crossed with an eagle, with the wings vaguely resembling a priest's robes (and, yes, the eagle part represents the Nazis, but not too overtly, lest something like the controversy about Registeel's Pokémon Diamond & Pearl sprite happens). Debuts in Gen IX. Name derives from "crimson" (i.e. red, the color of the Republican Party) and " (because this Pokémon represents willful ignorance and deluding oneself into believing that one's own beliefs are completely flawless and cannot and should not be questioned, let alone improved, regardless of all evidence to the contrary and how much damage it does to oneself and others). (I was going to call this Pokémon "Crimsollusion", but that would be 13 characters, one too many to fit the limit.) The Poison-type represents closed-mindedness, bigotry, and ignorance, while the Ground-type represents "ancient wisdom", old culture, and the concept of a "golden age". Apart from the symbolism, the typing was deliberately chosen to have a simultaneous advantage and disadvantage to its counterpart, Azureality (Psychic is super-effective against Poison, but Electric is weak to Ground). Stat spread is defensively-oriented, leaning towards physical side. Crimsolusion boasts higher HP than its counterpart, but is slower, representing conservative ideology responding to challenges and opposition by digging its heels in and refusing to change its mind on anything, regardless of whether or not its ideas are actually valid (inevitably resulting in its ideas being outdated, idiotic, and harmful). The signature move is Obfuscating Mudspray, a Physical Ground-type move with 75 Base Power, 100% accuracy, and 10 PP that deals more damage when hitting super-effectively, boosts the user's defensive stats (Defense, Special Defense, and evasion) and/or lowers the target's offensive stats (Attack, Special Attack, and accuracy), and/or something else that symbolizes conservative/fundamentalist debate tactics (spreading misinformation, Gish Gallops, Chewbacca Defense, etc.) Theme song: "Corporate America" by Boston or "Land of Confusion" by Disturbed.
 * Azureality and Crimsolusion are modeled on Koraidon and Miraidon, whose past and future symbolism led me to consider nicknaming my Miraidon "Azureality" to symbolize that living in the past leads to evil and stagnation and that rationality and future-mindedness are crucial to humanity's continued survival… but then I remembered that Miraidon is purple, not blue. I still liked the name "Azureality" enough to design a fakemon concept around it, and then I decided that it needed an opposite, which led me to create Crimsolusion. Azureality and Crimsolusion's signature Abilities and moves are directly modeled on Koraidon and Miraidon's. The Abilities for all four Pokémon set up a thematically-appropriate favored terrain or weather while also boosting the user's designated best stat; however, I had to add a tertiary effect to Azureality and Crimsolusion's Abilities to negate the drawbacks of their respective favored terrain and weather, which could otherwise potentially backfire on them much more severely than harsh sunlight or Electric Terrain could potentially backfire on Koraidon and Miraidon. The signature moves for Azureality and Crimsolusion are directly modeled on the signature moves of Koraidon and Miraidon, dealing extra damage when hitting super-effectively (and for Azureality and Crimsolusion, their types were chosen to be super-effective on each other), but to better fit Azureality and Crimsolusion being designed as defensive Pokémon to contrast the offensively-oriented stat spreads of every other major legendary Pokémon other than Lugia and Ho-oh, I made the signature moves of Azureality and Crimsolusion weaker than Collision Course and Electro Drift in exchange for adding extra utility, with the utility in question being symbolic of the ideologies the Pokémon represent.

And there's my ideas so far. I know this isn't a Pokémon site, but I wonder how well these Pokémon represent RationalWiki (for Azureality) and the kind of bullshit that RationalWiki fights against (for Crimsolusion), and I'd also like to hear suggestions for improving the concepts. Luigifan18 (talk) 20:49, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Nerd. Vee (talk) 20:53, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I... am glad you have found an outlet for your creative urges that satisfies your need to shape the world around you. Semipenultimate (talk) 21:26, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I feel like most American users here hate the Democrats. Hell I’m a registered party member and I hate the Democrats too. 21:57, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I feel like that’s stretching the definition of “most”. We never really polled many of the users here, but given the left of centre leanings of the wiki as a whole I would garner a guess that it’s likely due to the politics of it’s user base. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 00:28, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait why single out Luigifan18. What about me? I just went on a lengthy post to Ariel about tri-linear bitmap interpolation! 02:08, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Aaaand no commentary on the Pokémon ideas themselves. Tch. Luigifan18 (talk) 18:26, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think there's 3 types of people who hate the Dems; people who think the Dems have gone too far into "woke" politics, people who think the Dems have not gone far enough, and people who support the Reps and would never root for "the other team" no matter what actually happens.
 * Well, there's also the people who hate the Dems for being a corrupt bunch of political grifters, but we tend to be few and far between and it's not as if the alternative isn't the same bunch. 21:19, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No, I hate the Dems for being useless. They lose so fucking always, and they refuse to play hardball for shit. I have zero faith in them as a party. 02:29, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If you want to make it RationalWiki vs. Conservapedia, then don't make them blue vs. red. The RationalWiki one should be grey and the Conservapedia one should be red, white and blue. Spud (talk) 03:30, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * you can tell the cp pokemon as it will be the one doing nothing but flinging its faeces AMassiveGay (talk)
 * Well throwing things has use. The fling move CAN hurt if you're holding a black sludge. Toxic is actually an effective move, so it's not really for them. I think CP Pokemon are more like taunt users. They goad you to attacking them, but since their viewpoints are narrow they have unbelievable shallow movepools. They also have spite to drain your PP. They're annoying like maybe a Luvdisc but just as pathetic as one. RW users' types would probably be immune to Psychic lol since we don't believe in that spoon-bending shit, sorry Kirlia. 05:01, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * that might mean something to me if pokemon meant more to me than an awful cartoon about dog fights with magic animals that i was too old for. team rocket was the only thing in that show that wasnt just unwatchable. i get that its hugely popular, but ive only observed this via the internet. never encountered anyone in the flesh who thinks much of it all. its weird that is so popular to me - not a comment on its qualities, just i dont remember much in the way of advertising or merchandising for pokemon that would have made it stand out as something more than a run of the mill tv show and lodged in my memory. i dont remember seeing toys in the store or anything. a gameboy game is all i was aware of at the the time. digimon is more memorable to me and i saw literally only 5 minutes of that cartoon and know nothing about it all but the theme tune has stuck with me. then pokemon GO was big and suddenly grown adults have strong opinions on the best pokemon and an electric squirrel with learning difficulties is being voiced by ryan reynolds in a hollywood movie. it just seems too niche back then to have this big of a following today. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:18, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Azureality is largely based on RationalWiki, but Crimsolusion isn't just meant to be Conservapedia. It represents all of the harmful, hateful, ignorant bullshit that RationalWiki fights against: fascism, communism, fundamentalism, con-men, cranks, woo-pushers, conservative ideology in general, etc. Likewise, Azureality isn't just RationalWiki; it's liberal ideology, logic, technology, and science in general. This is why I chose the typings I did for both of them, which I already explained earlier. Ironically, out of all Pokémon types, the Psychic-type is the most strongly aligned with logic, simply because it represents high intelligence and thinking things through in general (as exemplified by Pokémon such as Alakazam, Metagross, Uxie, Mesprit, and Azelf). The Electric-type represents science and technology; I was tempted to use Steel instead, but Solgaleo made its debut only two generations ago. Thus, Azureality is Psychic/Electric; it's not a Psychic-type because of psychic powers, it's a Psychic-type because it's rational, logical, and represents the proper usage of the mind. Crimsolusion's typing is more symbolic and less clear-cut, but Poison represents the harm that is done by willful ignorance and trying to keep the truth buried because one is terrified of being wrong, while the Ground-type is more representative of the ignorance itself. Thus, Crimsolusion is Poison/Ground, because the ignorance and illusionary perfection it represents is toxic to humanity. Azureality and Crimsolusion have a simultaneous type advantage against each other, and this is deliberate. As much as I wanted to make Crimsolusion a joke that could never ever beat Azureality or any of its other legendary peers (not even the ones it has a type advantage against, like Xerneas, Reshiram, and Zekrom) in a fair fight, that would be both bad for game balance and not reflective of real life; sadly, conservative ideology does win some battles against reason and liberalism, in part because conservatives don't play fair. Azureality still has the overall edge, however, because it's faster and gets the first strike, Empirical Stage is way better than Sands of Denial (Azureality can hit Pokémon with stuff like Extreme Speed even when Psychic Terrain is in effect, while Crimsolusion gets a sandstorm immunity that it already had by being a Ground-type), and Rational Flash shuts down Obfuscating Mudspray. So Azureality would probably win at least seven bouts out of ten. This is also intentional, because a liberal society is overall superior to a conservative society in every meaningful way. Luigifan18 (talk) 23:31, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Broken Boys of Kenosha
An interesting mini-documentary on the Jacob Black shooting and Rittenhouse shootings. It humanizes everyone to an extant, and shows just how full of shit the families of everyone involved are. Everyone involved is the story of a father abandoning his duties. Blake, Rosenbaum, Huber, and Rittenhouse all came from different levels of abusive backgrounds. The fathers that are living suddenly reappear out of nowhere to try and grift, and, just, wow. 04:36, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually sounds terrible and exploitative. Why is everyone's abusive background even in socially relevant to the shootings? - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 19:47, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Also calling people "broken" is not exactly humanizing. It's like calling someone damaged goods. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk)
 * (EC) If you watched the video...
 * Also, no. People aren't goods, but some are damaged.  That's what trauma is.  And there's no "good damage"; it's just damage
 * Basically, it's a look at how these people turned out the way they did. Before Blake was born, his father had already abandoned his mom for another woman, and he never had a stable home life.  Rosenbaum's story is an extremely heartbreaking one, where his father went to prison for murder when he was a child and his stepfather raped both him and his brother, so he never had a chance to begin with.  Huber's dad tried to put him up for adoption and abandoned him, and he spent his childhood in and out of Juvie.  Rittenhouse's dad was an alcoholic domestic abuser.  They didn't go into detail about Grosskreutz, but I can't find anything about him either.  20:03, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That is a terrible terrible way of framing what trauma is. Also what is the point of airing other people's trauma for youtube views? You are not selling this documentary at all. I also kind of resent as someone with a background in psychology that you can just sus what a person is and why they are the way that they are by pointing at past trauma. Trauma can explains some things about a person's mental health and behavior especially when talking about something like PTSD, but to say that someone is how they are because of trauma is kind of objectifying. Especially so when you described them as fundamentally "broken" or "damaged". People are not reducible to their trauma and not every negative thing they do or say is necessarily accounted for by said trauma. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 20:54, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * So, how much of an impact would our life experiences have on shaping who we are? I.e., are you more on the Nurture or Nature side of the debate?
 * PS. Do you believe that Rosenbaum would have been less likely to have raped 5 boys if he himself had not been raped (and forced to watch rape) when he was an adolescent, and if so, how much less likely?  The same could be asked of the 5 boys he raped; at least one of whom is now a rapist too.  21:42, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I am the neither side of the debate because I think it's a false dichotomy. Half the the "life experiences" you remember may not even happened the way you remember them and yet they still effect you on some way. Existence is a complex web of an unfathomable number of physical interactions. There is no strict way of detangling genetic factors, physiological systems, biochemical interactions and the surrounding environmental pressures from how an organism behaves. Human's are no exception. You will never figure out the essence of what a person is by looking at their genes, or their environment, their personal narrative, or their memories. Because in reality no such "essence" exists. There isn't even a clean boundary to where you as a physical being ends and the surrounding environment begins. Your atoms bleed into the air around you.  You are a dynamic system always in flux. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 21:49, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * .... and to your P.S. that is impossible to answer. We don't have an alternate reality where none of those things happened to look at. All this amounts to is empty speculation. Plenty of people who have been sexually abused never go on to abuse people themselves.  So we have no grounds to assume any causal connection. There are plenty of rapists who have never been raped. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 21:49, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * People from abusive backgrounds can grow up to be well-adjusted members of society, and people from stable backgrounds can grow up to be utter PoS's, but the odds aren't the same and you're being disingenuous if you are claiming otherwise. 22:20, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * what actual numbers do we even have on the "odds"? From what I been told by healthcare professionals the idea that those who have been abused are more likely to be abusers themselves is largely a myth. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 22:35, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

that youtube channel looks more than a little...lets say partisan. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:01, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This study suggest about 31% of child molesters were abused as children. However, most people are not the victims of CSA.  The CDC suggests it happens to 25% of girls and 8% of boys, though that includes abuse during teenage years and not just in early childhood.  88% of child sex abusers are male, so for simplicity's sake we will look at the boys only and assume that it's going to be about 30% of male child sex abusers were the victims of abuse.  If 8% of people commit 30% of the crimes, well, 30/8 is 3.5 and 70/92 is .761, and dividing the two gives us 4.6.  So male CSA survivors are 4.6 as likely to be sex abusers than those who didn't suffer CSA.  Actual numbers will vary, but will still be in that ballpark.
 * Of course, Correlation does not equal Causation; there may be some related factors that increase the odds of both being the victim and perpetrator of CSA, but to get 4.6 you'd need something extreme. All in all, it's more than certain that being the victim of abuse increases the odds of abusing someone in the future.  Hurt people hurt people.  23:23, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Massive Sure, they have a bias, but that doesn't mean they aren't correct in this case. 23:23, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * There are several logical and statistical errors in your interpretation of the statistics (at least if it's presented as a response to what I said otherwise it's just a non sequitur). You are taking the the population of abusers and the probability of them having been abused P(a) and using it to infer the population of abusee's probability of being abusers P(b).  You have the data for P(a) on existing perpetrators not P(b) on the abused population. Rates of actual abuse is not genuinely relevant to your point.  Making an argument is more than just linking sources, you have to actually string a logical argument out of it. Regardless if there is a statistical association or not it still does not allow you to make sweeping claims about how trauma  made them "how they are" because that is in fact inferring a casual relationship. Do be a casual relationship  Q would have to reliably result from  P mechanistically; as in not only is there a statistical association there is also an active mechanism that makes Q result from P when all relevant factors are met. We do not know how influential past trauma is on a person's behavior, only that in the instance of certain perpetrators you can somewhat reliably infer that there is a higher probability they have been abused in the past. This does not allow you however to conclude that if you are abused yourself you are more likely to grow up to be an abuser.  - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 00:28, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * the actual video in question is pretty tenuous. its incredibly insincere. they dont so much humanise those people by focusing on the traumas of their up bringing but reinforce the narrative that they are wild animals. there is no direct connection between their upbring and the events of that night, but the video very much wants you to know they were abandoned by their fathers so it was inevitable they turned out wrong uns and their death were essentially akin to putting down rabid animals. none of this lurid dwelling on every trauma they had growing up is necessary to explain to what happened that night nor is it necessary to demonise those killed to show rittenhouse acted in self defence. - he was a boy playing soldier out of his depth in a powder keg as years of racial tensions came to head producing angry mobs and chaotic scenes and the presence of firearms in the hands of scared and/or angry people made a fatal confrontation all but inevitable. the video has it this shooting and the vast majority of police shootings in general are because absent fathers produce feral kids (and implies the inequalities and acrimony of systemic racism not a thing, the producer's other works seemingly making this idea more explicit. and they really not fans of blm) AMassiveGay (talk) 02:02, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Which is honestly kind of what I suspected when cory shares it singing praises. The very premise alone just seems in poor taste from the outset. Thanks for providing that analysis AMG. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 03:24, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

The freeman..
..will be carefull not to use the double gulp cup for his slurpy?, but for real, has anyone seen that freeman cartoon on tiktok, like the one that talks about freedom and stuff, its black and white if that helps

yours truely Wheelson ( professor grug arc ) (talk) 15:35, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I avoid tiktok like the plague. Short form video content is very eroding on the psyche.  MirrorIrorriM (talk) 15:49, 17 January 2023 (UTC)


 * lmao Wheelson ( professor grug arc ) (talk) 16:00, 17 January 2023 (UTC)


 * people'll say stuff like that than go and watch discord memes Servasym (Talk / Contribs) 16:29, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Nuh uh. I, an intellectual, only watch 1 hour long react videos which are reacting to a 30 minute react video reacting to an 8 minute video update on a controversy involving a celebrity I've never heard of.  We are not the same.  MirrorIrorriM (talk) 18:51, 17 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry… the what? Never heard of it. Luigifan18 (talk) 00:02, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It was a joke. I was saying I watch some of the most degenerate content on the internet: react videos, where the subject of the react video is reacting to another react video, where the subject of *that* react video was reacting to online drama involving random nobodies.  It is the most time wasting of all content and I love that stuff.  The post was intentionally self-deprecating and said in an arrogant tone for an attempt at humorous effect. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 13:25, 19 January 2023 (UTC)


 * uh well consuming stuff about celebrities sounds kinda eroding Servasym (Talk / Contribs) 14:27, 19 January 2023 (UTC)


 * google dot com seems to have a promising result at this youtube video 149.19.40.202 (talk) 15:40, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Bumpf

Walmart Adventure
Me and my family were checking out when an old guy went up to a tax worker and starting spewing anti-taxination nonsense. Then he went on a conspiracy bing. I could not stop laughing. I felt bad for the tax worker. How many of them deal with anti-taxination Libertarians?

Where do these loons think funding for public utilities, schools, emergency services, military, hospitals and roads come from? The magic money fairy? --Trans Zombie Queen (talk) 20:40, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think most of these loons don't want those public utilities in the first place.
 * As for taxation in general, I do get it, to some extant. The Fed collects $3.5T in taxes each year, and the states collect another $1T, and then there's counties and cities.  It's not an illegitimate question to ask why the various governments aren't able to function with $5+ trillion in annual tax revenues.  20:55, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, part of what some of the governments do is, er, support old people (eg Medicare and Social Security in the US). Which us "working stiffs" currently pay for. If he's of that age, I'll be happy to lower my taxes in exchange for a reduction of those services for him. Tee hee...
 * All libertarian paradise type projects I know of have been massive failures. I chalk this up to libertarians having very little clue of how a society functions (despite the frequent affliction of "I'm smarter than everyone else" syndrome among this crowd). BobJohnson (talk) 21:33, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No, Libertarian projects fail for pretty much what Bioshock explored; even if every Libertarian was an Einstein or JP Morgan, someone has to plunge the toilets. And most Libertarians are not Einstein (who was filthy Commie, btw).  21:38, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

If anti-taxination loons hate taxes and want a libertarian society, they can go to a country in the midst of a catastrophic civil war and economic ruin. I hear that Syria is nice. --Trans Zombie Queen (talk) 23:09, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * One could make the same argument about Anarchism. It's a dumb argument to make, however, because it's in the middle of a civil war that wasn't caused by anything to do with Libertarianism, but a backlash against a combination of state repression and rising food prices.  23:20, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * My point was this: There was a breakdown of government services. Taxes fund government services. They would get a taste of what would happen. Civil war is an added bonus. I should have been more specific. --Trans Zombie Queen (talk) 23:34, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * All things considered Rojava actually has a much better time sustaining itself in the absence of income taxes, in ways noted Libertarian paradises do not when it comes to abolishing property taxes. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 23:36, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Turns out when most of the business property is under public ownership, your region can regularly sell agricultural resources, oil and apply a border fee you can compensate the lack of taxation to finance public services by other means. Something that right-libertarians would never dare to do. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 23:51, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Basically, failed states are useful to examine regarding libertarians, because these states really do have the complete absence of that gosh darn government libertarians like to dream of getting rid of. What typically happens with failed states is not only typically an economic shitshow and a violent ride, but that power vacuums are filled with tribes and warlords etc. So these failed states demonstrate that the libertarian dream idea in full has never really existed in history. Power and control happens, one way or another, it's what humans do. Anarchism and communism have similar problems in that there really aren't great working examples of either, though compared to libertarians at least communism has had some brief working moments in select communes etc. BobJohnson (talk) 23:49, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It depends how broadly you define libertarian political systems. Like the Zapatistas and Rojava are sustaining themselves relatively fine. There are at least some accounts that for Revolutionary Catalonia there wasn't exactly an internal shit-show. The society itself fell due to outside intervention.  The problem with the power vacuum rhetoric is that it implies in the absence of a position of political power such a vacuum can exist. If that were true we would be an innumerable number of "power vacuums" existing at any given time.  Like there really isn't a limit to how many positions of power one wishes to have in a society, we could construct a kafkaesque nightmare and create new bureaucratic systems for it's own sake - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 23:57, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * 'I understand that' there are a number of abandoned towns in the US: perhaps the people who promote tax-free options should collectively acquire one or more such places and enjoy their paradise (whether Hobbesean state of nature or not). Anna Livia (talk) 00:07, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * People have tried that with active towns, the failures are documented in the libertarian paradise page. It won't be any better with a "ghost town", I'm sure.
 * The thing with US libertarianism though is that for what it is worth, I have personally found that "libertarian" too often is a "cover phrase" for kleptocracy, corporatism, or fascism... particularly for those close to power. Known "libertarians" like Rand Paul and Peter Thiel fail horribly when it comes to minority issues, or even on the notion of democracy itself. (The RW article on these folks is "vulgar libertarianism"). The Zapatistas and Rojava seem to approach any portion of "libertarian" more from the viewpoint of anarchism and Marxism / socialism, with some elements of democracy and federalism as well. It's certainly not pure Ayn Rand and it's certainly not surprising that it seems to work better than what a Randroid could come up with.BobJohnson (talk) 00:27, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Wit 'active' towns the 'existing inhabitants' can be blamed for being contrary: emptied towns will have no such issues (though will probably have to be reconnected to the electricity grid, water network, potholes repaired 'and all the rest of it.' The point I was making was that libertarianism will fail because of the non-community-spirit. (Have any 'communes and other collaborations' managed to 'get things working'? Anna Livia (talk) 13:38, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Rojava is an ultra-nationalist "ends justify the means" sort of situation, not at all dissimilar to the situation 80 years ago in a certain country to the southwest of Rojava, which also had a hodge-podge mix of all ideologies that only cooperated with each other because the alternative was annihilation. The Kurds aren't anarchist... but neither are they not-anarchist.  It'll be interesting to see what Rojava turns into if the Kurds do manage to establish a permanent state (without being immediately crushed by Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran), but I doubt it will be anything a serious person would consider a paradise.  I'd expect the Kurds to ethnically cleanse most of the Arabs from their territories, while turning a blind eye to the Assyrians and Druze.  02:05, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I think the answer [to the original question] is more simple than that. That old guy are 'useful idiots' for the rich white boys who like libertarianism on the basis [they think] it would grant them effectively unchecked power over everything/one for they are convinced they're the natural rulers of society. They, in turn are the 'useful idiots' for the billionaires who simply object to any taxation or regulations whatsover and [they think] it wouldn't effect them one little bit if the USA turned into Somalia [as they'd simply move to an armed enclave or even better, to a private Caribbean island].

Anyway, I partly think the anti-tax shite is partly down to the fact of the extreme clusterfuck which is the American tax system. It's expensive to do, it's laborious and it's intended to be because right-wingers basically 'believe it should be' to make the Big Public 'hate taxes' [and the tax prep companies don't want you to do it yourself!]

There's no fucking need to have to re-file the stuff the taxman already has, or to have to file multiple times, or make the system so labyrinthine that a professional tax preparer is vital for Joe/Jane Average or duplicate work [as the tax authorities will have to re-do the work anyway!] Look, most of the advanced world already does 'pay as you earn' from source and only those with income from capital have to file. KarmaPolice (talk) 03:20, 18 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Most people who complain about taxation don't structure their assets/income to legally avoid taxes. The wealthy legally avoid a ton of taxes. When the wealthy businesman Ross Perot ran as an independent for president of the USA and disclosed his taxes, many people were surprised that he only payed 8.5% of his income in taxes due to legal tax avoidance. Trump fought tooth and nail not to have his tax statements disclosed. With proactive accountants, tax-shelters, stocks with unrealized gains, living in low tax areas, offshoring, etc., the wealthy avoid a lot of taxes. And the wealthy have well-paid lobbyists to influence how the tax code is written. Schminte (talk) 06:38, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Expoiting [or getting created] loopholes is completely different - this is a symptom of a country which taxes capital at a much lower rate than labour [the UK is the same]. And for the rich, 'even' 8.5% is too much. KarmaPolice (talk) 08:30, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The majority of states which have no income taxes in the United States are seeing more people move to their state than leave it. A lot of people hate paying taxes. Schminte (talk) 11:03, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * What about dealing with 'plumbing, pot-holes, and police' (with a nod at The Great Stink 'persuading' them in the UK Parliament as to the wisdom of the first)? Anna Livia (talk) 20:57, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * New York State and California are two of the states with the highest tax rates. And many people are fleeing those two states because they also live in high crime areas. And they are fleeing to states with no income taxes like Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Tennessee and Texas. Often it is due to job opportunities because those low tax states are more business friendly and have more businesses that are expanding and looking for workers. Schminte (talk) 22:37, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Those two states also contain two of the largest, most congested and expensive cities in the country. You know what? I've heard many a family relocate [say] from LA to Colorado and from New York to Forida, but 'high taxes' is never cited as the first reason to do it. In fact, the 'top three' reasons I've heard is [in no ranking order] 1/ cost of living [housing, shopping] 2/ weather/climate and 3/ 'lifestyle' issues [such as wanting more free space for kids etc]. If everyone was fleeing 'high taxes' alone, they'd all be going to South Dakota. The fact they are not suggests otherwise!


 * Anyway, how the tax take is done on a state level is down to three main levers; 'sales', 'property' and 'income'. One thing which Covid showed us that 'Republican' states appear to be more dependent on sales taxes for income, which meant they were in more of a fiscal funk during the closedowns [which might also partly explain why the hell they were so adamant about minimal shutdowns]. What's more, it appears said states are more reliant on the Federal Govt to top up their state budgets and provide services. Perhaps those 'high tax states' are actually doing the fiscally responsible thing by trying to 'pay their own way' rather than hitting Uncle Sam over the head with the begging bowl and demanding it gets put on the Federal Debt? Hell, that might even be considered a form of patriotism! KarmaPolice (talk) 03:19, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * At a website where people can calculate their moving costs, they collect information on why people are leaving their state and one of the reasons they say they are leaving New York State is its high taxes. The current governor of New York State is asking the hundreds of thousands of people who have left the state in the past couple of years to come back. I will soon be working with a company which operates in most states in the USA, but they don't operate in New York due to its unfriendly environment for businesses. People are also leaving New York State because they are unemployed or underemployed according to the survey information. Schminte (talk) 06:00, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The main body of the link address; "no-more-new-york-people-are-trying-to-flee-the-empire-state-for-warmer-destinations-no-thanks-to-higher-rents-and-cost-of-living". This suggests the main reasons found were ones I've already mentioned, Ken.
 * This current sock is 6/10. KarmaPolice (talk) 06:06, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Instead of using something as inane as a link address to build a poor argument, why don't you accurately represent what the article actually says? The fact remains that many people are leaving high tax states that are business unfriendly and moving to low tax states that are business friendly. A 2016 article notes: "Five of the states who have seen the greatest influx of people, Texas, Florida, Alaska, Washington, and Tennessee, also happen to be no income tax states." Schminte (talk) 06:56, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Correlation does not mean causation. Plus, the title usually gives a good sign of the contents of the page; if it had been all about taxes [which you wish it to be] it would read something like "no-more-new-york-people-are-trying-to-flee-the-empire-state-for-destinations-with-low-taxes". Lastly, you ignore the points put to you, so why the hell should I entertain your points? There's no point as even if I do dig out stats that contradict, you ignore them. KarmaPolice (talk) 07:10, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The top 5 states that people are moving out of are New York, California, Illinois, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts and they are all high taxes states. "IllinoisPolicy.org cited opportunities for employment and better housing as the leading cause of the population decline in the state. Nearly half of would-be movers also said that the tax rate is a major factor in their reasons for leaving." 4Matino (talk) 07:28, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure of the point you are making. Are you saying "Taxes are bad because (some) people don't like paying them"?  Because the idea that many people don't like paying taxes (or would like to minimize their taxes) is trite.  There is a whole industry dedicated to just that. So it wouldn't surprise me if low-tax jurisdictions (or, for that matter, nations) would be attractive to some people.  But what do you conclude from this?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:55, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It's Ken shit, he's cherrypicking data as usual. BobJohnson (talk) 16:05, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yep, message for today; 'taxes are evil'. But once again, KenBot proves the point by accident. The old man at the top was going on about 'evil taxes' 'cos he's been snorting the same shite KenBot has. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:49, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Good news on the gender transition front
My mom said that she will teach me how to be a woman. I is a happy transgender woman. --Trans Zombie Queen (talk) 02:50, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It's great that you have that support. Spud (talk) 03:26, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * awww <3 I hope it all goes swimmingly. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 03:32, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That's great to hear. Bongolian (talk) 04:26, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Let us know how the world changes. E.g., once you pass, what you notice in how you get treated as a woman vs as a man.  Or the differences in how the hormones affect how you think.  Etc.  07:07, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * She ain't your science experiment. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 14:36, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait, did Zombie's pronouns change? I guess it's different for everyone, but do you want she/her immediately or with a timetable, e.g., once you begin HRT?  17:18, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

George Santos
It's remarkable how much is resembling Ignaz Trebitsch Lincoln, multiple and diverse identities, fleeing just as the law is starting to catch up, getting elected to a national legislature under dubious circumstances, and participation in a coup attempt. In some ways Santos has a head start on Trebitsch Lincoln, getting the legislature post and coup attempt out of the way while still quite young. Bongolian (talk) 22:10, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm starting to think AOC isn't the craziest Representative that my state has at the moment... 22:16, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You've had Elise Stefanik for quite a while, so I don't see why you would think AOC is or was the craziest. Plutocow (talk) 22:22, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Other than being relatively pro-Trump, she's actually quite sane. Ok, that's a lot like saying "other than storing her farts in jars, she's actually quite sane", but we work with what we've got, and she's broken with Trump on a number of things such as climate change, immigration, the Trump tax cuts, LGBT issues, and a few others.  23:00, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Santos is a straight up criminal. He used his "company" to receive an in-kind donation, meant to avoid FEC reporting requirements. Crazy he is not. People like to shit talk AOC, but her vision is sound even if it isn't feasible. Stefanik repeated lies about the 2020 election, and has not separated herself in a significant way from Trump on core issues. She isn't crazy either, she's acting in her best political interest. Boebert, MTG, Gosar, those people are crazy.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 00:30, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The alternate universe comes from must have unicorns for sale. I mean the argument is "AOC opposes Trump at all levels but is pro-trump because the magicks!!!" is hilarious. That's like saying Ulysses Grant and William Sherman were actually pro-confederate.Tuxer (talk) 01:24, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Uhhh... where did he say that? The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 01:32, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Uh, how exactly is AOC a crank? Last thing I remember she wasn't the one promoting pseudoscience and conspiracy theories. Vee (talk) 15:48, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Alexandria_Ocasio-Cortez. 150.164.22.209 (talk) 16:13, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * She is only a crank if you are a conservative.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:08, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

This (George Santos accused of stealing funds for veteran's dying dog) has to be the ultimate Santos story! It's got everything. Steals charity money meant to save a dying dog owned by a veteran.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:10, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Even if you agree with her ideas, she's that girl in high school you knew who made activism her entire personality but never put in any work to actually doing or learning anything about the subjects. There's plenty of people that both 1) know what they are talking about and 2) have Leftwing views.  AOC is not one of them.  19:42, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * And her extremely annoying voice just makes it even more grating. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 01:24, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It’s exchanges like this that make me wish it was easier to post reaction gifs on ratwiki. A Lucille Bluth reaction would be appropriate here. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 03:06, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't even need a gif in response to that, I'd just need this. Since I live close enough to NYC that I have to deal with people endlessly reporting on... whatever it is that people call speech which she emits from her mouth... her vapid schtick gets old fast. At least has to actually do something (like, say, getting some gun control legislation through) to get recognition. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 04:20, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * jerkoffgesture.gif - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 05:21, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to create the template if you'd like to... 18:46, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I mean not even Trump managed something like that.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 20:45, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * True, but tRump did Bongolian (talk) 22:13, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, Good point.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 07:45, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, Good point.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 07:45, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Jacinda Ardern and NZ
Arden was a disaster. She handled crisis well but as a government they were terrible. There is a much deeper conversation as to why but there's no point in getting specific and it'd take too long anyway. But when she resigned today Tucker Carlson called this the most authoritarian government in the world and the right, the rabid right, have called her a communist, Marxist authoritarian. No one in any political power has done so - NZ politics is generally pretty "gentlemanly" if you follow me. Bernie Sanders would fit, albeit as a renegade, in our major right wing party - National. But it was Tucker that stuck in my craw. Because of course. But has he ever been here? When I caught him bemoaning how authoritarian NZ was I was laying on the couch drinking a beer and readying myself to walk across the road and go for an evening swim in the ocean - without any Big Brother watching me. My neighbour has a back injury and the govt. is paying 80% percent of his wages until he is ready to work again. People are openly criticising the government for shutting down debate about the government. Where do these people come from? I live in one of the most socially (and economically) free countries in the world. It boggles the mind. The NZ left is in real trouble and Jacinda was terrible but I am totally bemused by this talk of authoritarianism. End Rant. Acei9 08:48, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The USA had 6 times the deaths per 100,000 people than New Zealand. Granted New Zealand is an island so its easier to control the virus coming into the country, but by taking a hard line when the pandemic was at its deadliest phase, she saved lives. Desperate times call for desperate measures. And 80–90% of the NZ public realized this and approved of the government’s response to the pandemic even though it was an authoritarian response.


 * Jacinta Arden just resigned. Authoritarians don't resign. You should stop caring about what some far away blowhard thinks about her response to the pandemic. 4Matino (talk) 09:36, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn’t say anything about the pandemic. Acei9-

The Christchurch mosque shooting tragedy killed 51 people and the police arrested the killer within 20 minutes. So she didn't handle the crisis, the police did. The police deserve the credit. She did console the nation which was saddened over the tragedy, but that is not handling a crisis. Covid-19 killed over 2,400 New Zealanders and it could have been a lot worse, but she handled that crisis well. 4Matino (talk) 11:13, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * There is more to "handling" a crisis than being a first responder. That is an extreme analysis 4Matino. She didn't spend all her time consoling people. She, like any other leader, went into crisis mode and spent tireless hours engaging both in the crisis and the aftermath. Shabi  DOO  11:16, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Paying any attention to Tucker, or the UK equivalent of them (any of the many vile rag papers to choose from or Piers Morgan/Jeremy Clarkson) or vile spokesman like Trump/Farage, or even worse paying attention to the commentary on what those people have said, is letting them win. They win by convincing people there is actual controversy to begin with, by seeding doubt, normalising extreme toxic ideas and gaining attention by being vicious man-babies. The best thing you can do is completely disengage from them. Skip their stories, pass over social media posts that have anything to do with them and ignore, ignore, ignore. Doing otherwise is letting them win. Shabi  DOO  11:17, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I retract my post about the Christchurch mosque shooting. Jacinta Ardern delivered a ban on semiautomatic firearms within weeks of the massacre. Maybe that will prevent a future mass shooting. So she handled two crisis. 4Matino (talk)
 * Obviously Kiwi's probably have a better grip on politics in their own country, but the problems NZ pale in comparison to the issues just on the West coast in the US. Feckless liberals unable to do anything meaningful and bomb throwing conservatives who want nothing to get done. It's exhausting.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 17:27, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The Maori have it pretty bad. Vee (talk) 18:44, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Ardern was the best thing that happened to New Zealand since the First Labour Government in 1935. As always the left-leaning Labour Party has had to clear up a total fucking mess left by the slash-and-burn neo-liberal National Party of the previous government - health, education, roads, environment - all of it left to rot by the Nat's to feather the take home pay of rich cunts (and I'm in that income bracket too - but I understand that "trickle down" only applies to the shit coming from the top, not any sort of prosperity).
 * new Zealand is going into a recession like everywhere else - but it's doig nit from a much stronger position than virtually everywhere else too - something the neo-liberal-fuctards won't admit because her REAL CRIME was to be an effective female leader - that is unforgivable to the mostly-middle-aged-male-mysogenist-mafia (I fit in that age and race bracket too!) Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 21:24, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Are you fucking serious? Crime - up, children in poverty - up, inflation - up, promises - long forgotten, multiple consultant fees paid for projects not even started - way up, bills presented rammed through under urgency - up, transparency - opaque at best and on and on. This government is fucking hopeless. Acei9 00:57, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh and I love the canard that it is because she is a female leader that she receives so much criticism. All her terrible polling and dissatisfaction is because she is a female leader? That must be why she won a majority last election and is so disliked now - everyone turned into a misogynist over that last 2 years. Acei9 00:59, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I mean that is not necessarily the implication of that kind of criticism. Even misogynists can occasionally come in support of certain women, and then apply unequal judgement to said women. It's not necessarily mutually exclusive whether that is actually the case in this instance or not. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 01:08, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Just saw this tweet.. Zero excess mortality during the pandemic, economy doing much better than US and EU and 99 out of 100 on the Freedom House Index. I'd say that NZ under Arden did just fine. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 01:12, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Well her popularity (and that of her party) is dropping like a stone so perhaps we here in NZ know something people overseas don't? Also - as an aside, NZ has been at around 99 out of 100 for freedoms for decades so I wouldn't attribute that to Ardern. Acei9 01:15, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That's of course possible, but I think if anything, political science shows that the majority can also be wrong. Some governments that I personally consider good were unpopular and/or didn't last long while some governments that I consider bad were popular and/or lasted long. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 01:19, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Well Labour, under Ardern, went from being one of the most popular parties in NZ history (well, since MMP was introduced in 1996) to falling below the opposition in many polls. So was the majority wrong about her popularity or wrong about her being unpopular now? So the argument you are making (or should I say, just suggesting) isn't really applicable here. Acei9 01:25, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't know. I don't follow NZ politics that closely. What I know is that NZ is apparently doing better than the rest of the world right now. I'm not saying you guys are stupid or anything like this, just that most of the world is facing a hard time for a plethora of reasons, maybe that's why her popularity is dropping. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 01:36, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It's the delivery that is the problem - in that there hasn't been any and people like me who were sold on the promise but disappointed with the outcome are those looking beyond her. Acei9 01:39, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Imagine trying to quantify freedom. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 01:24, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You can check their metodology on their site. Since I believe "freedom" and "liberty" are not the same, I believe they quantify the later fine, even if they use the former word on their report. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 01:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Wow! It does not actually measure the abstract concept of freedom? It just lists what civil liberties and political rights are present in a nation and assigns a score? Nothing philosophically or conceptually problematic about that. (this is sarcasm) - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 01:30, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That's correct (no sarcasm here). GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 01:36, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

So, who's the guy that's replacing her? Is he better? Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 01:00, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Chris Hipkins. He seems OK - capable but a bit of a weasel. Career politician without much charisma. That said though, I am looking forward to his cabinet reshuffle. Acei9 05:39, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * New Zealand is basically a giant hyper-aging museum. The country doesn't have much of a future. In January of 2023, New Zealand's business confidence slumped to its worst since the 1970s due to higher interest rates, weaker demand and labor shortages. Tassedethe (talk) 11:45, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, Ken! Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 19:54, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Crowder vs Shapiro
Some rather interesting fights going on at the moment.

Steven Crowder released a video complaining about an extremely onerous contract with Rightwing Media. He didn't name names, but it soon became pretty obvious that it was with daily wire. Part of said contract included automatic penalties for being removed from "big tech" platforms, effectively making even the conservative commenters still beholden to "big tech". He didn't say who the contract was with, but Dr Peterson initially made comments and then almost immediately deleted them, as if his boss told him to shut up. The daily wire (aka Mr BS himself) later responded with a breakdown of the contract... except that it's an initial offer. So it's unclear whether Crowder or Shapiro is the being the bad guy, especially given that the initial offer was for $50 million, though when it comes to legal matters it's usually both parties that are the bad guy. 17:37, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Twitter thread from Will Sommer (Daily Beast political reporter) here.
 * Crowder's notable, but not *that* notable as a podcaster (that's 1/4 of what sources estimate Joe Rogan's podcast contract is). I wonder what wingnut welfare it took to come up with that figure, assuming it is accurate (the Daily Beast can be a little "iffy" sometimes...) BobJohnson (talk) 18:36, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Rich folks arguing about money. I'm trying to be interested....nope, can't do it.Ariel31459 (talk) 20:02, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You should be interested. The allegation is that rich folks are being forced to tell you things they don't agree with, because money.
 * As for Crowder in particular, I think he's more known for his "Change my Mind" segments than his actual show. The CMM concept is good even if you don't agree with whoever is speaking, because 1) it's important to actually know what your own position is.  I mostly disagree with Crowder on a whole host of ideas, including but not limited to Guns, Rape Culture, Building the Wall, Abortion, Hate Speech, and Amy Coney Barrett.  But I like hearing his side on things.  It's a bit "cheating" since he comes prepared and most of the people are just random college kids who sat down, and a lot of them look like they have no clue WTF they are talking about, but then again, most people have no clue WTF they are talking about, and only hold their political/economic/social opinions based on what they were instructed to believe or how they feel about something rather than an actual, logical and rational reason.
 * Take abortion, for example. What do we all agree on?  To paraphrase Andrew Schulz, there is a number of abortions where it's "too many"; for pro-lifers this happens to be 1, for more moderates such as myself it's more like 3, but I doubt we'll have that many people even here that would say 10.  20:25, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Nobody is entitled to a paycheck. There are other arguments to be made, but a lot of demonetization whines are stupid.
 * So, let's say I waltz into some Big Nashville Media Mogul and say, "I want you to play my Death Metal Polka Screamo on Big Country Music radio and pay me for it!", Big Nashville Media Mogul's gonna laugh and say "nay, our formulaic bro country shit works, it pays the bills, go play it on Weirdo College Radio, where you will get paid nothing". What they want is what they know works and sells. (There's a lot one can say about how bad this makes Big Country Music Radio and similar formulaic entertainment stupid, but that's a topic for another day.)
 * Crowder's whining is similarly stupid. It's the ol' "I can't play by the simple (albeit haphazardly enforced) TOS rules of social media" game conservatives (and others) play, trying to play victim. Crowler's not entitled to the advertiser money that fuels Youtube etc.. If he wants to break the advertiser rules, like say with some obvious racism or advocacy for violence, he can switch his podcast to Gab or Rumble or whatever, where he will similarly get paid nothing.BobJohnson (talk) 22:28, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, we don't all agree on anything. It's a biological thing that we can't agree perfectly. It's because brains are not all exactly the same. Some people won't admit they agree with you even when they do because they don't want to agree with you. Some things shouldn't be allowed because if they were, there would be too many of them, like wild dogs running free. Abortion is not one of those things.Ariel31459 (talk) 22:36, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Crowder is a Ideologue. Are there any Ideologues who are willing to work within someone else's rules, like, ever?  Michael Moore got fired from Mother Jones for butting heads with the editor, for example.  19:40, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Any general opinion on Crowder that is short of a wrinkled face from the disgust and contempt he brings out is invalid. "But I like hearing his side on things." Who cares about this liar's opinions? You should approach him like he's a grifter and analyze his opinions with the fact that he is a grifter and has zero principles, zero sincerity. Anything he spews is suspect. He has sold his integrity to the devil and any respect you have for him should be consigned into the flames. 19:36, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I more just roll my eyes than make a wrinkled face. 02:52, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, you get the general idea. If you're thinking about how pathetic this man is, you're on the right track. 06:01, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes Mario, but is is nausea an effective use of your time? The thing about Crowder is he has a large audience. I don't know how large. Are they all maga people? I don't know why anyone thinks he is entertaining, but ostensibly many Americans do feel that way. Why? One word answers like the usual ones don't make me feel better informed.Ariel31459 (talk) 19:42, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This is a question I cannot answer directly, because I have never seen a Crowler show (it, like the rest, is IMHO a waste of time). Just some observations about the "political commentary" genre in the US.
 * The world of sports commentary in America is full of these Big Talking Head Guys that like to yell various things at the camera. Much "armchair quarterbacking" is discussed on a whirlwind of details, a few of which may be relevant, but most of which is irrelevant gossip, rumors, and poor predictions. In the local markets, usually there is a variations of "rah rah team" as well.
 * Political commentary during the "talk radio" days really reminded me of people applying the sports formula to politics, even when lefty talk existed (back when the Big Radio Moguls allowed such a thing). It's a lot of Heated Conversation, much of which is irrelevant gossip, and a lot of trash talking. The "team" formula of sports is applied to various grievances, which are the Other that you must be against, as if it were a football rivalry. I don't think the genre has evolved too much on the Internet, from what I see, it's the same as the Rush Limbaugh formula of old.
 * Now, this shit gets an audience. I mean, you see some of the same shit in other things in America ( for finance, for instance), and to some extent the shrill commentary of a for courtroom bullshit is also related. It's a combination of "simplified knowledge to satisfy the Dunning-Kruger"... as well, for certain things at least, as giving people an "other" to attack, I guess. In sports, the "other" is a sports rivalry. With Nancy Grace, the "other" was basically the defendant. In right-wing political talk, the "other" is a combination of Democrats, minorities, and "the elite" (even if the presenter is hugely elite like a Tucker Carlson). Back in the day I found left wing talk to be a *little* better (less demagoguery), but there was still a large amount of overuse of simplified "THE MAN IS AGAINST ME" type shit. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who are various combinations of "uninformed", shrill, asshole, angry-without-a-cause (or clue), etc. who are receptive to this sort of thing.
 * Anyone who has invested a little in finance knows that Jim Cramer is completely full of shit. Nancy Grace is famous for her wrong takes. I think the same applies to any loudmouth who tries to act like the smartest person in the room. But it gets an audience, because too many don't realize the con / grift / wrongness. C'est la vie.BobJohnson (talk) 22:39, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Vegan subreddit
I was doing some research on veganism and all that jazz, I was not planning on changing my diet (I’m an omnivore) but just like to keep informed about other lifestyle choices, I respect everyone if they’re vegan, vegetarian, omnivores etc. and I don’t care what people eat honestly. My clicking got me onto the vegan subreddit and, oh boy, did it make me feel shit. So many people there accused people that eat meat of being sociopaths, psychopaths, not having empathy, not caring at all about animals, being animal abusers, are immoral, some people were angry at other vegans for not being partners with vegans and it just got so overwhelming. I understand the meat industry in many cases is pretty fucked and I do try to get meat from ethical sources whenever possible but the overall experience on that sub just made me feel shit, like just because I eat meat, that paints me as someone beyond evil.—WMS (talk) 18:02, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, looking elsewhere around, r/vegan has kind of a reputation for PETA style judgmental shrillness. r/vegancirclejerk is worse, to the point of having a very cringey about statement from my view ("carnist apologist"? "Veganism is a leftist social justice movement for animal liberation"?) It's a pretty big contrast to r/vegetarian which is largely about, er, food.
 * (Side note off-topic: These type of subs tend to reinforce a theory of mine about "polarization". The upvote/downvote/like system in most mainstream social media seems to make it awfully easy for the fanatics to rise to the top, as long as there are enough fanatics to brigade. Vegans have always had that holier-than-thou bit with too much politics in their vegetables (the movement was linked to the counter-culture and punk scenes before it became more popular this century), but there's also vegans (probably a larger group, I think) who just simply made a lifestyle choice for their own reasons, and that's it. As the holier-than-thous are far more, er, "enthusiastic" with their upvotes (as well as their "downvote the heathen" votes, heathen in this case being, say, someone who does not compare a meat eater to Hitler), the fanatics crowd out the more nuanced, causing the later to leave and the former group to grow more extreme. That's at least my "polarization theory": that things are not really as polarized as the media makes out, and what polarization exists is largely due to social media's polarization-by-design.) BobJohnson (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I mean I can sort of sympathize with vegans, if you see animals on the same moral standing as human beings and all else being speciesism then from that perspective I don't think it's that absurd to see other people as monstrous. Now if you are a non-meat eater like myself who thinks objective morality is a spook and is just as willing to eat a human being if the situation calls for it to then you avoid the claim to speciesism in part but you don't really assign any inherent moral value to what anyone else eats anyways. Situations of survival changes moral norms. I.e. People are way more willing to engage in cannibalism in desperate survivals situations. I think what a lot of non-intersectional vegans sort of underestimate is the degree to which eating meat is not actually a choice for some folks living in food deserts or with certain disabilities.  Also no body has a diet that is free of animal cruelty or killing, that's true of vegans too. A lot of small animals get carved to pieces in the harvesting process for vegetables. Rabbits, mice, squirrels, etc. If you want to piss off a vegan demand that they grow their own food or they are just as bad as any meat eater. Watch as their own excuses roll out! - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 19:47, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * i eat meat and probably will continue to do so for the forseeable future. i dont eat a lot of pork - pig are super clever which makes me a little uncomfortble to be eating the things. i know crows are smart creatures too, but i dont eat crow. made the mistake of googling the intelligence of chickens. always assumed they are prettty mindless creatures i wont feel guilty about slapping in the frying pan. turns out they are pretty smart too. at least cows are fucking stupid beasts. i can still enjoy a steak once in a while. oh fuck you, not so smart to not taste delish AMassiveGay (talk) 01:30, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Intelligence is a shitty factor to decide whether or not something is worth eating. Would you be willing to eat human beings with profound disabilities that make them less intelligent than cows? - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 01:48, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a recipe for spreading Hepatitis and all those other horrific diseases, plus the psychological effects of normalizing the killing and eating of humans. But remember that we used to experiment on those humans in the past, so it's not out of the realm of possibility that we'd revert to treating the severely disabled as "not-human".  02:29, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * As for chickens, they might not be completely dumb, but they are mean. They have no problem with cannibalism, even when adequate food is available.  They simply don't give a crap if another chicken is killed in front of them.  Cows?  You can't kill cows in front of the other cows, because cows care.  02:34, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * EC im not really talking about iq or their maths skills but it that does get me thinking about these creatures as being more than just meat. but its not a factor in whether something should be added to the menu, but is a factor in taking things off. or more accurately, there is enough about a food animal on display that i might find myself emphasising about their plight. i went vegetarian for a bit, but it didnt take. if i can convince myself something on my plate never had any sentience beyond mere instinct i will. i'd rather not confront the disconnect between the food on my plate and the living creature it came from and society at large does its best not to make me. im not making a moral or rational defence of eating meat, im sticking my fingers in my ears and saying lalalala cant hear you. im saying i am very much aware this is what am doing and googling the cognitive awareness of meat is not a good idea if i wish to continue doing that. i dont need to convince myself of the sentience of a human being with profound disabilities and i need no prompting to emphasise with them by dint of them being human beings. AMassiveGay (talk) 03:09, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Eh, while 'vegans' [to hugely generalise] do have some decent points and justified complaints, they often have a very strong level of 'golden hammer' about them - holding that all personal/societal ills can be dealt with with a fully 'plant based diet' [no it cannot]. Veganism has a level of crank magnetism too - no way as much as it used to [barely saw any crystal/dream catcher/insense shite at the '22 VeganFest] but it's still there - for example, a lot are into organic farming [which may not actually be vegan and won't even be possible if their dreams came true globally]. Even more importantly, veganism has a huge mass of uncomfortable truths, inconsistancies and pitfalls which in my personal experience, most vegans refuse to answer and get pissy if they're brought up.

However, the worst aspect is how damn judgemental they are. A too-large percentage of them have become intolerant cultists about it - they have seen 'the truth' and everyone else who doesn't get it are the heathens to be cast into the flames. The idea that a person can fully understand veganism, accept the main 'points' as true and still not be one [ie yours truly] blows their minds. I clearly have vincible ignorance: I have heard The Truth but still said no! [The fact that my meat consumption has gone down by perhaps ~75% and red meat perhaps ~90% is irrelevant].

I use the religious analogies here because I've encountered enough vegans now [and know the principles etc] to know 'lying for Jesus' when I see it and it gets done a lot. We have to remember that the majority of vegans currently do so for 'ethical' reasons alone [mainly animal rights] and thus, if you don't conform to this, you're a complete barbarian. I also suspect a decent % also are 'making virtue out of necessity' types; they keep on going on and on about how 'easy'/'affordable'/'tasty' vegan food is which is highly debatable at best. [Personal experience; it'll cost more if you're poor, will take more time to prepare and put a higher demand on cooking skills to make palatable meals]. KarmaPolice (talk) 04:28, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Just for the meat-eaters: if the thought of you eating dogs gives you pause then you should extend this pause to at least the barnyard animals (fish and octopuses should also be included, they're also not as brainless as you'd think, but baby steps). Chickens make for excellent pets (unfortunately meat chickens are doomed from the beginning). Goats and pigs are affectionate. So are rats. I eat meat but I limit myself. Anyway there's a lot of other gripes about the meat industry I have especially the workers, who are always overlooked, but don't forget the workers. And don't think you get scotch free with vegetables: farms employ child labor. Anyway I predict in the future, future humans are going to look at meat eaters with disdain. And others debate about presentism. How could we kill such complex creatures capable of emotions with such negligence. It's not like it's life or death to wean off meat. We're well off to go meat-free. We'd even save money. "I know it's wrong, but it tastes good" is the only valid excuse a lot of us have, me included, and it's frankly pretty disturbing that's the excuse. I'm not a vegan, but if you can limit meat you should and you'll save money and carbon emissions. If it's difficult, no hard feelings, it is difficult. Hardcore vegans aren't helping the cause. Can't do anything much about the laborers unfortunately. 07:06, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Picky point; 'We'd even save money' does not apply if you are poor in the Anglosphere. Protein sources are generally expensive [often the biggest outlay on a welfare-level budget] and some of the cheapest forms in the UK [as in pence per gram] are chicken, pork, cow-milk, chicken eggs and cheddar cheese [I've actually worked this shit out]. Peanuts tick this box too but have the issue of high saturated fats [which the jury is still out on whether 'this type' is bad for you or not] and if as nuts shall be loaded with salt [unless you get the plain blanched type, but then they're no longer the protein bargain]. Tinned baked beans have the similar issue; they'd be a 'superfood' if it wasn't for the salt. The only legumes which you can get cheap are usually chickpeas and kidney beans, which tick the nutrition boxes but require a bit more skill in the kitchen to turn into something tasty [which is something else not considered; going vegan does require you to re-learn how to cook to some extent].


 * I point this out because I actually know someone who tried to 'go vegan' on a very low income, ended up getting malnourished and the doctor telling them explicity to quit it.


 * Oh, and it's not automatically a cert that going vegan will save carbon emissions. Locally produced produce may actually beat vegan alternatives from the other side of the world. Let's not forget the popularity of soya for the fakeries... which is sometimes produced on farmland in South America which used to contain rainforest. Well, I suppose it's Less Worse than when the forests were cut down for cattle... KarmaPolice (talk) 09:04, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * fresh fruit and veg aint exactly cheap either. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:23, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The thing is, fundamentally, humans are primate animals that require eating other things to stay alive. Humans are omnivores which nonetheless (without supplementation) require at least *some* degree of meat, or something else animal sourced, for a balanced diet. Meat involves cruelty, but nature itself is a very cruel place, it is "our roots" (not that humanity can and should rise above animal roots, but it's harder when the biological process wants a little bit of animal stuff every now and then). Historically, vegan diets are a relatively recent invention, at least label wise (dating to around the 1940s). (Vegetarian diets, on the other hand, have deep roots. For instance, I understand that Buddhism aligns heavily with vegetarianism. But traditional Buddhist vegetarianism is some degree of lacto/ovo (allows dairy and eggs) typically, as far as I know.) The main way I see future humans looking at meat eaters with general disdain is if an acceptable substitute to "the protein issue", currently provided by factory farming, was developed. Like lab-grown meat, for instance.
 * The one aspect that I certainly see changing now is people noting that, though you need a little, you don't need that much meat in your diet, way less than the typical Western diet is today. From what I can gather, while vegan is kind of a niche and is not growing too fast, things like flexitarian diets ("eat more veggies") are growing rather popular. You can't change human nutritional needs, something I'm not sure the holier-than-thous understand, but you certainly can try to reduce your impacts (whether your desire is to reduce suffering or help the climate or even help your health). And a lot are trying, methinks. BobJohnson (talk) 13:35, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not a vegan myself but I feel that the topic of veganism is a good litmus test to how dogmatic a person actually is given that even self-described "skeptics" and "rationalists" will announce without any self-awareness how they will never change their mind in regards to eating meat (not in response to you Bob mind you). Though I should say most omnivores are not required meat eaters, appealing to these talking points about nature being cruel, etc. just runs against the appeal to nature fallacy pretty explicitly.  Dieticians are of agreement that "human nutritional needs" can be met with plant-based diets . The idea that we are morally or even physically required to eat meat is in fact a myth.  I mean a myth as of now tbf.  For our hunter-gatherer ancestors not so much given the limited access to food -- you took what you are able to get your hands on. But in a post-industrial society where food is produced aplenty it's not really that much of a requirement.  I think I would be less annoyed by this topic if proud meat-eaters were at least consistent with their moral views and openly embraced the possibility for themselves to eating cats, dogs, and even human beings. You can definitely prepare or be especially selective regarding human meat to drastically lower the risk of catching any diseases, i.e. avoiding eating the brain, cooking the meat, etc. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 19:22, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Remember, also that 'in the past' there were seasonal, class and other constraints which meant that certain groups of people were vegetarian or even vegan for at least part of the year (or week).
 * There are people now who are towards the vegan/vegetarian end of the flexitarian spectrum without necessarily considering themselves such (or are 'practical vegetarians' - so long as the foodstuff doesn't say it isn't will assume it is). Anna Livia (talk) 20:53, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * In some areas, does include dogs (or wild derivatives thereof). And cat (or wild derivatives thereof). Monkeys too. Pretty much anything. Some people still have limited access to "industrial food" for better or worse. Or, even if they do, "old habits die hard". So people eat it. Hell certain sects (eg the Aghori) have no problem with human flesh in limited circumstances. What repulses or is acceptable varies widely in the world. (We'll ignore the issues that come about because of bushmeat, such as zoonosis, for now...)
 * Also, note that I distinguished between vegan and vegetarian. The nutrition deficiency issues are more for the later, not the more flexible former. The biggie is B12, which as far as I know is derived chiefly from animal sources, so it is usually obtained from fortified products and supplements in a pure vegan diet. Failure to obtain enough could result in anemia. Not a problem in an industrial society with supplements, of course. Not even a problem if eggs or dairy is in your diet.
 * I've heard that some vegans (not the majority, but some) actually have no problem eating bivalves like oysters, because bivalves are pretty far from "life as we know it" (no central nervous system etc.), and some see them as not much different than plants. Again, "your mileage may vary" etc. BobJohnson (talk) 21:43, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * people eat dogs all over the place. its not super common but its a thing in more places than one would expect. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:11, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I was not talking about meat eaters acknowledging differing cultural standards, I mean as for yourself not being speciesist and being willing eat the "cute" animal too. To not have double-standards so as to be logically consistent. Also the ADA source I link includes veganism as a plant-based diet adequate enough to meet human nutritional needs. Most store bought soy milk is fortified with vitamin B12. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 23:19, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Speaking personally, I would "go with custom" as long as the cooking was safe. I don't have a problem eating "cute things" per se. For instance, rabbits are considered pretty cute. They are pretty common in the cuisine of certain Western cultures (eg France). The dishes were tasty. The same with (admittedly controversial) veal -- young cows are often considered cute. Lambs are considered cute, and super common in some cuisines. So if someone presented dog or something similar, I'd try it.
 * But I presented "other beliefs" because I don't think a dogmatic "you're not a *true* meat eater unless you are willing to eat humans!" is a helpful stance. What people eat and what people don't is personal and/or cultural. I personally would draw the line at eating humans except in absolute desperation. But in general I personally am not concerned enough about animal welfare to the point of avoiding meat. I have no problems for those that do, but I don't. I'm more of a "use what you kill!" type here... eg I don't mind the deer hunters stuffing their freezers with venison, but the trophy hunters can go to hell. With meat, there certainly is some "factory farm style" and industrial processing concerns, but it's not like going vegan will change these concerns much IMHO (there's still plenty of factory farm / industrial shit with veggies). I do think limiting meat is a healthier option, so I don't eat meat every day (though I do eat dairy and eggs daily). That's where I stand, in part. BobJohnson (talk) 00:22, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If you think I am arguing that "you're not a *true* meat eater unless you are willing to eat humans!" then you have no fucking clue what I am talking about. That's very obviously not my point. My point is that the moral justification for eating meat is logically inconsistent unless it's extended to every animal that meets one's criteria. If you say for example that "intelligence" is the relevant factor and you eat cows and pigs,  then logically other beings less intelligent then pigs or cows would be also morally permissible to eat (human babies anyone?).  If custom is your deciding factor to moral permissibility then yeah we know that some cultures actively partake in cannibalism, so by that logic by being a cultural custom...cannibalism is okay. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 00:35, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You are applying black and white moral logic to a subject where people think in shades of gray, I'm afraid. Under your absolutism, what is the distinction between eating animals and plants then? Plants are alive. BobJohnson (talk) 01:00, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think this is a pretty dumb response given I never stated my criteria for eating something was that it's not alive. Also I am pretty sure I already stated I reject objective morality and do not believe there is any inherent moral value in what one chooses to eat or not eat. I also am not simply talking about right or wrong but logical consistency. Nothing is inherently right or wrong in my view, but I am saying that your views on what is "right" is incoherent if not logically consistent. Black, white or grey is completely irrelevant. You may want to get your reading comprehension checked. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 01:26, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It be like talking to someone who states that murder is never permissible but also that murder is sometimes permissible. Such a view would necessarily have to be false, and as a social policy would be impossible to follow because it's inherently contradictory. It's incoherent. In order to effectively follow a set of social rules the rules have to be consistent.  If we cross out that murder is never permissible and replace it with something like "murder is permissible if under x conditions but not under y conditions" then that would be a "grey" moral system but also a logically consistent one. My point is is that most carnists are not working from a coherent perspective. I am literally the one who thinks cannibalism is in fact sometimes permissible. I am probably not the poster boy for moral absolutism here. Recall I am not vegan, so please don't project whatever stereotypes about said group on to me.  - Only Sort of Dumb (talk)
 * I understand there's a problem with exploitation that vegans want to avoid (more like limit entirely, see earlier point about farms exploiting child labor for picking fruits and vegetables) but I do think that unlike meat, I don't think there's anything inherently getting harmed in the process for eggs and milk so while eggs do get associated with male chick culling and milk gets associated with harming cows I do think the products themselves aren't products of harmed animals. I don't find strict veganism sustainable for your health besides supplements, seems too restrictive. I still do encourage not stopping meat but like have a meat-free day per week. 02:30, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

The 'protein issue' for veganism is basically a class one; if you're rich or middling income, yes you can afford to do it in an advanced part of the globe [two words; protein powder]. However, not if you're poor [said powders are double the price per gram of protein than the other, cheaper animal based sources].

It's guestimated that 'welfare-level' Britons spend 30% of their income on food. I've actually done an experiment semi-recently [details on request] which showed that about 35% of a very low food budget is 'animal proteins'. Extrapolating me actually paying full cost for stuff [it was a 'poverty challenge' and I was rooting through discount shelves etc] shows that would be perhaps 45%. I also know that vegan alternatives are perhaps 50% more than expensive than their animal variants. Therefore, I would guestimate that the poorest people in British society if they went vegan would result in their food shops going up by 22% and therefore, need an immediate pay-rise of about 7% to compensate.

One of the issues with veganism is when it collides with relatively 'mild' cuisines; particulary those of 'Germanic' or 'Slavic' origin. If you told me to eat [say] a 'traditional British' diet [and not allowed to resort to fakeries] for a year as a vegan, I think I would soon become very depressed as the diet would be so bland. We forget how much we rely on animal products to make stuff taste good [which is why going vegan requires some level of cooking re-education and a better skills-base].

It's been mentioned before, but not given [I think] enough weight; food is not just 'fuel/sustinance', it is enjoyment. It is celebration. It is socialisation. It's why almost nobody wants to live on human 'food pellets' and animals when given the choice normally go for the non-pellet foods. Homer Simpson was right in the main when he said 'you don't win friends with salad'. To paraphrase Lefty from above, 'but it tastes good' may suck as a rational argument but it's a damn persuasive one to the irrational 'id' which drives us like all other animals. And this is something anyone with experience of being poor gets; that it may be the only 'nice thing' in your day.

Oh, and I think I've found a vaguely-decent reason for not eating dogs/cats; they are predators. Most societies have some level of 'taboo' regarding that - for example, they are deemed to be 'unclean' [esp many are opportune scavengers and why did that thing die in the first place?]. They also often usually have 'gamey' tastes which at best is an 'aquirred taste'. KarmaPolice (talk) 05:32, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * protein not from animal sources isnt actually difficult to find on a budget, even if excluding dairy. you will however find your diet consisting of whole lot of pottage. traditional peasant fare. english peasants used to be largely vegetarian . meat was a luxury back in the day. the reason why the words for the flesh of cows and pigs come from french - beef and pork, is because french was the language of the ruling class and they ate the meat. the peasants looked after the animals though so the words for the livestock came from anglosaxon - the language of the people. these days though, we have rice to replace the grains medieval peasants would have been familiar with and spices are cheap and plentiful, so flavour. rice and peas is a staple the world over and you can get quite a bit of variety by what you add to it. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:56, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how true that is. Meat wasn't the thrice-a-day occurrence we seem to insist on today, but peasants did have access to eggs and dairy products.  Plus when it wasn't planting or harvest season, the peasants fished and hunted to some extent.  14:15, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * the lord of the manor would go hunting, the peasants would be hanged for poaching. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:22, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * and note i said 'largely' not exclusively vegetarian. and not vegan. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:24, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * There were common lands where the peasants were permitted to hunt, though obviously poaching did occur. It'd be foolish to prevent the peasants from hunting entirely, since again, you need archers.  20:31, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Which is the point, Gay - nobody wants to live on eternal pottage unless there's no fucking choice [I did my 'extreme poverty' challenge for two weeks and by the end I was bored as fuck, constantly craving taste and also had lost weight]. And pottage did often contain some animal products 'if available' [which for the middling/richer English peasants at least was 'sometimes'; milk, eggs, the friday fish, occasional chicken/pork etc as well as animals trapped/hunted, like pigeons and rabbits]. The gruel-type of pottage would have been for the truly destitute, who often were half-crippled with malnutrition and thus suseptable to disease [example; average European mediaeval night was 5'8' while the average modern ethnic European male is now 5'11'. This is even worse when you remember the knight would have been better-nourished than average and often physically 'the pick of the litter'].


 * But you do highlight another thing; meat consumption traditionally tallied for wealth [even animal product consumption, which was why UK schools used to give free milk and cod liver oil; a top-up of protein, omega-3 and calcium. I'm not ashamed in saying that as late as the '90s often the only time I saw 'actual meat' was school dinners]. You'd only not have meat if you couldn't afford it - the idea that meat would be plentiful in even fairly humble households is only something which came about in the advanced world at best three generations ago [or zero gen, in my case]. And as [I think] GMan pointed out recently, is something still being awaited in even not-poor nations like Brazil. KarmaPolice (talk) 23:27, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * i think a problem meat eaters can find when switching to a vegetarian diet and doubly so switching to a veggie diet on a budget is eaing habits are formed when you are a kid, and can take a life to change. if you as a children grew up with a roast on sunday, something with chicken the next day, a shephards pie on another, some gammon another time, and fish and chips on a friday, you grow up seeing in variety in meal that are all basically variations of meat and two vegs (potato always one the veg). you get used to meat being the primary flavour of your meals, and you have a weeks of dishes in memory that would give you a different meal each day without having to even think about it. you cut that meat, and your meals taste like the main part is missing, like you have the sides, or a sauce, but forgot to include the main. you are consciously aware you are missing something - the meat. the flavour and textures and the nutrient content of your meat free meals will be different, processed by your body expecting to process a significant portion of your calories from the meat that is not there. it wont signal that your sated, and if actually less calories than the meat, you might get weight loss (often a benefit for most people). and if you are familiar enough cooking without meat, you will struggle to find significant variety in the meals. early on it will be a chore. your body need time to get used food with different flavours to meat, where the nutrients provided are spread differently and absorbed/processed quicker than meat might be, and stop expecting the chunks of fat and protein its come to expect from years and years it being your body's primary fuel source so your body will know its not coming and signal that you are sated, stop telling you are hungry, and you start to get used to what full feels like without meat. you get used it over time, you get to know what is a portion size, what goes well with what, how to change things up, and learn to appreciate different flavours and what flavours trigger in your body that you are getting a meal. but early on its a chore. if you are on a budget, you are probably stressed in general. you miss the comfort of your old meat free dishes. you miss the flavour of bacon, of steak. you miss the roast potatoes and yorkshire that goes with a roast but not anything involving lentils. you feel run down because you are not used to less calories, or low on a vitamin or 2 because you have sussed on how to get variety without meat, or that proteins are not the nutrients that are hard to find when changing to a veggie diet.
 * its not that protein and variety are hard to come by, even on a budget, when switching to a vegetarian diet. its that you've spent years developing your eating habits, years expecting and craving certain flavours, certain textures, learning to love certain flavours. and you throw all that out the window when you forego meat. there is nothing about it, no flavours you really love, no tastes that you crave. probably tasty flavours, but they arent what you used to. its been a hard day. nothing you add to couscous makes it satisfying. there is nothing comforting you associate with this rabbit food. just have a steak. and meat is back on the menu.
 * eating habits, healthy or unhealthy, take years to form, years to break. most people trying vegetarian food for the first time, go cold turkey. its a major lifestyle change. in the western world, or at least the uk, and it seems more so in the us, most of us eat a hand fall of dishes day in day out. we know how to cook them, and we know what works with them. cooking as a hobby seems a recent development and experimenting with one new dish once in a while, is different to your whole diet. western society is centred around meat. vegetarian cuisine is alien to us, no tradition of it in society, or for us personally. its a shock to the system to change our diets. if you are not motivated in some way, its not going to take. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:26, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * its probably easier these days with more exposure of other cultures, and of course the internet. but for now you are swimming against the tide and you miss bacon. and how many of us get our five a day anyhow? we fucking hate vegetables. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:35, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Heh... veggies/vegans have a name of what you describe; 'breadatarians'. As in the 'well I just remove the meaty/animal stuff and eat the rest' crowd, thus normally involving folks living off mainly bulk carbs like bread. What's more, quite often people actually gain weight on this method because they normally increase said carbs to try to compensate for the protein loss, not realising that a) they need protein and b) protein actually has a higher 'satiety' level than carbs (ie keeps you fuller for longer).


 * The issue is that while you are right in 'proteins are not the nutrients that are hard to find when changing to a veggie diet' you do need to actually think about it, and what's more to even know how to think about it. At least in the UK, the average level of nutritional knowledge is dire and it's basically a matter of luck that the average 'traditional' diet is normally decent enough to fend off actual malnutrition [though I do suspect it's more common than you'd think, partly due to the simple fact simple calorific intake is not directly linked to both adequate macro/micro intakes]. However, as you strip out parts of the 'normal' diet you have to be more and more aware of the nutritional ratings as your 'diet base' is becoming slimmer. What's more, you have to be aware that sometimes alternatives aren't nutritional ones; a classic example being vegan 'milk' [often so bad doctors say to not give it to small kids, period]. KarmaPolice (talk) 07:43, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Have you ever actually looked at the labels for these kinds of products? I don’t know what “vegan ‘milk’” is supposed to be but most products like soy, almond, and coconut beverages are fortified with calcium, iron, vitamin b12, vitamin b6, etc. 1 serving of soy milk gives me 50% of my daily intake of vitamin b12. Omega 3 and 6 fatty acids are found in most cooking oils, flax seeds, nuts, etc. In regard to proteins you need about 60g’s worth daily if you are a man, and those proteins need to possess all 9 amino acids. I can achieve that without ever thinking about it given how abundant complete proteins are in things like soy, bread, etc. When I went vegetarian my doctor told me I literally had nothing to worry about and in the case of veganism the kinds of nutritional deficiencies vegans tend to have is in Iron, vitamin b12, and omega 6 fatty acids not proteins. Even then you almost have to actively avoid cooking oil, cereal, soy, and nuts to achieve such deficiencies. At the very least avoid brands that fortify their products. I personally am deathly allergic to nuts, but I cook with Canola oil. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 00:59, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes I have. And as that post is fron three years ago, can we also assume I've continued looking/learning after that, Dumb? [Example, I've been doing tests of vegan fake meats, milk etc]. And if I relied on bread to give me even half the slated 60g of protein it looks it would take seven slices of a 'white seeded' loaf. Also containing nearly 900 calories already, which is approaching half the daily needs for an office worker. But also by that point I've had about 3 grams of salt too, which means the other items consumed that day shall need to be watched more closely [because, another example most fake meats are very salt-laden, as a processed product].


 * Which was my point. A vegetarian diet is not that hard to do, but does require a bit of thought, planning etc. But again, my point was that the average Briton is so crap at this knowledge anyway they need to learn what the hell iron is. Then they need to learn what [for example], what the fuck you do with flax seeds - which was both mine and Gay's point. KarmaPolice (talk) 04:16, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

you know, i was trending toward veganism a few years ago. there are a number of reasons i just stuck with being a vegetarian. the crankery of vegan extremists was one of those things, ironically. fanatics need to learn that their idealism will only push people on the fence away from them. The G (talk) 06:14, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I feel like if one was a self-identified antispeciest they would have to oppose PETA, no?
If you are of the stance that speciesism is wrong and that animals should not get preferential moral consideration on the basis of species status alone then I would think unnecessary and and involuntary euthanasia is just a non-starter? Like we wouldn't accept that for human beings. Sorry I just noticed the user who made a bunch veganism related essays that seems weirdly defensive of PETA. They have an essay that explains speciesism and defends antispecieism and yet it seems you would have to be speciesist to accept the premise that it's okay for PETA to kill animals without adequate medical cause or without consent while also seemingly taking it that it would never be acceptable for human beings. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 20:53, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Identification as something is not the same as being that something. It's also possible to believe that both humans and nonhumans should be subject to involuntary death. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 21:11, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Feel free to clarify the difference then? Vee (talk) 21:20, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Identification is a relationship between some underlying reality and an observable indicator of that reality. For example, a driver's license identifies a person as having legal authorization to operate some kinds of motor vehicles on public roads. The card itself is not the same thing as having met the actual licensing requirements, but it indicates that that has been done. This relationship is not perfect, as perhaps the authorization to drive has been revoked for some reason (after which the card may still exist), or perhaps a fake ID has been made for some purpose (in which case the authorization may never have existed). In the case of self-identification as an anti-speciesist, self-identification would involve claiming to be or otherwise presenting oneself as an anti-speciesist. Actualy being an anti-speciesist would involve being opposed to the use of species membership as the basis for discrimination, or at least discriminatory treatment. Hence the question about an apparent mismatch between identification and underlying reality. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 22:56, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think this amounts to virtue ethics, which depend upon the character of the people professing them and not to some axiomatic system of thought. Some believe that their own moral character is a sufficient aegis for their judgement. I guess most people do.Ariel31459 (talk) 21:51, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * In my experience vegans more often than not stem from a utilitarian tradition influenced by the like's of Peter Singer; if they are not part of the intersectional tradition of veganism which hates Singer. The user I am referencing is definitely from that Singer camp as they frequently make reference to Singer's work Animal Liberation. Virtue Ethics would be a very strange way to approach veganism, and I would argue that it kind runs a foul tothe golden mean to be vehemently passionate about animals rights as to be off putting to others. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 01:37, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Update on the transition front: Bad news and good news
Went to the doctor today for a checkup and brought up gender identity (I was nervous enough to where my blood pressure spiked heavily). I could get hormones and surgery but here is the problem- I would have to go too far out to places with high crime rates. Ann Arbor and Flint can be dangerous.

To avoid the tedium of that, I will just live as a woman. Still a proud trans woman. --Sexy Trans Zombie (talk) 00:43, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I know you are. May all your gender wishes, whatever they may be, come true. Spud (talk) 02:56, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I personally don't think that is a deal breaker, unless it entails you having to relocate to Flint [or similar]. Going to a clinic for a few hour is rather different from being there in a residential area all day. Plus, this may be part of 'the test'. If you want it bad enough you will find a way. There are people in this world who while don't objectively wish to ban such things, do feel that it shouldn't be 'easy' to do. KarmaPolice (talk) 03:42, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * In my case, it is a deal breaker. I am content however. --Sexy Trans Zombie (talk) 13:34, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I too wouldn't walk alone late at night in Flint if I was a woman. 14:23, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Since when has medical appointments featured this? Make sure you get daytime appointments and plan it like you're pulling off an SAS mission. If getting there is the worry, work on making sure transport is 100% sorted [like if you don't have a car, getting one etc]. Or use the one in Ann Arbor - the place doesn't seem to be that bad and perhaps roughly comparable for most places of similar size. If you're simply too far away to both clinics, draw up a plan to get closer. Or pinpoint another one which suits.


 * Now, I'm not one to spout the 'if you want it hard enough you will find a way' or 'just try hard enough' mind-over-matter shite [I get folks 'agency' at times is very limited and I have no idea of your personal situation (nor do I desire to know either)] but generally speaking I've found that unless you're at least seen trying to achieve your long-term goal I suspect folks won't take it that seriously. I mean, let's put it in an unflattering, glib manner; 'Flint is sketchy, I give up'. KarmaPolice (talk) 15:13, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that your decision is possibly a very good sign, that you are capable of being happy with mental adjustment as an immediate strategy. I don't understand the delimitations of transitioning but I think your ability to make satisfactory decisions based upon the contingencies of your situation is very important. Ariel31459 (talk) 17:35, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Quick question
I’m recovering from a possible reinfection of COVID (likely got it last January). Thought about getting my heart checked for any risks. Reading about myocarditis might finally convince me to get Novavax, but it might be too little too late at this point. Patty  Pat  21:39, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * maybe not. you definitely don't want to be reinfected yet again. it's totally within the realm of possibility. i recommend novavax. i'm a little biased, though, because i'm one of their trial participants. The G (talk) 06:18, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Covid now seems to be endemic in our species now and there's no such thing as lifetime immunity [at the moment], so keeping your immunity topped up with vaccinations are at least something to seriously consider [I got my 2nd booster in Nov; Pfizer]. KarmaPolice (talk) 15:29, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Even then, my brother’s probably at higher risk. He got COVID at a faster rate, 4 times. Patty  Pat  05:26, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

house republicans making a fool of themselves again
we're only in the third week of the 118th congress and republicans have done very little more than make a fool of themselves since then. now they're trying to impeach the secretary of homeland security because they don't like how he's handling the situation at the border. look, the guy might or might not be doing a good job (i don't know enough to comment on that.). regardless, this is too much. i mean, what "high crimes and misdemeanors" is he committing?

anyway, i can't wait to see this blow up on their face. i hope the "on the fence" voters (and even some of the nonvoters) are taking notes. our tax dollars at work! The G (talk) 02:06, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the Republicans aren't sending their best. I mean, I assume some are good people, but they're really not sending their best to Congress. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 04:28, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Republicans are also trying to pass a bill to abolish the income tax and replace it with a 30% sales tax on everything. 09:13, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * And here comes the "debt ceiling" game again (on debt issues largely created by Republican tax tomfoolery, natch). Yawn. These CSpan reruns of the 1990s legislation television circus really tire, don't they? At least the government shutdowns (and we know one is gonna happen) are good for the animals, like the elephant seals of Point Reyes.BobJohnson (talk) 14:53, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I really fucking wish we could just get rid of the debt ceiling shit. All it does is let the dumbest fucking assclowns in Congress hold the world economy hostage. 15:01, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Obama had a filibuster-proof congress and massive control of the house; if he so ordained, he could've made the debt ceiling "1000 Quadrillion". They didn't do it then, because the debt ceiling is all part of the theatre.  15:34, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That's a bit of hindsight bias, as the debt ceiling wasn't this huge partisan issue until the Republicans made it as such in 2011. Plutocow (talk) 15:50, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * (EC) I'm inclined to say that a expenditure ceiling works better than a debt ceiling. Many countries have an expenditure ceiling, and it seems to work better than a debt ceiling. It would also at least force the US to choose better where to spend money. It is a dangerous choice (the Congress can decide that the millitary is more important than education and healthcare, for instance), but I assume they wouldn't be so stupid. Anyway, this is a good discussion and there is no easy way out. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 15:55, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This paper is a bit old, but it's still an interesting view on the the advantages and shortcoming of expenditure ceilings. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 15:58, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * ”It is a dangerous choice (the Congress can decide that the millitary is more important than education and healthcare, for instance), but I assume they wouldn't be so stupid.”


 * Why should we assume that Congress, especially one where the GOP has a majority, wouldn’t”be so stupid”? Considering that sizeable and vocal factions within the GOP has actively been targeting these very areas, as well as social security, an expenditure ceiling might just give them the excuse they are looking for.


 * Hell, I wouldn’t even be all that surprised if some Democrats went along in returns for some token concessions to be touted as “not as bad as the GOP had originally intended”-style of bipartisanship. These Democrats would then try to sell this as Clinton era style “welfare reforms”.


 * Oh, and btw, I really hope I’m being too pessimistic here in terms of both my view of Congressional stupidity and Democratic mendacity. ScepticWombat (talk) 17:16, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, you convinced me. I dunno what can we do then. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 17:18, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Sigh, I really hoped there was something I’d not considered, because it is a rather dim view of the state and prospects of US policy. As an outside observer, I am open to the idea that there are factors I have not considered that could mitigate my rather depressing interpretation.


 * However, after I posted, I also realised that there was actually a precedent for the debt ceiling brinkmanship of 2011 mentioned above: Dubya’s emergency bailout and stimulus (TARP etc.) as the shit hit the fan in 2008 was only passed through Democratic votes in Congress. Dubya couldn’t even find the votes within his own party to support his emergency package in the face of the most dire economic crisis since the Great Depression. That was arguably a more troubling precedent than the 2011 game of chicken, because it couldn’t even be put down to the GOP stonewalling a Democratic White House. ScepticWombat (talk) 17:33, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * In 2011, Obama "took the bait" and made some concessions in order to raise the debt ceiling. But that was when Republicans were seen as relatively sane. The Republicans tried again in 2013 to play the same shit, and from what I recall, Obama did not budge. Things have only gotten *more* acrimonious since, and I would be very surprised if Obama's VP and other Democrats concede anything, personally. In all of these shitshows, polls have (correctly) tended to blame Republicans for these shenanigans. This means very little, politically (despite the noise), however, I do think it will mean something if Republicans actually manage to tank the economy with their tomfoolery.
 * Side note: The Orange One hath appeareth today, and he hath commandeth to Republicans: don't touch Medicare or Social Security. Sorry, Rick Scott. BobJohnson (talk) 18:22, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No government shutdown has ever been triggered by the Dems and the debt ceiling only is a problem for the GOP when a Dem is in the WH. They raised it at least 3 times for Trump with nary a complaint. And that was after they added $1.7 trillion to the deficit with their terrible tax cuts in 2017.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 22:50, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * even the national review has blasted (article from 2018) republicans for conveniently forgetting about spending under republican presidents (though predictably from their own biased pov). The G (talk) 00:44, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You're going to need a source that says not a single government shutdown was initiated by Democrats. I'm no Trump fan, but this does reed as leftist propoganda to me. Not that I want to have to come out of retirement to say this. The user who used to be known as Andrew5, who has since retired and left this comment as 47.16.96.33 (talk) 13:47, 25 January 2023 (UTC).
 * It's not true (see ) but at the same time, true on analysis of the significant shutdowns. The significant shutdowns being:
 * A) The 1995-1996 government shutdowns, basically a posturing hissyfit by Republicans and specifically Newt Gingrich.
 * B) The 2013 shutdown, basically Republicans getting into a hissyfit over the Affordable Care Act.
 * C) The 2018-2019 shutdown, basically Trump getting into a hissyfit over his border wall. BobJohnson (talk) 14:50, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I just was getting to this and you provided the source I was planning on using.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:00, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Arielle Scarcella Does Not Play Well With Others
Jubilee is a group dedicated to discussions with people of opposite beliefs. On their latest debate-thingy, which was about whether feminism should include Transwomen, they included Arielle Scarcella... who acted incredibly aggressive and domineering to everyone else in the group. Constantly interrupting, and virtually every question and prompt basically turned into a Trans issue for her regardless of context. Assuming that the editing isn't too extreme... Ariella is. I don't think that Ariella is technically transphobic considering her earlier work is of things like "this is what a Trans person's crotch looks like", but she's gone past simply being a TERF to "trans-hatric" (transmisiac? misotransic?) as well. 15:20, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The fact bi women are also on her naughty list makes me suspect the ultimate cause may be simple misandry. However, I'd not be comfortable putting her in this category until someone finds evidence of a general dislike of males. KarmaPolice (talk) 16:18, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure she hates men in general. I'm not even sure she's actually a Lesbian so much as she hates the idea of sex with anyone who is a man, was a man, or sleeps with men.  I'm not sure what that even is, but it's not exactly "Lesbian".  18:39, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That does sound like something a misandrist would say, is it not? And there's a difference between 'not liking the idea of X' and 'not liking the idea that X exists'. It took me some time to realise this, but I've personally noticed a decent overlap between TERFdom and generally, thinking poorly of men in general. Thus I wonder if she falls into this grouping. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:18, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, yes. All extremists will hide behind more moderate-sounding rhetoric, but said rhetoric isn't in itself outright wrong.  19:40, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * A distrust of bi women can also be a product of simple biphobia. Bi people are often stereotyped as being slutty, less faithful with their partners, vectors for spreading HIV, etc. This not something unique to those in the lesbian community. I been on the receiving end of biphobia in circles of gay men. There is an overlap between transphobia and biphobia in what is referred to as monosexism.  Monosexism is the belief that sexual orientation and sexual identity can only go "one way" with automatic distrust of any identity that can be classified as non-binary whether in gender identity, sexual orientation, or even in some cases of physical sex. This where you get gay and lesbians accusing bisexuals of "really" being homosexual and simply lying to themselves. It also overlaps with a lot of transmedicalism and distrust of enbies.  That if you are to be trans at all it must to be to transition to the "opposite sex™" -Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 23:16, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Do those stereotypes have any truth behind them; do bisexual women/men have more lifetime partners on average, and are they more or less likely to contract HIV than "monosexuals"? 01:59, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Generally speaking, stereotypes for 'promiscuity' don't have much truth in them. Male homosexuals were long assumed to be due to some very wonky [sometimes deliberatly so] stats from the 70s [like asking guys at gay saunas, which included sex workers] which then played hard into the victim-blaming drive of HIV in the 80s [handy, that]. From what stats I've seen [at least for the UK] is that homosexuals do seem to have a larger number of lifetime partners, long-term relationships etc but not to a significantly higher rate than hetros. As for bisexuals... it's only recently they got put into a disctinct group for survey purposes. I've not seen any results yet but my gut says 'not really different'; just because you like guys and girls don't automatically make you want to sleep with everyone, or 'easy'.


 * As for HIV... well, that is very situational. It basically all depends on your locality and where the majority of the cases lie in the population. The only stat I've really seen on this one is that female-female sexual transmission is apparently very low. KarmaPolice (talk) 15:21, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * "not to a significantly higher rate than hetros (sic)"? Don't be so sure about that. I don't believe gay men are "naturally sluts", rather than simply being it's far, far easier for a someone to find a guy that's DtF than a girl; it's probable that if girls had the same proclivities as guys, straight men would have similar numbers of partners.
 * As for HIV, female-female transmission is extremely rare, with only a handful of cases ever documenting it and even then, it's possible some people lied. Even when it comes to penetrative sex, according to the CDC the risk of catching HIV from insertive penile-vaginal intercourse is 1 in 2500.  Receptive OTOH is 1 in 1250, anal insertive 1 in 900, and anal receptive 1 in 72.  So for the disease argument, yeah, L's would have "legitimate" reason to fear/hate B's, assuming that B's have the same number of partners as L's.  But G's should have less fear of the B's, unless B's have unprotected sex with more significantly more partners than the G's, which I don't believe to be the case.  If there is a "valid" reason for G's to dislike B's, it's only if the G is looking for a longterm relationship whereas the B is just looking for a bit of fun; that's one of the reasons some Black women refuse to date White guys, because a lot of White guys will, for a Black woman, get down on both knees but never just one.  20:11, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * For the most part fears of HIV-spread was pushed by magazines like Cosmopolitan for reasons that straight women should fear bisexual men as romantic partners and lingering dating discrimination persists to bi men to this day. You also have to remember that the knowledge we have about HIV now is not the knowledge we had during the AID's crisis. My uncle who lived through the AID's crisis and is a nurse had to care for his dying ex because other healthcare professionals were scared that any physical contact may lead to the transmission of AIDS. Female-to-female transmission is really rare but that probably was not common knowledge until later or when it was declared a "gay man's disease". You can be a bisexual woman who has had anal sex (as a bottom) with a bisexual man and your odds would be very similar to a bottoming man. Alternatively you may be assumed to be slutty for being bisexual and assumed therefore to be more likely to have an STI. Biphobes could also be distrustful of bisexual women on the basis they think they are in denial about being gay and won't "fully commit"- Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 22:08, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * As seen in the, data about promiscuity is all over the place, and especially when relating to smaller data set (eg homosexual or bisexual populations). I don't think you can make any great generalizations with the data that I see, there is a *lot* of bias in this sort of survey (classic example: historically at least, females have always reported having less lifetime sexual partners than men; there's a general thought that women under-report and men over-report for rather obvious social reasons). Getting good data will be much trickier than normal. A lot of the "homosexual biphobia" that I've seen at least in various tidbits over the years (which others have alluded to) boils down to two thoughts: A) The "you're really not bi" angle, notably promoted by some people like Dan Savage who thought that people could only swing one way or another, and B) a sort of jealousy that bisexuals can "pass" in today's heteronormative society. I really don't recall seeing STDs come up very much, I can easily see this sort of thing happening during the HIV moral panic, but I don't remember anything of late. (Could be faulty memory though.) BobJohnson (talk) 22:23, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * There was a little bit during monkeypox last year, if I recall - that bi folks would be 'superspreaders' in the straight population and similar [which on the plus side, was at least more medically accurate than 'you can get AIDs from looking at them' shite of the 80s]. But bi/pan folks weren't mentioned in this period because basically, we didn't exist. The two tropes going about then was basically hetros in 'situational homosexuality' locales or closeted homosexuals in hetro relationships. Monkeypox [at least in the UK] at least showed a lot of the learned lessons from HIV for public health; focusing on the vector [close personal contact with multiple persons] rather than the stereotype person [gay males in the hookup scene].


 * As for stats... I suspect to some extent, the homosexual male number is inflated due to the historical social taboo towards it. Long-term relationships were under much more strain ['minority stress'] and thus, broke down quicker. Many were forced to live in levels of 'closetness' [example; Don't Ask, Don't Tell only repealed in 2010] and thus ended up more having a handful of rando sexual encounters a year than many more with the same person.


 * This might have formed a level of 'subculture socialisation'; that gay bars became more and more simple hookup spaces and not the traditional refuges from a often-hostile mainstream [a bit like how the British pub went from being a kind of 'public front room' you could spend an evening with a couple of pints with your friends to a simple drinking-shop]. And that a level of 'liberation' came about it; the Smalltown Boy came up to 'The Smoke' and discovers they're not the Only Gay In 'Village. Bit like when Uni students first discover they have some cash, a functional ID for the offie and sans parents and the result is akin to 'Homer's Night Out'. And if enough do that, you get to believe that is 'normal behaviour'.


 * Lastly, we need to remember that there are lots of factors which increase/decrease sexual activity - from being sporty/athletic to whether you smoke. Find a guy who works out, is slim, lives in a major city, participates in at least one sport regulary and does creative writing and they're much more likely to be getting more, regardless of who they wish to get. [And guess which groups smoke more; LGBT]. KarmaPolice (talk) 07:37, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

anyone here have some hardbass songs i can have?
i can't find any on yt i like or haven't allready heard Wheelson ( professor grug arc ) (talk) 19:12, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think he makes hardbass exactly, but ever heard of Ebimayo? MirrorIrorriM (talk) 21:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * i'll give him a look Wheelson ( professor grug arc ) (talk) 19:17, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Warr Guitar, chapman stick, very odd time signatures. Heavily influenced by Robert Fripp. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DiLpG-O6As Cardinal Chang (talk) 21:45, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Or, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8eUyaF_RcI Joe dart grooving on the chicken neck Cardinal Chang (talk) 21:45, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * OR a lesson in playing you ain't gonna grasp, T.M. Stevens (poor guy now has dementia, and has possibly forgotten more bass techniques today than most will learn in a lifetime. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgXJzzJFNFs Cardinal Chang (talk) 21:45, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, there are no bass guitars in the hard base genre. It is an EDM subgenre.  Here is an example of it.   MirrorIrorriM (talk) 14:23, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I keep reading this as "hard ass songs". Spud (talk) 12:06, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Prevent Elected Leaders Owning Securities and Investments (PELOSI) Act
In a case of massive trolling, Senator Josh Hawley put forth the aforementioned proposal, to ban congresscritters and their mates from trading stocks and other securities. The name is an obvious riff on Speaker Pelosi, whose husband has made a larger number of lucrative stock market and options trades over the years. Of course, her husband is hardly the only one, and it's not just one party "allegedly" doing insider trading, so this act is unlikely to go anyway. The founding fathers were concerned about the elected officials enriching themselves, which is why one of the 12 proposed amendments included a rule that representative's pay increases could only take place after the following election; this proposed amendment did not make it into the bill of rights, but due to a series of scandals, it did manage to become the 27th amendment. Even if you don't believe that your favorite representative or senator is doing insider trading, you can probably agree they shouldn't be doing something that looks identical to insider trading, which is why it was controversial when Trump broke with tradition and didn't put his investments into a blind trust. 15:51, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * For the record, there's zero evidence whatsoever that Mr Pelosi did a thing wrong re: stock trading. KarmaPolice (talk) 16:33, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * "For the record, there's zero evidence whatsoever that Mr Pelosi did a thing wrong illegal re: stock trading."
 * Fix'd for you.
 * Hmm... I think I've got an idea for a new poll. 16:53, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If OpenSecrets is right, Hawley is a *big* fan of mutual funds, at least a few years ago.
 * Methinks he is trolling, yes. One knows what to do with trolls. BobJohnson (talk) 17:23, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, illegal, not wrong. They're not the same thing. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:38, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * So can we agree that congresscritters shouldn't be allowed to trade stocks, because among other reasons, it's indistinguishable from insider trading? It wouldn't be the first thing we made illegal because it's difficult/impossible to distinguish the legal from the illegal (e.g., the ivory trade and a lot of the laws regarding sex).  17:46, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * A) We already have the . You can't use private information to trade stocks if you are a member of Congress. The contents of this act seem reasonable to me.
 * B) Notice that the text of the PELOSI Act *specifically* excludes "diversified" treasuries, mutual funds, ETFs, or (head scratcher) "compensation from the primary occupation of a spouse or dependent of a Member of Congress". (No love for municipal bonds, Hawley? For shame, tsk tsk.) I actually don't disagree with this per se, it's just funny given Hawley's purported investment style.
 * C) I'd like to hear some further commentary on this from those "more connected" with the finance world on whether this is necessary. Personally I'm not sure that the political class is "inside baseball" enough to worry *too* much about insider trading. Might be wrong, but it's hard to tell when reports are mainly coming from non-serious sources like the Daily Mail and Newsmax. It seems like most media is not taking this bill too seriously. BobJohnson (talk) 18:09, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The STOCK act still allows trading (as well as allowing your spouse to trade for you), whereas this act would ban all trading entirely. But yes, this act is just a stunt, which is a shame because I would otherwise demand we have this.  18:17, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps ironically [coming from a socialist] I don't. 'Trading' is such a vague term and it would put off businesspeople from entering politics [or even a person who simply holds some stocks, like in say a family company]. I am not in the finance world or American, but I know enough about politics/economics to know that 1) insider trading is illegal and 2) suspect using private information to do the previous as an elected official is already cause to be impeached/expelled/removed.
 * So not for the first time, I strongly suspect what is needed is not new laws, but simply the existing ones to be enforced better. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:29, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The problem is insider trading is difficult to prove; everyone knows David Purdue and Kelly Loeffler did it, but they never faced any consequences (besides it arguably playing a role in their defeat). Besides, it's kind of difficult to trade stocks in Congress without having insider information, as you will know of any potential regulations or large-scale events like wars well in advance. Furthermore, owning stocks is basically a conflict of interest as an elected official, as for instance if you own stock in Exxon you're probably not going to support investments in renewable energy. Finally, elected officials have a lot of power anyway and stocks are a minor thing to have to give up. There would still need to be more reforms to address things like lobbying, but I think preventing elected officials from trading stocks can only be a good thing. Plutocow (talk) 18:44, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That's why "diversified assets" are allowed; if you own an index fund, you do well only if the entire market does well, i.e., you do your job as congresscritter. It doesn't help you to prop up one company at the expense of the others, at least not directly.  There does come a question of whether the index or mutual funds become a conflict as they become more specialized; if you have an index fund in American car manufacturers, you still have a massive incentive to increase tariffs or sabotage public transit initiatives even if you don't favor one company over another.  19:15, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

The PELOSI Act is clearly overbroad, particularly with treasuries. Hawley, a grandstander and no fool, must know this since it would exclude nearly every investment of his own. Getting businesspeople, particularly those with no experience in governing, out of the federal government is a good thing. Evidentially, they often want to run government like a corporation, i.e. an autocracy. Bongolian (talk) 19:20, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You draw a line, and folks shall simply learn how to game it. Simple as. Can't hold shares while in office? Oh, I'll just hand it over to wife/husband/sibling/cat for the duration and so on. And shareholders aren't all 'businesspeople' - some of them shall be professional persons who either through work, sideline investing and/or inheritances have some shareholdings. And while I don't like the worship of businesspeople which is particulary evident in the USA, I'll admit I'm not a huge fan of a professional political class either. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:38, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The act specifically excludes the spouses of congresscritters from trading either. It doesn't stop them from handing it over to the kids to manage, but there's significant legal differences between a child and a spouse, for the same reason your wife winning the lottery is a bit different than your son-in-law winning the lottery.  19:45, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This is what blind trusts are for. Otherwise it shall always be The Servant of Two Masters, the government and personal interests. Bongolian (talk) 20:07, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I mentioned those when I mentioned Trump. Draining the swamp, what a joke.  20:14, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I like the fact you think blind trusts work. I hold to the maxim that if people want to 'self-enrich' while in office, they are going to find some way of doing it. That again, the answer is not more laws but better enforcement of existing laws. KarmaPolice (talk) 05:05, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I mentioned this before, the proudest I've ever been to be 'murrican happened 14 years ago, when Blagojevich was caught selling Obama's seat and ended up getting removed from office and thrown in prison. Because it proved that we in the US had limits to the amount of corruption we'd tolerate.  But society has changed so much since then; we seem to be living in the "post-truth" era where facts simply don't matter anymore.  14:18, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

anyone tired of this obnoxious talking point?
"Being apolitical is a sign of privilege". That is the opposite of the (easily available) statistical reality. It's literally the affluent bourgeois types who are obsessed with voting and politics. The "underprivileged" are by the far the most likely to be not political at all and don't vote. If anything, caring about politics is a result of being too privileged to have any real life concerns. Also, if you're poor you know that nothing changes no matter what happens politically so why give a fuck? NAE234 (talk) 22:09, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I would argue that not voting and and engaging in electoral politics does not make one apolitical. For example some indigenous youth refuse to vote for reasons relating to not wanting to legitimize the political system of white settlers in preference to their own traditional indigenous political systems. There the reasons for “not voting” is deeply political, in political aims related to decolonization. Politics is in essence a kind of ethics; ethics specifically relating to the distribution of power and who or what should have it. It’s also sort of naive to think “politics” has no bearing on “real life concerns”. It was a product of politics that lead to the holocaust. It’s quite literally about life or death. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 22:51, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Even when people refuse to vote for essentially political reasons, they get accused of being "privileged". For instance" the "Bernie or Bust" people were accused of being privileged middle class white guys and "if they were poor minorities they would be voting like their life depends on it". I know Glenn Greenwald isn't popular around here, but he is absolutely correct about the absurdity of this rhetoric: https://theintercept.com/2020/04/09/nonvoters-are-not-privileged-they-are-largely-lower-income-non-white-and-dissatisfied-with-the-two-parties/ NAE234 (talk) 22:59, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Nah I’m in the “if you don’t vote, don’t bitch” camp. 23:18, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This sort of assumes everyone who can bitch can vote. That isn’t really true in the place like the US both currently and historically. If anything that is a deeply privileged attitude. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 23:27, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Prisoners, undocumented migrants, many people with disabilities, psychiatric patients, etc. Historically to you have voter suppression laws against black people and other minorities. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk)
 * Also to tell indigenous people they can’t complain about colonialist violence unless they vote in white settler elections has some deeply colonialist implications and actively demands them to partake in the very institutions that attempted genocide against their people... which is uh...gross — to say the least. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 23:35, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd think that the apolitical accusation is better leveled at people who choose to support platforms that do real harm under the guise of doing things that "make sense". This is only really true of the USA, but there is a growing contingent of people who claim to be 'independent' but are actually more loyal partisans than people who identify with a specific party.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:37, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * "if you're poor you know that nothing changes no matter what happens politically so why give a fuck?"
 * I certainly do not advocate cynicism as an excuse for not voting. The argument goes, you don't vote, people who pursue harmful policies will take advantage of that fact. This claim of "you're too poor for policies to matter" is not true either, just a platitude that has an undercurrent of "same thing both sides". Look at the recent midterms and their hair-thin margins which made ALL the difference between win and lose, majority minority. Look at the margins Trump was able to exploit so he could get a Supreme Court outlawing Roe v Wade and trigger a ripple effect across several stages barring abortion access to the degree there was a highly publicized news story about a girl who couldn't get access to abortion 02:13, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The talking-point is a load of shit, on the simple basis that many FPTP systems shall have great swathes of the population who are de jure disenfranchised simply because they reside in 'safe seats'. If [for example] you're a left-of-centre type residing in a Tory shire and every ballot paper you see has the Tory sitting on 15% majorities, yeah I can get why you've become cynically apolitical. That cuts across socioeconomic lines. KarmaPolice (talk) 02:58, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * As somebody who lives in a... "deep red state" does not quite do it justice, I would like to second what karma police said. Besides, voting is not the be all and end all of politics.-Flandres (talk) 03:52, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It really isn’t and I appreciate it being said. There are things the populace can do besides voting to push political change. The establishment of mutual aid networks, workplace organizing, direct-action focused protesting, general strikes, dual-power organizing, volunteering with decolonization groups, threatening private property, etc. One thing I have to give some credit towards is the degree to which some climate activists realize this and utilize disruptive protesting to their advantage. Unfortunately not to the degree that is effective, but if significantly larger or disruptive in demonstration —- it definitely could be. It would help if the mainstream populace didn’t do so much to demonize such activity. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 05:04, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Define 'politics'. In my experience, I know quite a few people define 'politics' as in 'being a member of a poliical party, watching political debate programmes, helping candidates elected etc'. A lot of poeple do ultimately 'do politics' but it's the small-p type, often single-issue and/or very local. For example, a lot of people wouldn't consider joining a trade union 'political' except in very general terms. KarmaPolice (talk) 05:17, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I already have in an earlier post. I would probably want to point out as well that most people have not taken a political science course. Most self described socialists would for sure see joining a trade union as political. If what you say regarding politics was only in regard to parties, candidates, etc. Then most political philosophy from Hobbes to Marx wouldn’t be political philosophy. Plato’s republic wouldn’t be a politic work. Most political history wouldn’t be about politics, and politics would be a relatively recent invention. History is full of emperors and monarchs who were never elected. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 07:42, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If Democrats in Kansas had this attitude we’d have an abortion ban right now. 08:35, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If you'd like to be pedantic, you can say 'politics' was only invented in the 1930s with the first advent of television, Dumb. The truth is that 'politics' is such a wide multi-disciplinary subject that to be 'truly apolitical' in this case would require you to have nil opinions of basically, anything of importance [with the possible exception of some 'hard' sciences and the arts, and even then you'd have to be careful]. I am going with the assumption that the OP's using the rather narrow definition of 'politics' [which sometimes people refer to as 'Big P politics' or 'Party Politics']. KarmaPolice (talk) 08:50, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That’s precisely why I don’t agree with OP’s premise. The people makimg the claim of apoloticality being a product of privilege are often referring to that little p politics relating to social policies typically targeted at folks who naively see themselves without political bias. At least in my experience. In many leffy spaces the talking point is “apolitical is a inherently political stance and thus incoherent”. No doubt that follows the logic I been utilizing. Almost no one can be said to be truly apolitical — though people will sometimes claim to be such as if they are above politics in the broad sense not just in the narrow sense relating elections and political parties. To talk of non-voters and folks who are apolitical is to talk about different types of people. Most anarchists do not engage in electoral politics, but they almost never self-identify as apolitical. Quite the opposite really. I would also hardly call the actions of indigenous protestors engaging in direct action by blocking highways, or the inane discourse regarding “culture wars” to be something different from politics. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 11:01, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe I don't move in the right circles (or live in the right country). But is the argument "Being apolitical is a sign of privilege" really common?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 11:53, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Andrew Henderson followed politics and was actively involved in politics to some extent, but he decided to become apolitical and spend that time focusing on his business and he doesn't regret his decision. I hope he has decided to be philanthropolical with some of his business profits. Schminte (talk) 14:02, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * this article dispels that claim outright. and if that's not enough (the article is written by glenn greenwald, so ymmv), turnout was noticeably lower in florida in this last election (2022) compared to 2018. in other words, part of the reason republicans won fl in a blowout is because many voters stayed home. those voters tended to be independent, left-leaning, working-class and minority who are disillusioned with both parties. (n.b. the fl democratic party is quite dysfunctional, to which our own article attests. this doesn't mean that if fl dems were more competent and organized, they would've won, as republicans have been mobilizing in the state in recent years; the dems probably would have lost regardless, just not as badly.)


 * so no, it's not true that "only privileged people don't vote," and whoever says that is an idiot (or simply ignorant of the facts). The G (talk) 14:29, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * DeSantis winning Florida is gonna have horrible consequences for millions of people with all of the batshit policies he’s pushing and will push. 15:04, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I watched a few documentary videos like Who Rules America and Manufactured Consent and have come to the conclusion that national politics is heavily controlled by the military-financial complex. WWII caused the military complex to have an outsized influence. Post WWII prosperity and consumerism gave much power to corporations and bankers/financiers. Schminte (talk) 15:29, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Military Industrial Complex is bad, but not I think the sole reason for all government decisions. I sense a troll.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 18:00, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Chomsky states similar ideas but he doesn't frame it as "bankers/financiers" but international corporate interests often with the miltary serving the means of imposing foreign policy to the benefit of the international business class. This linked youtuber framing it as a financers/bankers gives some antisemitic overtones. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 20:00, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * "Bankers/Financiers" has always been code for "Jews". The "bankers" as an actual class rather than a dogwhistle rarely make out like bandits from wars; it's all well and good to force countries deeper into debt, but you can't collect interest from governments that collapse entirely.  Now, the financier-class does have a crapton to answer for when it comes to, e.g., using their finances to buy up the homes and push the middle classes into becoming a permanent renter underclass.  They have a lot to answer for when it comes to assisting people in avoiding taxes.  But not wars.  21:23, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Except when it's not. I mean, there was a lot of 'anti-Banker' feeling within the UK post 2007 [for good damn reason] but it rarely bled into anti-Semitism. Anti-banker rhetoric in developing nations is much more likely to be xenophobic in nature [as said bankers are most likely to be foreigners, mainly Europeans/Americans] - many a populist has played the race/colonialist card [again, with some damn good reason]. It can also be argued that bankers do indirectly cause wars by amongst other things, creating the economic situation where preachers of hate and violence can flourish, as well as those who directly fund companies who shall do well out of conflicts. They can also lengthen wars by providing large loans to keep a country fighting longer than they would have if it was off their own resources alone [a main reason for the 1990 invasion of Kuwait; Iraq had racked up a colossal debt-pile fighting the Iranians in the 1980s and 'needed' Kuwait's economic resources to hopefully offset this]. KarmaPolice (talk) 04:43, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * For the record, the Who Rules America? documentary video on the military-financial complex having an outsized influence on politics is based on the best-selling sociology book authored by tne mainstream academic G. William Domhoff. The full name of the second link I shared is Manufacturing Consent Noam Chomsky and the Media (Documentary). Neither of the documentaries are anti-semitic in nature. Schminte (talk) 06:07, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The Kuwait invasion was rather interesting. Basically, nearly the entire Arab world had backed the Iraqis against the Iranians, because the Ayatollah had made the mistake of allowing the Iranian Revolution to turn into a Persian/Shia Supremacist movement; this made all the Arabs a bit nervous.  Iraq, which had only half the population as Iran, invaded while they thought the Iranians were in disarray.  But they made the mistake of being Arabs.  From west of Iran.  For context, Persian identity had been of a people who had been conquered from the west by Arabs and forced to convert, but they had managed to hold onto their cultural heritage regardless.  So suddenly everyone in Iran unites, the Iranians put a halt to their purges of the military, and the war is on.  The US backs Iraq... but then secretly backs Iran in exchange for funding terrorism in Latin America; fuck Reagan.  Israel actually backs the Iranians, because geopolitics.  Germany of all fucking countries supplies Iraq with nerve gas, though the rest of the Western world isn't innocent.  Eventually, the war ends with no borders changed, except for a million people dead.  Iraq somewhat rightfully is pissed off at the rest of the Gulf countries who were perfectly happy to let Iraq do their dirty work, and they send a message to the US asking for permission.  The US diplomats are home for the weekend and the staff sends a bland response, so Iraq mistakes this as a sort of "no but really yes", and so they invade.  Saudi Arabia is terrified they are next, and, well, half the world invades Kuwait to kick out Saddam.  Only it just absolutely infuriates the Arab world who didn't particularly care for the Kuwait assholes but did NOT appreciate the US killing other Arabs and using their holy lands to launch those attacks, which leads to Osama and Al Qaeda...  07:01, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If voting didn't do anything, then Republicans wouldn't be trying to ban it or make it very hard. And to those who say, "it's honorable that indigenous people don't vote since they don't legitimatize the white government", I'm not sorry when I say, that is a very ineffective action to take. You can participate in voting and still fight for your rights. Why not vote strategically? And spare me talk of generational trauma or oppression, as far as I'm concerned, that isn't a reason to not vote, it's a reason to vote as much as you can. A persistent, consistent minority can make a big splash in elections than democracy haters would ever give it credit for.-Ryan1257 (talk) 21:37, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * When people state it doesn’t do anything they typically mean it doesn’t make the sort of changes they desire in a political system or really that the changes they desire are impossible through voting. Condescendingly telling indigenous people their preferred political action is ineffective seems on the face of things kind of absurd because it is not as if voting can effectively abolish the white settler state. It’s also just false if Canada is anything to go by. Indigenous people have a long protest history in the use of economic direct action that has hurt industries, garnered public attention and support, and has forced government responses due to creating a crisis. To say x is “ineffective” is the same annoying ass thought-terminating cliché as simply stating something isn’t “practical. It’s an empty signifier when there is no defined metric to what the action is supposed to be effective towards, and that is determined by a predefined goal.  Indigenous people don’t necessarily share the same goals as white democrats. Which political party is going to dismantle the existing system towards the aim of decolonization? The master ain’t going to provide the tools for you to tear down his house. The republican’s voter-suppression behaviour isn’t because they fear that the democrats are going to dismantle white supremacy. They do it because they know minorities vote democrat for social security, and they can win more seats in power by preventing that. They are acting in their own rational self interest in trying to outperform the competition by essentially cheating.  The democrats are not going to dismantle existing governments and replace them with the systems of indigenous governance, they are not going to work towards prison abolition, defund the police, or establish workplace democracy. There is no actual third party option here, and popular vote can be freely ignored by members of the electoral college in many states. “Democracy haters” is a rich thing to call people who demand direct democracy over a faulty representative pseudo-democracy.   - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 22:44, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I was trying to say voting is a tool to use to affect change and to ignore it is a stupid tactic.-Ryan1257 (talk) 06:41, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * but only certain kinds of changes, which are not always universally desired and sometimes when made the focus is at the expense of other methods that can induce different kinds of changes that voting can’t. Voting won’t change the power dynamics of one’s workplace in redistributing power from the capitalist class to workers, and it’s unlikely to do things like de-commodify housing. These sorts of thing require mass action only achievable through worker and community organizing. The existing political parties largely exist in service to the business owning classes, who only concede rights to workers if it keeps them from being radicalized or strike. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 09:43, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * i, myself, am one to believe that your political opinions (quite literally) don't count if you choose not to vote. having said that, i can understand why some people might be discouraged from voting. a hostile political system and low-quality candidates can turn people off any day. going back to florida, democrats have only themselves to blame for their humiliating lossed in the midterms. The G (talk) 17:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * But why would voting magically make someone's say opinions about the nature of capitalism valid or invalid? The stance is sort of illogical. Especially considering that the case for voting is so paradoxical it has it own's name within philosophy "the voting paradox" that seems to imply that the case for voting for any given individual does genuinely seem to conflict with their rational self interest given 99.999999999999999...99% your individual vote does not actually make a difference to the final result. What would the vote from a libertarian socialist, a indigenous activist, or a prison abolitionist actually count for? If they voted according to their interests they wouldn't vote democrat. If someone say voted for the "democratic socialist party" or "the communist party" they would be accused of "wasting their vote".  It feels like this kind of egotistical partisan ultimatum "I don't care what you have to say unless you support the people I support and vote for them".  Doesn't exactly paint one as someone who approaches politics with a rational open-mind. - OnlySortaDumb 18:38, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * in 2016, a staggering 40% of eligible american voters did not think their vote mattered. i've already established that i understand why some people do not vote. however, i think it's safe to say that a good number of those nonvoters did not approve of trump's presidency. in this case, their opinion did not count – literally – since they did not vote. statistically speaking, they probably (pun intended) could've tipped the scale to keep trump out of the white house, but they chose not to. this is not my opinion; this is objectively what the numbers say. The G (talk) 20:46, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * now before anyone else comes at me with ad hominems or tries to refute arguments i never made, let me make one thing clear: i almost did not vote in 2016. i hated all of the candidates so much, i didn't think it was worth it. in fact, the only reason i voted is because one of my professors promised me extra credit for simply carrying out my civic duty. that's it. so again, i understand why some people don't vote. (this is the third time i say this.) however, political and philosophical views don't always translate into data. of the nonvoters who oppose trump, they had the power to keep him from winning that election, and they collectively chose not to use it. there's no denying that. The G (talk) 21:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * "could've" is doing a lot of heavy lifting and is purely conjecture. More voters could have also increased the number of votes for Trump matching him closer to the popular vote for Hilary. It's pure counter-factual reasoning there is no objectivity or certainty about it. To say the non-voters who opposed Trump had the power to prevent Trump from winning is overstating your case. At best you can say there is a likelihood of that outcome but you need additional data besides the non-voter rate for eligible voters to even have sufficient evidence that the likelihood was high enough to be worth considering. You need to know where these voters were located, the worth of their vote via the electoral college, the number of non-voters who were actually opposed to trump, etc.  - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 21:24, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * you're welcome. The G (talk) 23:48, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You didn't actually read the data and all the things I listed before posting did you? - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 00:15, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It's pretty obvious that higher turnout benefits Democrats, just compare the turnout in 2018 and 2022 to the turnout in 2014 and 2010 and you'll see what I mean. Voting blocs that see lower turnout, like younger voters, tend to be the demographics that support Democrats. Now, of course voting in an election is considerably easier for say middle class whites than poorer minority voters, but if you have the ability to vote and choose not to, that is an expression of privilege, since you are basically saying that the results of the election won't effect you, which isn't the case for many groups of people (nonbinary/trans people for instance) even with both major parties being lousy. The thing is, you never know when your vote might matter, control of the Virginia House of Representatives in 2017 literally came down to a tie, meaning only one vote would have changed the result. In North Carolina and Wisconsin, Republicans failed to reach a supermajority due to just a couple of close districts, which if they had gone the other way would have allowed Republicans to ban abortion in those states (officially, in the case of Wisconsin). Even in deep-blue states like Vermont, the difference between a majority and supermajority can be significant, and in close votes the difference can really matter. That's not to mention local elections, which can be very important too, if you want better public transit or to keep crazies who want to ban "critical race theory" off your local school board, it's important to vote in these too. Sure, voting is often the bare minimum in terms of political advocacy, but by not voting you are refusing to do the bare minimum. Plutocow (talk) 00:24, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * at best the data above tells us that at least 37% of these non-voters had a preference for Hilary, that's a 7% difference between those with a preference for Trump. The other 33% of the non-voting base was undecided or preferred third party votes. That doesn't tell us of that 37% what their votes would have been worth. If say that 30% of those who preferred Trump were more concentrated in Rural areas it is totally possible that their votes would have carried greater value then the non-voters in urban places that preferred Hilary. Trump could have still very well won even if all non-voters voted to preference.  This is not even factoring the non-voters which stated third party or no-preference.  If say of the 14% who had no preference were to make a last minute decision and vote either Trump or Hillary we do not know if that would have resulted in a larger percentage for Hillary or Trump. The non-voting demographic reflected the overall election results in significant ways, and there is no actual telling if the results would have remained the same or different. There is no obvious conclusion that Hillary would have won or even had a higher probability of winning if all the non-voters in fact voted. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 00:29, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

The data referenced above shows that for the 2016 election that the percentage of voters who were white is significantly larger than the percentage of non-voters. I would also argue that it's not the bare minimum not really. The "bare minimum" is the political discourse you engage with with other people like we are doing right now. Also as the voting paradox illustrate in terms of individual cost/benefit analysis the cost of voting is actually significantly more then going out to vote. These "difference" or "advantages" only work at a aggregate level something no one person actually has control over and it gets into some victim blaming territory very quickly. If a trans person who lives in a riding that overwhelming votes republican so much so that is just a mathematical fact that her vote would make no statistical difference, I don't think turning around to tell her that any transphobic policy that results is basically her fault and she has no say about the consequences of it because she didn't vote. I know that is not what you are really saying but to imply that she is in fact "privileged" because of it isn't far off from such rhetoric. What if her access to the voting booth was limited on the basis of disability? What if there is a high chance of her being harassed on transit to the voting booth? What if her state doesn't support mail in voting? She is technically eligible to vote but it genuinely does not make a difference if she were to vote or not and eligible does not mean possessing accessibility. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 00:39, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The data shows that lower turnout in Michigan and Wisconsin definitely cost Hillary Clinton those states, though with Pennsylvania it's less clear. Even if you live in a red area, voting is still important, number one because of local elections and number two because adds up - once again using Wisconsin as an example, half the swing from 2012 to 2016 came from small towns of less than 1,000 people, and while better turnout in Milwaukee would have been enough for Hillary to win narrowly the small towns played the most decisive role in flipping the state to Trump. Even in those red areas, voting can clearly make a difference, not to mention that some red areas can still end up being surprisingly competitive, remember when Lauren Boebert nearly lost her seat? Yes, voter suppression is an issue, and I did qualify it with "if you're able to", but voting is still an important right that should be used by everyone who can. Plutocow (talk) 01:36, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Low turnout killed Democrats' chances in Florida, and as a result we've now got the guy who wants to ban African-American history classes and gather info on trans college students back in office. Turns out not voting can lead to bad shit happening. Who knew? But go ahead. Keep staying home on election day. Keep letting apeshit Republicans decide who governs. At least while things are getting way worse you can keep telling yourself how enlightened you are for not participating in flawed systems. 02:07, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * i don't think you understand what i've been saying. i never said anything about one's opinions being valid or invalid just because they don't vote. my two-part premise has remained consistent throughout. to recap, i said that not everyone who votes comes from a privileged position and their reasons for voting are not too unreasonable. i also said that, statistically speaking, your opinion literally does not count if you don't vote. it's not that it doesn't matter; it's that elections (which have consequences, btw) don't count the opinions of non-voters. if you do not understand what that means, look up the definitions of "literally" and "count".


 * that said, i acknowledge that there's a lot more to having one's voice heard than casting a ballot. a single vote will rarely decide an election. voting usually takes a collective effort, which means people have to organize and mobilize voters. let's go back to florida. why did democrats lose so badly in november? well, there are a myriad of reasons, actually. for starters, florida dems have a reputation for being dysfunctional, as even our own article on the state details. state republicans have also been mobilizing in recent years, even to the point of reaching out to swing minority voters in miami-dade and other counties. national democrats have also balked on supporting florida dems because they think florida is a lost cause (which is really stupid on their part imo). republicans already had a leg up on the elections because the opposition usually has an advantage over the party of the sitting president in the midterms. all of these things created a perfect storm for a republican blowout. it didn't help that turnout was lower than in 2018. i'm not pulling all of this out of thin air. this is what left-leaning activists are saying (see the npr article i linked above for more details). i cannot say for certain whether democrats would have actually won if things happened differently, because again, republicans have been reaching out to prospective voters. regardless, democrats could have closed the gop winning margin by a good few points, in the very least (i.e. 2022 would not have been as bad for fl dems).


 * now, all hope is not lost. fl dems have hit rock bottom, meaning they can only go up from there. there is a way to make florida competitive again for left-leaning voters, but it's gonna take some serious effort and commitment (and soul-searching). for starters, fl dems will have to acknowledge that progressive policies are actually pretty popular in the state this article makes for a good read on the matter. (someone please cc the state dem party leadership.) remember how close gillum was to winning four years ago? that can happen again. florida is still competitive. progressives just need better leadership in the state. in the meantime, get ready for another 4 years of desantis and a gop supermajority in the state legislature. The G (talk) 05:52, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you are confusing my response to plutocow for a response to you. Don’t tell me to look up the definition of “literally” and “counts” it’s grossly condescending I have a college degree it adds nothing to your point, you’re just being a dick. I shouldn’t have to tell you that both words literally have multiple meanings and to say something counts does not necessarily mean is to be counted numerically, but also to be of value, considered, of relevancy, etc. To literally not count is actually ambiguous in this context. In response to the question of relevancy or worth I don’t think that’s actually the case; but sure if you don’t put your vote in the ballot it won’t be counted at the ballot. In academia a point like that would be called “trivial”. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 17:54, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Also I never said that voting never had consequences or that bad shit can not happen as the result of elections. The point is that individually there is no real responsibility to be had, because individually you can not change the results of an election.  The consequences are the result of a social aggregate. If I choose to stay home or not it will have no meaningful effect on the outcome, and shaming people as a whole tends not be very productive in actually changing their behavior (it's a favorite tactic of vegans and look at their success rate). It also pushes blame away from the from the actual people making these bad things happen. Republicans are not some force of nature that is uniquely preventable like climate change (even then we seem to acknowledge how individual behavior and focus  on such actually tends to distort the issue not help alleviate it), Republicans are moral agents in of themselves who are making these harmful policy decisions -- aiming your frustrations at fellow members of the working class does not really introduce anything of consequence to the republicans who already hold power.  Also I am Canadian so half this shit isn't actually relevant to me or what I can do.  You also shouldn't look at democrats as this unharmful alternative to republicans. Democrats themselves have done loads to help facilitate the prison-industrial complex, the over-policing of low-income communities of colour, the political persecution and violent discrimination against sex workers, and the oppression of "unskilled" migrants, etc. It seems more often than not the focus on the harmful actions of republicans is that they do all that as well but also extend their policies to in ways that harm white people. It's only then the harm is something especially needed to be prevented but of course only by "official" liberally sanctioned means, and not anything related to say direct action or violent protest. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 19:58, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * IOW the lesser of two evils is still an evil, and it's extraordinarily privileged to blame the marginalized (who by definition lack institutional power) for their own plight because they "didn't vote" or "refuse to vote." Voting is the least effective mode of enacting civil change. People go out onto the streets for a reason (because it's effective). To paraphrase MLK: "the white moderate prefers the negative peace of a lack of tension over the positive peace of justice." Or, to quote Darth Brandon: "Nothing will fundamentally change." People lack faith in our political system because no matter who they vote for "nothing will fundamentally change." What's the point of voting then? And don't tell me "well it keeps Trump out of office." "Keeping Trump out of office" is an incredibly low fucking bar, and I weep when actual policy is no longer considered as important as "not being Trump." To the marginalized, the lumpenproletariat as Marx called them, their lives will still be shit whether it's Biden or Trump in office. "Nothing will fundamentally change" after all. Vee (talk) 20:31, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * no matter how you spin it, statistically speaking the idea that voting doesn't matter is patently false not exactly true (edit: yes, in hindsight, the strikethrough text was a poor choice of words at first, but my overarching point still stands.) – especially when the proportion of nonvoters out of the eligible voting population reaches 40%. i have yet to be proven wrong. philosophical and political views are besides the point. i'm talking numbers. The G (talk) 22:18, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Well no. Statistics does not tell you what does and does not matter that is a value judgement underdetermined by any such data. Ethics and politics is very much what the whole point of this discussion is. The numbers just tell us descriptive facts of the matter "given the input of x we get the results of y" -- that's it. Whether or not y is of any value is entirely a subjective judgement.  You are not just "talking numbers" you are tying power, responsibility, choice, and whether or not the outcome of y is favorable or not to state that "voting matters"  I.e. of moral/poltical value. . - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * i'm not tying anything. please don't put words in my mouth. the outcome of an election can still potentially change if more people go out to vote, can't it? even if it's not the most desirable one (i.e., even if you don't like it), it can still change. what i said earlier still stands: if nonvoters really want to form a bloc or coalition and influence an election, they can. they don't because they choose not to. voting as a collective might not make a difference in the long run – especially if the voting (e.g. fptp) and political systems (e.g. only two parties) are deeply flawed – but it can potentially be an immediate deciding factor in some (usually smaller) elections, especially in the ones decided by single-digit votes. that's the "statistical" part of it. now whether it really matters is entirely subjective; i'll concede to that point. The G (talk) 03:59, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * with that being said, i oversimplified my previous claim that it is patently false that voting "makes no difference." the truth is, it really depends (as stated above), but it's only half true, at best. The G (talk) 04:03, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * So the statement “no matter how you spin it, statistically speaking the idea that voting doesn't matter is patently false...” is something I came up with and put in your mouth? - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 06:51, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * i made a poor choice of words (which i have corrected accordingly), but i still stand by what i said: it's misleading at best. The G (talk) 18:10, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Without ANY doubt, and BY FAR, the greatest value of democracy is the reliable mechanism to remove bad governments. This cannot be overstated nor overvalued. No other system (that I am aware of) has in place a reliable way of getting rid of a tyrant, a toxic government or bad news. This is of course no guarantee, a government can fuck around with this process (as you see Trump tried to do and some governments in some countries manage to do) and sometimes people keep voting in bad governments that make their lives miserable but then that is up to them. None the less, it is EXTREMELY important to have that option. Having representation more or less proportional to ideology and representation of the people is an extremely valuable bonus, but I would argue that this is entirely secondary to the reliability of getting rid of bad governments which is FAR more important. Not voting makes this mechanism less reliable. In terms of actual representation of the people, not voting also makes this not possible. Though having only two parties makes a mockery of it to begin with. Having said this, no, you can choose not to vote (or pay a penalty in nations where it is mandatory). I do not see why one should not be able to express their view even if they don't vote. It is obnoxious and counter to the purpose of voting (proportional representation and the reliable ability to get rid of bad government) but, again, it's up to them and why should someone HAVE to vote or do anything in order to be able to express a view? Shabi DOO  14:04, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Wagner PMC: Putin's Undoing?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newsweek.com/wagner-group-grapples-failures-rivalry-brings-russian-rift-isw-1775484%3famp=1

Wagner PMC is amassing fighters for the front lines in Ukraine. Does Wagner PMC have an ulterior motive? I think so. Putin is making blunder after blunder, he is getting old and is becoming unpopular.

Is Wagner PMC and Hell, even Chechnya secretly banking on Russia failing so they can seize power. Both the Wagner PMC CEO and the Chechen President, supposedly loyal to the Kremlin, would have motives for Russia failing. Wagner PMC CEO seizes power in Moscow and Chechnya declares independence unopposed. --Sexy Trans Zombie (talk) 21:35, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If they are, then I doubt they'll get far. Both only exist because of Putin's Favor. They dont have much else. (Talking about the Chechen leadership, not Chechnya itself) Revolverman (talk) 22:58, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Prigozhin has been in a pissing contest with administration running the MoD for a while now, each one attacking the other for incompetence and claiming sole credit for successes. it thought by some that prigozhin has been angling for an official appointment at the MoD over his critics, consolidating his position. hes not attacking putin rather than rivals putins ear. dont think putin wants to legitimise his position like that. that really would make prigozhin a threat to him and has slapped him down somewhat by keeping MoD clearly with the military top brass in charge and prigozhin at arms length and no official position in the regime. of course prigozhin has control of media outlets getting away with reporting that would have had other russian media being shut down by putin. hes very popular with the russian people it seems, especially now they less and less suportive of the war and hes criticising the military leadership. as much as anything else probably has an eye on the building support amongst the public in laying blame for the eventual loss of the war elsewhere and growing some sort of powerbase for what ever comes after. AMassiveGay (talk) 00:12, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * the wagner group itself seems to be losing more and more usefulness in ukraine. they've been recruiting prisoner to swell their numbers, and thats drying up as prisoners are discovering they are used as cannonfodder. i would not expect them to be that useful in a possible coup. support from the russian military would be needed and prigozhin just been denied a position which could have been useful in orchestrating. AMassiveGay (talk) 00:21, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * in short lets not get ahead of ourselves with speculation of coups. there are other multiple factions in the russian vying for control and wagner is not the only paramilitary company owned and/or run by possible contenders for putins throne. i wouldnt be placing bets just yet. AMassiveGay (talk)
 * I'm still worried Putin might at one point decide to push The Button... though, it's still seen as "very unlikely" afaik. A few recent remarks by lower-level Kremlin lackeys made me worry about that possibility again. Thoughts on that? 2A02:A459:4859:1:E841:BCEC:4345:F4CB (talk) 15:20, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * that is very unlikely and of little point worrying about. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:42, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Specifically this article triggered my off-again-on-again worries: https://www.reuters.com/world/putin-ally-says-wests-deliveries-new-weapons-kyiv-will-lead-global-catastrophe-2023-01-22/. Wouldn't surprise me though if it's considered part of the information operation described in the ISW analysis mentioned in the first post. I know Volodin has been caught spreading bullshit before. 2A02:A459:4859:1:5561:20D0:8165:1F8C (talk) 17:08, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Update: I called it. It's in the same ISW report mentioned below. 2A02:A459:4859:1:8D42:209C:4319:4E35 (talk) 16:58, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Nuclear weapons work much better as threat/deterrence than in actual use because of the risk of counter-attack. A first-strike use of such weapons by Russia is believed to likely push nuclear fence-sitters India and China firmly with the West in this dispute. Also, if there is any self-reflection at all in the Kremlin, they would be thinking that hey, we've performed so badly in Ukraine in large part due to endemic corruption; maybe those same corrupt forces have been pilfering the nuclear facilities as well. The last nuclear test by the Soviet Union was in 1990, so it's possible no one's noticed the pilfering for something that hasn't been tested in more than 30 years. Bongolian (talk) 18:33, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * 1990?! That's a long while off!
 * Also that's a very good point. On that note, I've actually seen an article going around claiming there's already some evidence that both Indian and Chinese officials have indeed warned Russia against using nukes, and in no uncertain terms no less.
 * It's mostly my own uncertainties playing with me I guess - I've been rather frightened of things going further south in the time all of this has been going on. 2A02:A459:4859:1:5561:20D0:8165:1F8C (talk) 18:45, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I admit, I suspect that Ukraine ending up victorious will spell disaster for Putin. Either there will be a coup from his inner circle and him being jailed, a faction that puts lead into Putin, a Third Chechen War or a revolution by the general population. Speculative on my part. --Sexy Trans Zombie (talk) 00:57, 22 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I think it's critical to see what Wagner is and what it isn't.


 * Wagner is an official unofficial mercenary unit, a brutal org which can deployed outside of Russia to do the Czar's bidding in a 'plausable deniable' manner. It almost completely consisted of infantry, though it had been long clear that it had some 'houseroom' with the Russian military, from the times it was able to 'borrow' equipment like armoured cars, helicopters and barracks-space. Their remit is terrorising civilians and indiscriminately attacking militia who are less armed and competent than they.


 * Wagner is not an army in a modern sense [even a modern Russian sense, which is about 30 years behind Western]. It lacks heavy equipment. It lacks technical skill. It lacks even the general elan of a miltary force - like the Chechen forces, they are more a weapon of oppression, of terror - not war.


 * Prigozhin would like to become the Czar's new 'Oprichniki', but that's not gonna happen. Not only would the Russian military swat him down in moments, but the real oprichniki - the 'National Guard' - would seriously object. The truth is Wagner is a load of totally deniable and expendible auxilleries, nothing more or less. Just like the Chechen fighters. Which is why they're being thrown into the first wave of meat-grinders.


 * However, while a Wagner coup is simply not going to happen, it may prove part of Putin's undoing. The Russians' behavior in Ukraine [as in, excluding the normal invasion stuff] has been so dispicable that almost the entire population have been roused in last-ditch resistance and the butchers of Wagner have generally been the worst of the lot [odd that, when you recruit mainly from prisons or military personel who have been dishonourably discharged]. Thus, it's quite possible that Wagner/Chechen forces have made the overall situation worse, not better for Moscow.


 * This means Putin in some aspects is stuck in a similar position to Hitler in 1943; facing a Ukranian people who will need to be utterly stamped flat to get them to cave, a Western 'alliance' which is in precious little mood to try to push Kyiv under the bus and a domestic situation which while giving the appearance of strength and stability is starting to develop quite serious fault-lines. KarmaPolice (talk) 07:09, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This report from ISW is explicitly about Wagner and Prigozhin. Worth reading if you're interested. KarmaPolice (talk) 04:43, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Interesting reading. Thanks.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:22, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I read that yesterday evening. I think it's pretty obvious Putin enabled Wagner because it was an immediate number of soldiers that could be used as cannon fodder. There are still reports of mobilized soldiers being sent to the front lines ill-equipped and poorly trained, but there was a situation a couple of weeks ag, where Russian trained artillerymen refused to fight as infantrymen on the front. Fighting the way the siloviki want, that seems pretty par for the course. All soldiers are the same, they just need a gun and a direction. But professional forces executing combined arms warfare requires using personnel in their specialty. Russia has now had about five months now to train many of their mobilized personnel, and if they intend to break Ukrainian lines, they can't keep providing resources to Wagner to accomplish nothing beyond tactical victories. I think to a smaller extent Prigozhin and Kadyrov, who has Chechen forces operating apart from Russian chain of command, are attempting to position themselves as Putin alternatives if he were to falter or lead their own separatist regions should the Kremlin lose it's ability to effectively defend areas beyond Moscow & St. Petersburg.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 20:00, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * However, on the other side sources have pointed out that firstly, in their haste to plug the gaps at the front during '22 Russia has somewhat stripped their training capacity [sending training officers to the front etc], secondly, Russia is lacking the ability to regen high-tech gear to equip them with and thirdly, one of the critical issues has been the inability of the Russian officer corps to actually pull off modern combined arms - the last one will take more than a few months to fix.


 * The Russian 'gameplan' remains exactly the same; based on the assumptions that 'the West' shall soon tire and throw in the towel, soon enough Ukraine shall run out of men to man their front and soon enough China shall ride in to their aid with massive stocks of weaponry, microchips etc. This war is going to continue until one side buckles and we'd better remember that rather than prattling about ceasefires [which is just reinforcing Putin's view that we in the West are 'weak' and don't have the guts for extended commitments]. KarmaPolice (talk) 03:53, 24 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Reports of imminent armor deliveries from US and Germany I think changes the calculus in a big way. The M1 Abrams just doesn't seem like the best system to use, but the Leopard 2 I think is perfect. Over 100 tanks and 8 companies at the ready could deal serious damage to Russian positions.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 20:29, 24 January 2023 (UTC)


 * A fear of escalation was a common talking point, especially in Germany, used to explain the reluctance to provide Western-made tanks up until now. According to reports they are just about to be pledged. If we go by the reading of the ISW reports though that fear doesn't seem to be quite justified. Any thoughts? 2A02:A459:4859:1:C1E:EEDB:660B:37F3 (talk) 23:23, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think Germany's muddle-headed views and actions are an excellent [though a little extreme] case of the issues facing the Western powers. First off, they 'knew Ukraine would lose' and so didn't want to offer anything which might [wrongly] embolden them into 'doing something provocative' against Russia. They then hoped the combination of the failure of the Russian 'march on Kyiv' and sanctions would cause Putin to quit it. Then there was the hope that the war would be over so quick there wouldn't be the time for the Ukrainians to train to use them [similar was used in regards to the American fighter planes, which should be arriving around now]. Next, the hope that the recent counter-attacks showed the Ukrainians didn't 'need' them. All the while, scared of a rusted paper tiger [one with admittedly nuclear teeth] and seemingly living in a delusion-land that Russia and Europe can be buddies again after this. No; Putin hates us with all his poisoned heart - hates if we resist him, hates ['for weakness'] if we cave. Fear of escalation? Every Western military intelligence agency knows Russia can't actually really fight any harder than she is now, so that 'threat' is relatively moot. And even now, almost all the powers are apparently under the impression/hope that this war shall be 'over very soon', as shown by the simple fact we have not put our arms industries on a war footing. KarmaPolice (talk) 05:23, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I would add to 's thoughts that during the entire 11 months of this invasion, Russia has threatened retaliation if countries supported Ukraine. And after every delivery of weapons they don't respond. Putin cannot escalate because he knows it will be the end of his regime. India and China will definitely abandon him if he uses nuclear weapon, and NATO, led primarily by the US, wouldn't even need a nuclear response. Conventional strikes could cripple Russia's military rather quickly, plus Russian assets (financial and physical) across the globe would become targets. Wagner is currently operating a diamond mine in CAR, that could be destroyed. FOB's and other military bases would become targets for conventional strikes. Israel may even get off its ass and actually supply lethal weaponry to Ukraine.
 * Russia has shown a clear inability stop the flow of weapons into the country. There are twenty HIMARS currently operating in Ukraine. Plus, Russia has consistenly said it would take any strikes in Russian territory as escalation. Forget the Ukrainian capture of Kherson, or the Kharkiv oblast, forget the strikes in Crimea at the air base or the bridge, or the naval drone strike. Right now, Belgrod oblast in Russia is constantly under fire by UA forces and he hasn't done anything. His threats are empty, the West can see that now.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:14, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, Russia has been increasingly stripping her 'NATO-facing' forces since the invasion [clearly to reinforce the Ukranian front]. I saw that MI6 [for example] believed that some 2/3rds of the forces in the St Petersburg oblast have left [this being a key sector, as it's wedged between Finland and Estonia]. The angry bellowing doesn't match the moves on the ground, and both of them don't match the domestic narrative that Russia is basically 'already at war' with NATO.


 * A goodish part of the European 'fear of the Bear' came from Putin's own propaganda, the memories of the colossal USSR and measuring Russian forces to Western terms. A Russian tank, artillery piece, plane, enlisted person is not the equal to a British, German or French version and the war has hugely reminded us of this lesson. KarmaPolice (talk) 05:47, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Would Wagner PMC count as a terrorist organization. In my book it does as it has every single hallmark of a terrorist group. Now with the original definition of terrorism formulated in the 1700's, Russia itself would count as terrorists. --Sexy Trans Zombie (talk) 16:05, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This Politico piece argues that. I think you have to be extremely careful with that designation, while it does create more tools, Wagner has already shown it is adept at getting resources outside of normal procurement. While Prizghovin is try to legitimize the organization in Russian society, for a variety of reasons, they aren't seeking that on the world stage. Wagner is also employed to help multiple African authoritarians maintain their grip on power. A move like this without getting buy-in African nations, would put Wagner in a position to utilize these countries resources and trade agreements to seek out what they need, threatening stability. In my estimation at least.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 21:05, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It would appear some Russian lawyers think or suspect so, which is why a) the govt has never given them official houseroom and b) Wagner technically does not exist. Once again, 'plausable deniability'. However, what the Kremlin hadn't worked out is that this tactic only works when others are at least vaguely willing to turn a blind eye. The West did before '22 because we were wanting to touch all those natural resources and oligarch billions and Wagner threatened to upset the gravy-train [which is again why Putin fucked up; the invasion was so blatant there was no way anyone could 'stare through it' without coming off as a traitor, idiot or hireling.] KarmaPolice (talk) 07:28, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

what is your guys opinion on gb or gba rom hacks?
i play like ten dif games with them, just wanted to know what you guys think of them Wheelson ( professor grug arc ) (talk) 13:01, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * as a wiki, we do have an article on what the manufacturer thinks of them. however, i don't think rom hacking itself is missional to this site. as a former gamer who used to own a gba, i've never hacked any games or game systems, myself. what games do you play with rom hacks? The G (talk) 17:52, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * mostly pokemon and kirby, but i have started playing some rom hacks that are fan edits of games, there really cool, to name a few, 1, pokemon radical red 2, pokemon ultra violet 3, pokemon emerald kaizo. i also play the old dbz games too. Wheelsontheancom, phd in cavemanism and dumbshitism. 13:53, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Just an FYI, the Saloon Bar doesn't have to be about missional topics, G. It's a chatting area for anything. 15:18, 27 January 2023 (UTC)


 * The only ROM hacks I care about are fan translations. The Pokemon ROM hacks are either very good, or extremely shit, and I've seen more of the latter than the former. For console hacking itself, I'm all for it since Nintendo can eat my ass. 15:18, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

what part of my post came off as gatekeeping? i was only answering op's question from different perspectives. The G (talk) 16:21, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * now, back to op's question: sometimes, i play online rom hacks of mario games. i prefer the original gb and gba controls, but i haven't owned either in years. online emulators are the next best thing. The G (talk) 16:24, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Nintendo doesn't mind romhacks, they just don't like that stuff when they're monetized or distributed to the point that it might conflict with existing gmaes. Switch hacking was attempted to be patched both out of pettiness, sure, but I think there's security risks to letting the consoles be exploited. Anyway, dozens of romhacks exist as well as fangames; Nintendo also doesn't care too much about the modding scene but they're not exactly encouraging of it either. Don't like their attitude to it, they should be more supportive IMO. 23:10, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Is there a reason why the Japan page can't be edited?
Basically the title. I checked the record and it mentions only autoconfirmed users can edit but I'm wondering what caused that decision. &mdash; Unsigned, by: Pillowcase99 / talk / contribs
 * Long-term vandalism apparently. ? Bongolian (talk) 07:55, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, a long-term vandal/spammer/ban evader kept targeting that page. Plutocow (talk)±
 * i checked the edit history, and my gosh does that article have a trolling problem! The G (talk) 14:48, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

HELP
I'M A SYSOP NOW? I DON'T UNDERSTAND IS THIS SOMETHING EVERONE HAS OR LIKE WHAT IS GOING ON Wheelsontheancom (talk) 16:33, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * NVM i read about it sry Wheelsontheancom (talk) 16:36, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Looking at your contributions page you don't seem to have been very active here. But someone thought you should be one of the low-lives who cultivate this wiki. For more info see RationalWiki:Sysop guide. Ariel31459 (talk) 16:44, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * From what I can tell, it's something given to any person proven to be a) not a dick, b) not a troll and c) be around for something like six months. Having been around forums etc for waaay too long, I think it's a method of reducing mod 'workload' by giving most of us proles enough power to sort out the 'low-level' stuff ourselves [like for example, reverting vandalism, blocking obvious trolls etc]. KarmaPolice (talk) 16:59, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no actual need to do anything different. If you feel that you don't understand the stuff it might well be better if you don't actually do anything different.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:20, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * There's no time basis for becoming a sysop. It's a matter of making a sufficient number of quality edits to get an existing sysop's attention. Some people get it in less than a week. Bongolian (talk) 19:04, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * it’s not even related to edits really. It’s more along the lines of “not a dick”. Even then we sysop pretty much everyone until such a time as they prove to be a jackass. But even then I’m a giant, swollen, bile dripping Puff-Adder of a jackass and I’m a sysop so…yeah.Acei9 20:38, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * yeah, same here. aside from occasionally being an asshole, i'm mostly here for maintenance (grammar, spell check, etc.). so basically, i'm an asshole in more than one way. i also add stuff from time to time. i guess someone thought i was worthy (or unworthy) enough to be demoted to sysop. The G (talk) 14:55, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Annoyances
This semester, one of my classes is a biology class. It is online, so all work takes place virtually. Today there was an assignment to write a discussion post about a randomly selected article discussing a topic pertaining to, in some way or another, human nutrition. The first post I saw a fellow cohort make was one in which they claimed apple cider vinegar offers numerous health benefits including reduced illness and snacking... 🥴 how truly very exciting and not extraordinarily infantile--A p r i l Chat? 19:02, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Apple cider vinegar is one of numerous so-called health foods. Evidentially, there's no harm in modest amounts. But like many health food claims, studies of benefits are on small groups of people. So overall scientific assessment is difficult, and the health food promoters try to make claims based on the individual small studies that show positive results. Bongolian (talk) 19:29, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I've found the best use for apple cider vinegar is for baiting home-made fly traps. That will probably increase your overall health...  19:47, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It's a curiosity that apple cider vinegar for some reason is hailed as a cure-all, but nary is there a peep on other vinegar made with very similar process (various wine vinegars, malt vinegar, etc.). You would think any benefit would also apply to them (unless there's something specific to apples, but woo never seems to differentiate here, and there probably isn't much difference here anyways). That's woo for you, I guess. It's just amazing that this has led to apple cider vinegar pills.
 * Aside from tasty applications, I've found that white distilled vinegar is pretty good at cleaning certain things. BobJohnson (talk) 20:06, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * from what it sounds like, bongolian, this person has apple cider vinegar daily. they are going to die--A p r i l Chat? 20:41, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * okay maybe not die per se but they will make an absolute fool out of themself by experiencing many gross consequences--A p r i l Chat? 20:43, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I prefer a good hard apple cider myself. No vinegar needed. 20:49, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * They may not die but they will get into a pickle! Bongolian (talk) 21:10, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Meh, a bit tangential to the original point pertaining to a biology class, but I’ve seen a lot of recipes with apple cider vinegar and they seem mainly to be down to this particular vinegar being a “trendy” ingredient (kind of like the “liquorice craze” years ago where oodles of restaurants began adding liquorice to all kinds of recipes).


 * The reasons in my neck of the woods seem to be more about a “New Nordic Cuisine” alternative to grape based vinegars (fad territory) and some people wanting a bit more of a fruity(no, not a pun or sarcastic comment) edge to the acidity. Then again, I don’t really follow “health food/superfood” discourse, because it seems about as reliable and informative as (as well as a sort of mirror image of) broscience. ScepticWombat (talk) 23:20, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, often people frame it as some sort of trendy health food/superfood. Nearly every argument for such substances comes from anecdotal tales induced by the placebo effect. "I tried apple cider vinegar one day and suddenly felt great!" I did not know apple cider vinegar appeared in a lot of recipes though.. Oh dear. Is it that normalized now??--A <font color="Pink">p <font color="EBECF0">r <font color="Pink">i <font color="55CDFC">l Chat? 18:46, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Apple cider vinegar does have a "bit of apple" type of taste so it does appear in some recipes where "bit of apple" works well. Pork recipes sometimes call for it for instance; in particular, apple cider vinegar is the type of vinegar I've usually seen in recipes for the sauce of "Carolina style" pulled pork BBQ. I think it's been that way for a long time. Nothing woo about that, it's pretty tasty.
 * The health woo, however, surrounding ACV seems to have been around for quite a long time as well. According to an Epicurious article, the modern health fads seems to trace back to at least the 1970s, with the quackery promotions of . (Footnote: Amazingly, RW doesn't have an article on him as far as I can tell. In fact, there seems to be a nice well to mine of historical health woo in 1920s-1960s Los Angeles, where a nice health woo scene seems to have formed, attracted by the potential market of movie stars with both deep pockets and a vanity complex. It shows how, in many ways, things haven't changed much.).
 * Modern industrial vinegar is... well, industrialized, which means a singular, not-very-complex profile. Many vinegars derive from things normally fermented for alcohol, which are typically anything but simple tasting. Bragg's schtick was unpasteurized vinegar with raw cultures. Not sure of the health claims (they seem very much like the probiotics arguments), but one thing I do buy (as stated in the Epicurious article) that a more "craft" oriented vinegar might be tastier just because it avoids the industrial treatment. (Never tried one, though, except for D.O.P. certified balsamico a couple of times, which probably counts as "craft" methinks. Tasty but not cheap!) BobJohnson (talk) 19:44, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You got to realize that according to the Nietzsche theory of food, if it doesn't kill you it makes you stronger. So, get out there and don't poison yourselves.Ariel31459 (talk) 01:04, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * i suspect nietzscheans in the kitchen add the qualifier 'or leaves you bucketing out of boths ends' to that old 'makes you stronger' canard AMassiveGay (talk) 02:13, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

An Update…
Some months back we had a discussion here when I mentioned my 9 yr old daughter was flirting with Christianity and I couldn’t figure out where she was getting it from (my ex-wife is technically an agnostic however she knows Christianity ain’t the right answer) but she was pretty clingy on the idea. Well here’s an update - I have her staying with me all week while the ex-wife is on holiday and over pancakes this morning she looked up at me and said “Daddy - I don’t believe in God anymore”. I asked why and she said “because it’s silly. Like believing in Santa”. I just smiled and said “Let’s go to the planetarium today”. Incidentally this has coincided with her former step-dad disappearing from the scene. Must just be a coincidence though…Acei9 20:33, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * There is nothing intrinsically wrong in exploring particular religious faiths at different ages (as one sees things differently) or eg finding wonder in the universe (eg a sunset) and developing an ethical system (be polite and helpful to all)/being creative and assigning 'those feelings' to some numinous force. Anna Livia (talk) 20:48, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, I agree. I never have, not ever will, actively discouraged her from exploring different faiths or philosophies however like I told her when she first started her journey into Christianity - your dad will challenge you to help you navigate this world if you catch my drift. Acei9 20:50, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If my dad ever made me pancakes I'd have believed whatever he prefers. FairDinkum (talk) 10:46, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

What if this wiki was created in 1997 instead of 2007 ?
How popular would the wiki be,what would it cover. &!# The brick wall (talk) 21:21, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Impossible since MediaWiki didn't exist until the early 2000s. Also, this Wiki primarily was a reaction to Conservapedia (founded in 2006) at first. I guess this site would have to settle with complaining about WND and Free Republic.
 * A fair bit of "launched in 1997 web" still exists and still attracts traffic, but is aging and probably mainly attracts people who actually remember the first big .com boom / bust. I'm thinking social like Fark or Something Awful and tech news like Slashdot. A lot of 1997 web, of course, has disappeared.
 * Another Question:What if Rationalwiki was created in 2017 ? The brick wall (talk) 23:19, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * As far as popularity goes, I'm thinking it would probably be the same, though, regardless of 1997 or 2007 launch date. Non-Wikipedia wikis peaked in the 2010s. Now they are just a niche nowadays as the masses converge on their Facebooks, Tiktoks, Reddits, and Snapchats (RIP Digg and MySpace, and hey, is Tumblr coming back?). No problem with that, though, IMHO. BobJohnson (talk) 22:08, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * And Conservapedia was a reaction to Wikipedia, which came out in 2001 but only really took off in 2005. Which leads me to suspect that the 'chain of events' is broken, and thus the earlier RW wouldn't happen. But it is possible that our alt '97 RW was in fact caused by a mass migration/colonisation from say, Usenet alt.atheism, sci.skeptic, misc.crankwatch etc deciding to utilise the wonders of the graphical browsers such as Navigator and IE which was popularising this 'Information Superhighway' thing to the masses [including yours truly]. This proto-RW would, I suspect have been as a forum [Geocities?], with increasing 'outgrowths' as mods stickied useful/entertaining posts, which then grew to being a linked communal blog of discussions, short essays etc. If still existing by ~2004, I could imagine the latter being converted using this 'wiki' software being chatted about.


 * Alt-alt history; the 'SkepticsOnline' died a death in 2002, but remained accessable. The first RW'ians in 2007 come across it and promptly 'utilise' much of the old blog content for RW [I do vaguely something like this happening for real; that some of the old bits of RW are from an older dead wiki or something?] KarmaPolice (talk) 07:17, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It is all documented: RationalWiki:Timeline. Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 09:45, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Not all in that particular place. I remember reading about the former site being 'merged' into RW on a page here I don't remember right now. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:15, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you mean EvoWiki @KarmaPolice? 149.19.40.44 (talk) 16:50, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Bumpf
 * (EC)You may be thinking about RationalWiki:EvoWiki. In the end we did not port a great amount of that material.  They had a sort of "statement, challenge, response" format with did not transpose really well to our format. I don't think anything was imported "as was" - some of the content was incorporated into existing articles and some of it was used as inspiration for new articles.  I can't remember any other wiki being merged - and I have been here since the absolute very beginning.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:53, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * May have been. It's just that I remember at some point reading a RW mainspace page and it basically said in a box at the top that it was swiped off a now-defunct other site. I personally think a hell of a lot more content gets 'recycled' online [for good reasons or not so] than the casual user realises. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:37, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Some of my references I've cribbed from the other wiki. Vee (talk) 20:02, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * All of our pages have a "fossil record". It's easy to see how an article has grown organically here.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 20:46, 30 January 2023

Any article that specifically identified itself as being copied from anywhere other than EvoWiki has probably been deleted or thoroughly rewritten by now. Spud (talk) 10:58, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Pinyin
I was wondering, is there a reason why we use Wade-Giles rather than Pinyin for articles like Taoism, Lao Tzu, etc.? Pinyin is used by the overwhelming majority of scholarly literature, and it's inconsistent as well since things like cities and dynasties are already written here in Pinyin (Beijing rather than Peiching, Qing Dynasty rather than Ch'ing, etc.). That said, Taiwan avoids Pinyin due to its association with the mainland, so I was wondering if there were any political reasons for why we avoid using it. Still, I think using Pinyin would be better for consistency with scholarly sources. Plutocow (talk) 16:12, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it's not political, just grandfathering in action. Those things 'became known' by the older system, and thus they remain as such. This happens all the time, often when there have been change-overs [most often, imperial > metric systems - historians still speak of '25 pounder guns' and similar even if they are now in a land which is fully metric]. There is also the question of whether the PRC has the authority to insist on what form of romanisation is used - I am not a linguist but if Pinyin is designed to 'correct' Anglo pronounciation of things, what pronounciation shall we use because there is no such thing as 'spoken Chinese'? KarmaPolice (talk) 17:43, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The authority is basically argumentum ad populum (1.4 billion (PRC) Chinese can't be wrong). Pinyin hews more closely to Standard Chinese (Putonghua), the official language of the PRC, whereas Wade-Giles hews more closely to the Beijing dialect, a close cousin of Standard Chinese. Visually, Pinyin is easier to read for learners familiar with Roman-based alphabets because Pinyin indicates the vowel tone with diacritics (mā, má, mǎ, mà) rather than numbers as in Wade-Giles. Bongolian (talk) 19:33, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Unless you're an English native, which means you need to be specially instructed in what the hell those diacritics mean [and often before this, 'what the hell are diacritics?'] EDIT: think Dutch too. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:49, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I personally think we should keep it as is. Don't fix it unless it's broken sort of thing. Vee (talk) 20:05, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Pinyin is also preferred in Malaysia and Singapore, and it's also ISO standard. It's better to use the spelling that readers are more likely to encounter, and as I mentioned Pinyin is standard for so many things (cities, dynasties, etc.) that we take for granted. I feel like Pinyin is so standardized that we need a really good reason if we're to use an alternate romanization style, but that's just me. Plutocow (talk) 20:33, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Some people from the early 1900s used Wade-Giles spellings of their own names, like HH Kung and Soong May-ling, and Wade-Giles does allow for some distinctions pinyin can't reproduce. But I find it extremely annoying when modern writers use Wade-Giles for everything (especially Beijing, which underwent some confusing name changes in the early 1900s). If nothing else, it's generally more compact so it takes less time and energy to read once you're used to it. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 21:07, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * But the whole Sinosphere hasn't agreed to use the same system. Enforcing a hard uniform ruling on this would be creating unimity which doesn't exist in RL. Like say enforcing American English in all things. KarmaPolice (talk) 21:13, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * However, Pinyin is used in basically all scholarly literature relating to China, Chinese philosophy, etc. It would also be dishonest to say that there are any competing standards, as Taiwan doesn't have one. Furthermore, American English basically already is a de facto standard here and on most other wikis, so I don't see why we shouldn't use Pinyin when that is the standard of most scholarly sources. Plutocow (talk) 21:19, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Not all historical literature [as in literature which deals with history] and historians are also scholars [their argument is; if it was called X then and/or is best known as such, use that term]. And while there is no other competing 'standards', it cannot be said there isn't competing systems of romanisation about, as WP shall tell you if so desired. Lastly, there is no hard enforcement of non-US Englishes either. I generally agree with Vee; it doesn't hurt anyone, the W-G variants used are [I suspect] a handful of mainly historical nature [also seen here with Confucius, I Ching, Maoism etc] the likes of Lao Tzu mention immediately that it's Laozi in Pinyin and to be honest, changing it over seems like wiki goldbricking.


 * Personally, I say if this gets under your skin, perhaps you should do a RW page on Pinyin or perhaps start a 'Romanisation' page? KarmaPolice (talk) 22:47, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I generally just say we should go with the most widely-used name for stuff. Like you know who I'm talking about if I refer to Chiang Kai-shek, but fewer people will know who Jiǎng Jièshí is. (Also "Confucius" isn't Wade-Giles. In WG his name is K'ung Fu Tzu. Confucius is the Latinized version). 23:28, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The only somewhat verifiable descendant I can readily find of Confucius is the actor Gregory Kung, (HH and Ai-ling's grandson), who obviously kept the Wade-Giles spelling of his name. I'm fine with using the spellings of individual companies and people's names, goodness knows my own name has a startling number of spellings for not being especially common (and has a couple entirely unrelated names with similar spellings to boot) so I'm very insistent people spell it as I do when addressing me. And as someone with an interest in KMT/GMD history I never loved using the name Chiang Kai-shek since he certainly never referred to himself as such, though at this point it's a lost cause trying to refer to him Jiang Jieshi (or his other name, Jiang Zhongzheng). But Wade-Giles is extremely clunky, the silent letters alone make words and names longer for no gain (Zhang Xueliang vs Chang Hsueh-liang, for instance), some of the spellings are really misleading (Zuo Zongtang pretty much adds up of you know pinyin, but how are you going to get that out of Tso Tsong-t'ang; that's how we ended up with the pronunciation of General Tso's Chicken), plus as mentioned before it's not in especially common use. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 03:48, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I have to agree with every one who favours keeping the status quo. Keep the hodgepodge of Pinyin and Wade-Giles. The spellings Chiang Kai-shek, Lao Tzu and Taoism are still the ones that are more familiar to most English speakers. And most of them pronounce Taoism with a /t/ not a /d/.

And Taiwan does now officially use Pinyin for all place names. That's apart from Taipei, Hsinchu, Taichung and Kaohsiung, which were considered to be much better known internationally than Taibei, Xinzhu, Taizhong and Gaoxiung. People's names, however, are still routinely written in Wade-Giles Spud (talk) 10:42, 31 January 2023 (UTC)