RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive406

What happens when half the nation flips against you
|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHd0EMZFEPI Andrew5 (talk) 01:10, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Joe gets down to brass tacks on Fox News Reporter
https://youtu.be/XXPKci5nFXw Ariel31459 (talk) 01:10, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Tanks in Ukraine
I'm betting Sunday after church local, a good friend says next week. Watching these clownshoes motherfuckers desperately airlifting anti armor munitions to Ukraine is fucking absurd. RW thoughts? 138.207.198.74 (talk) 04:58, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hope Biden has those nukes ready. Epic Games (talk) 07:25, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I hope they would have at least the courtesy to let us savor the end of the pandemic before nuking. LongStylus (talk) 07:37, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * maybe bon can share with us what putins jizz tastes like. bet its yummy AMassiveGay (talk) 08:14, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * What's jizz and what does it have to do with Russian imperialism? 138.207.198.74 (talk) 02:27, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * dont you have google? its pretty clear what i meant here. AMassiveGay (talk) 08:45, 23 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I wonder how many Russian tanks will get smoked before Putin realizes he can't afford to replace all of them? Ariel31459 (talk) 19:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm still not seeing the significant gains which Putin would be expecting to obtain in order to make this brinkmanship worth the candle. It seems really odd. Nevertheless he certainly appears to be building up for an invasion. Or does he really think he can obtain some major concession from the West if he refrains from invading?  It worked for Hitler I suppose.  (Sorry Goodwin)Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 20:39, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Launching nukes would be insane. As in literally insane. As in mentally unwell. 20:43, 20 January 2022 (UTC)


 * All launching nukes would do is start WW3, which is really inevitable at this point. Andrew5 (talk) 20:55, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I've been trying t avoid these Ukraine threads, but let me just say a few things-
 * As a Realist when it comes to international relations, this all could have been avoided if we just respected Bakers' "not an inch eastward" comment.
 * Suggesting nuclear war over Ukraine is fucking moronic.-Flandres (talk) 21:14, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * WW3 will likely begin with an American Civil War 2.0. Both Republicans and Democrats have nuclear arsenals they would fire at each other. Then, other countries would take sides, so even if the nukes doesn't happen, they would proxy war, and then real war, against each other. The US is at it's breaking point, but so is the world. Andrew5 (talk) 21:32, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Andrew, I don't know if you are serious. Calm down. Make yourself a blt sandwich. Spring is coming.Ariel31459 (talk) 21:39, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no war if nuclear weapons are used. They die, we die, most of the planet becomes uninhabitable. The end. 21:44, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * (1) spring isn't coming for months, hell the sun is still down in Barrow, AK (will rise on Saturday). Also, the start of WW3 is something I discussed many times. Mucho freculemente. For instance, RationalWiki:Saloon_bar/Archive400. Essentially, America will hit it's breaking point of rising political tensions. However, it will likely be an insurgency, where the government will collapse and the US splits that way. However it could still lead to an alliance issue with allies fighting each other. Essentially what the Vietnam War could've been had America actually did a better job. (Or if the USSR jumped in.) Andrew5 (talk) 21:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, GC, was not expecting that. Nuclear war is survivable, probably ~500 million will die if contained. So, I don't think a nuclear war means total extinction...but a lot of people dying. Andrew5 (talk) 21:48, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Lol, both your conclusions are laughably optimistic. Should the US implode it will likely Balkanize, with each state putting itself first and foremost. Examples include the Yugoslav wars and the Syrian Civil War. As for nukes, the Russians are using RS-28 Sarmats with probable MIRV payloads. They would glass this continent from coast to coast if we launched a single fucking nuke at them. And that isn't even going into how fucking psychotic it to use nukes over a proxy conflict revolving primarily around land disputes, which in turn utilizes both conventional and guerilla tactics. Fucking hell, you people are as stupid as Trump. 22:04, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Few points I'd like to raise. For one, destruction does not equal death. If that were the case, the 2007 Greensburg tornado would have killed over a thousand. All we would need is go to underground bunkers. Switzerland has enough to house nearly ten million people. Countless others exist. That 500 million, though, doesn't take into account nuclear fallout. Also, while it's true each state will likely Balkanize, that actually reduces nuclear conflict, not increases it, and states would get invaded. Also, a massive world war over land disputes isn't totally out of the question. That's how the French and Indian War, aka World War 0, started. World War 2 was also over Germany-Poland border disputes at first. Also, Trump wasn't actually that stupid. It's that Trump did this, on purpose, to try to end American democracy. He knew what he was doing, and he wanted to do it. Finally, GC, you could be a little nicer in the Saloon. This isn't the 1st or even 4th time you went overly harsh on someone in the Saloon this month. Andrew5 (talk) 22:47, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Firstly, just admit you said something dumb and get it over with. And secondly, fuck off with the tone policing. I will fucking speak how I damn well fucking please, that's my constitutional right. Don't like it? Move to Russia or China. 23:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, and when I compared you to Trump it was on foreign policy, his worst fucking topic. Wherein he almost got us into wars multiple times over. Because he's an idiot. 23:55, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You know, GC, if you want people to back down to your beliefs, perhaps also being toxic to them is not the way to go. All our statement at 23:55 did was increase the tension. Also, trump’s foreign policy was bad but not horrible. He actually almost got the war in Afghanistan ended, but when Biden ended it, the Americans lost. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 00:14, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You want me to be less of an ass, use your brain for once. Oh, and drop the tone policing shit. "He actually almost got the war in Afghanistan ended, but when Biden ended it, the Americans lost." Wow, what a fucking moronic statement. I wonder why I keep having issues with the garbage that comes out of your fucking trap... Whoever was sitting in that stupid ass office would have dealt with the blame, and Trump was a literal moron who not only almost started a war with Iran by killing one of their top people, a massive fucking no-no in international politics, he was too fucking stupid to understand how tariffs worked. He fucking ignored intel, and in the latter days of his presidency was so unreliable that the fucking military and intel agencies had to hide information from him to prevent him from flying off the handle and doing something stupid and reckless. So I can safely fucking say that had he fucking won the last POTUS election, he would have either reversed that order or just straight up been worse than Biden was. And Biden's withdraw, clusterfuck that it was, was no where near as bad as it could have been. Oh, and there was no fucking win state in that conflict because, get this, we had no fucking clue what we were doing. That whole shitshow was fucked from top to bottom. Now, fuck off with the tone policing, you little infantile coward.  00:32, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I know the assassination of Qassem Solemali was bad, but so was the withdrawl. Of course it could've been worse, hell even the could've been worse (like, if the EF3 in Bowling Green reached the downtown core.) However, we can't excuse the fact that it was still catastrophic. A . Even worse, . We could've won, had we propped up the Afghan military more (though this was mainly the fault of George W. Bush.) And not everything you say is so clean either. Like when you excuse gerrymandering, especially when Democrats do it. Also, it's a pretty bad sign if our arguments are changing away from the discussion at hand, which is tanks in Ukraine. Andrew5 (talk) 00:40, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

On a side note, do you think Russia would continue into Belarus, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania? I think that they actually might. But it depends on if Ukraine is successful and how much. --Andrew5 (talk) 00:41, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Also take a chill pill bro. Its doesn't look good on you. Epic Games (talk) 00:49, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Andrew5 (talk) 01:09, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Tornadoes and gerrymandering have fuck all to do with foreign policy and geopolitics. That's a full blown whataboutism. Just admit you fucking didn't know how motherfucking nukes work. Seriously, it's that fucking easy you weaselly little shit. I'll do what I damn well please. And don't think that I've forgotten that you're the one who thought nuking Russia over a proxy dispute was a good idea. That's still fucking psychotic. Now, the correct course of action is obvious, and that's to figure out what Putin wants and whether it's feasible to give it to him. If it isn't feasible, the next course of action is to engage in "covert" support of the Ukrainian government. This is all very basic geopolitics, which the US and other nations do all the time. The only problem here is NATO doesn't want to back off Ukraine because if they do they'll lose face, and the same is true for Russia. Both need a covert deal that lets them pretend that they're graciously letting the other walk away. So unless Putin is being advised by psychos and idiots (A slim possibility, some of his inner circle are real pieces of work, but most are sane-ish and almost none are morons) he's going to need to make that deal at some point. Until then, we wait.  01:17, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't engage in covert support, because when we engaged in covert support of the Allies in 1941, Japan found out and then launched the Pearl harbor attack. Nearly 2,500 people died, which is more then the . Either we fully go in, or we don't. Nuclear weapons that aren't that strong aren't super powerful until the fallout, but if we use gas masks it's survivable. A nuclear blast does produce temperatures that are 54 times hotter then the Sun and category 5 hurricane force winds within 3.7 miles. According to Nukemap, if the B83 was dropped in NYC, ~1.1 million will die and ~1.67 million others will be injured. The impacts only go out for 12.5 kilometers (7.8 miles), it's just that the impacts go to Biddleford, ME due to fallout traveling in the direction of the prevailing winds. Dropped on Beijing? ~940,000 deaths and ~1.8 million injuries. If over DC instead, the fallout would encompass half of NYC, and go out to New Milford, CT. But that's only in the prevailing winds direction. Anywhere south of the Woodrow Wilson Bridge, or west of Falls Church, VA, is spared. That's also only with America's strongest nuke. The blast detonation would be contained to DC if it's 15 kilotons like Hiroshima, and the fallout only to the Millard E Tydings Bridge, if detonated over DC. ~70,000 will die and ~100,000 would be injured. Even a ten megaton nuclear bomb over LA is fails to get past Interstate 15. The biggest nuke ever at 50 megatons would only go out to Lander, WY via fallout, direct impacts only go for ~50 kilometers or ~30 miles. (Think Santa Clarita). Credit to Nukemap. This can be used as a reference point in the future.

Alright, just stop.Ariel31459 (talk) 02:33, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * "They would glass this continent from coast to coast" Point of fact. All the nuclear weapons ever produced aren't anywhere close to sufficient for this. "Glassing" in this context refers to melting the ground into glass, as notably happened at the Trinity test. This requires a ground burst, and extends about as far out as the fireball. A 1 megaton warhead can glass about a tenth of a square mile as a ground burst. An actual major nuclear exchange would be mostly air bursts that wouldn't produce any glass, as they are much more efficient at taking out soft targets like cities. Ground bursts would be reserved for hard targets like bunkers and missile silos. And while a full nuclear exchange would kill a lot of people and mess up infrastructure and civilization pretty badly, it is likewise a long way from what it would take to kill everyone or render the planet uninhabitable. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 04:23, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It doesn't sound like you're accounting for the radiation, but fair enough on the "glassing" terminology. 04:55, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * With the exception of neutron bombs (which are optimized for use against targets that resist heat and blast, like tanks and reentry vehicles), the prompt radiation of nukes isn't generally a major concern, since the heat and blast would be more dangerous at the ranges where rdiation would be significant. Radioactive fallout can be a concern, but air bursts produce very little fallout, since there is little or no solid material besides the bomb itself exposed to high levels of radiation capable of transmuting things into radioisotopes. A major nuclear eachange would produce dangerous levels of fallout over much of the target countries, but most fallout radioisotopes are short-lived. Fallout shelters are generally intended to be isolated for about two weeks, after which most of the radioisotopes will have decayed. Radiation levels would still be higher than would be healthy, and care would have to be taken to decontaminate or secure uncomtaminated food and water. Lots of people would die from radiation exposure, and there would be a long-term increase in cancer deaths and birth defects, but again, it's a long ways from killing everyone or rendering the planet uninhabitable. That would take a specific effort of mass-producing something like "doomsday" bombs with cobalt tampers, which are less efficient for non-doomsday purposes. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 08:50, 23 January 2022 (UTC)


 * NATO isn't going to go to war with Russia over Ukraine. That's basically a given; in fact almost all NATO leaders have tacitly said this and both Moscow and Kiev knows it too. The question is how 'steep' is the cost of invasion going to cost Moscow, and how far the invasion goes.


 * I say again; the most likely 'invasion' shall be Russian forces moving directly into the Donbass puppet states, up to the cease-fire lines and then annexing said puppets, via a referendum which shall be 109% for 'glorious reunion to the Motherland'. Presenting a humiliating fait accompli to Kiev in the process - because said puppets have already done [mainly under the radar of the West, I shall add] - most of the heavy lifting regarding expulsions, Russification etc.


 * I base my argument on the following four questions.
 * Q1 - Can Russia beat Ukraine?
 * Q2 - Can Russia do this with acceptable level of losses?
 * Q3 - Can Russia bear the costs of attempting to 'digest' Ukraine?
 * Q4 - Can Russia bear the costs of much tighter sanctions, military occupation costs etc?


 * From my layperson's view, 1 is a clear 'yes'. 2 is 'I am not sure' and 3 is a clear 'no, if Ukraine continues to resist digestion'. 4 is a 'I do not know'; if the West truly send Russia to sit in the hermit kingdom seats along with Burma, N Korea etc afterwards it may hurt the oligarch class enough they turn against Czar Putin. So in that case it's a question of just how dead the appeasement/avoidance mentality is in the West.


 * Which is why I think a 'Donbass Anschluss' is the most likely option. No real collection of Russian bodybags, not much an emotional stick for Kiev to wave, some [secret] relief that Putin had been 'reasonable', perhaps escaping the worst of threatened sanctions and giving Putin a 'victory' to laud at home. KarmaPolice (talk) 12:02, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Your questions are all about "can" - when the real question is "why"?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 13:48, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Congrats Karma, you speak good sense. But even outright annexation could be some time off in the future. Alternatively, an Abkhazia-type solution could also be in the offing. More likely to occur in the interim is the CIA trying to provoke a shooting contest between the Russian Federation and CIA-backed Ukrainian paramilitary.
 * What's highly objectionable here is Western media reporting; the Russian Federation has no interest whatsoever of absorbing Western Ukraine, the territory formerly known as Galicia which includes Kyiv and environs. But it is the exact opposite that neocon warmongers would have us believe. The issue is protecting the native Russian speaking population in the Donbass from Ukrainian nationalists and anti-Russian bigots. Dutchbag (talk) 12:59, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The one who would suffer the most is Russia. Their economy is already in the toilet, they are dealing with mass COVID infection and there are plenty in Russia who don't want war at all. Russia would be shooting itself in the foot. --Non-Binary EAS Creator (talk) 13:42, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If Russia, China and N Korea make an alliance, they might be able to put up a substantial fight against the West, even without nukes. Andrew5 (talk) 13:45, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Why would Russia ally with North Korea? The only reason China allies with NK is so they can have a buffer state with the US backed South Korea. 13:59, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Russia becoming an ally of North Korea wouldn't do crap. North Korea has (probably) the worst military tech in the world. They would only be cannon fodder and not much of it. China would have nothing to gain by supporting Russia and they are already busy threatening Taiwan with the pretty good odds of invading it. --Non-Binary EAS Creator (talk) 14:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * why would they team up to 'fight the west' at any rate? ukraine and taiwan would be local affairs, even if some of the players turn out to be from further a field, and thats not by any means a given. this conversation is pretty fucking ridiculousAMassiveGay (talk) 14:15, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * North Korea might have the worst military tech to us, but they still have 5.5 million men, They also have a lot of missiles. Combined, over ten million people invading Ukraine, it could likely take down the West. Also, they could get other allies from the very powerful nation of Iran. It will be very bloody, but it is possible. Also, Russia is an ally with NK. NK even has labor camps in Siberia. Andrew5 (talk) 14:23, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * everything n korea does and has done in the last few years at the very least is motivated by gaining leverage against sanctions and for economic aid, and because they are shit scared of the us bombing them to oblivion. its fantasy they would or could do anything more than make south korea suffer as the price of american aggression.


 * germany isnt even threatening sanctions over ukraine. what do people think the likelihood of any european powers putting boot on the ground? what is the likelihood of the us? talk of wider conflicts is paranoid fantasy at this stage AMassiveGay (talk) 14:29, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I mean Andrew does defend the use of nuclear weapons so... 14:32, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * and bringing iran into this fantasy? thats some dumbfuck axis of evil bullshit right there. jesus fuck AMassiveGay (talk) 14:38, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * has anyone checked to see what the cubans are up to lately? or venezuala? merica is doomed i tell ya, doomed. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:41, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * (ec) This discussion should shift from the likelihood of war to the likelihood of sanctions. What would further sanctions achieve? And unless you can get Germany and other Central and Western European nations to go along, nothing. Sanctions didn't mean squat against Iran as soon as Airbus violated them. Dutchbag (talk) 14:44, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Not much beyond posturing and face saving. 14:56, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That's what happens in most bar discussions. They spiral out of control. Though I don't think anyone tries to follow sanctions, everyone tries to invade them. I am not suprised at all that Iran evaded their sanction. Also, I do think that if sanctions were proposed, Germany and Western Europe might go along. I'm not sure however. Andrew5 (talk) 15:00, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I mean this thread literally started as unfounded speculation based on fuck all so... Not sure how it could have spiraled out of control from there... 15:05, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

As for the number of North Korean soldiers, it is a long distance from NK to Ukraine. Then consider the fact that it would cost North Korea mountains of money. As for the soldiers themselves, they would not last in battle due to malnourishment and poor medical care. North Korea would have nothing to gain. --Non-Binary EAS Creator (talk) 17:02, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Dutch, Abkhazia is not a 'solution'. Even ignoring the fact bits of the Ukraine is not anybody elses to give away, all it will be to embolden Russian boldness and aggression, meaning we'll see another surrender a little while in the future. Just no. There has to be a line, and for me it is here. No damn Munichs. No more appeasement. No pandering to aggressive revanchist dictators threatening Europe *again*. And sure as hell no swallowing Putin's lying narrative. It's time for NATO members to decide what side they're gonna be on, and for once UK.Gov has actually made the right call. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:15, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Abkazia is that rebellious part of Georgia, which Russia recognizes. But it's not a solution. It's a problem. Andrew5 (talk) 17:36, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Also only Russia, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Nauru and Syria recognize them. Andrew5 (talk) 17:37, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * And this reminds me why I avoid Ukraine discussions. It just goes to show that the people most interested in eastern European geopolitics this site don't know a damn thing about it.-Flandres (talk) 17:52, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Simple explanation is Germany and a few other countries rely on gas from Russia. Most European cou tries as well as America do not care enough about Ukraine to put troops on the ground and risk war. The line should have been drawn years ago with Crimea. Putin is doing this purely to stay in power as taking a shitty part of Ukraine and dealing with sanctions is of little use to long term Russian interests. Little of what Putin does...is. it's all really quite sad. Especially for Ukraine and the increasingly impoverished population of Russia who either buyinto populismor who are too afraid to resist. Shabi  DOO  17:58, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Honestly we discuss Ukraine a bit much here. Here’s what’s probably going to happen - Ukraine dies. We don’t need to rehash this. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 18:57, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Here's another likely scenario: the Russian Federation and other countries recognize Donbass as an independent country and civil strife within Donbass ends; the U.S. imposes harsher sanctions on the Russian Federation; in time, certain European Union members violate the sanctions (as they did in the case of Iran) and offer to build Donbass's commercial airline fleet with Airbus and other EU oil & gas companies want to cash in on opportunities; the sanctions war leads to weaking of NATO, the Transatlantic alliance, and U.S. leadership. Dutchbag (talk) 20:00, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If Ukraine 'dies', Andrew there shall be a lot of screaming as she does so. What you gonna do? - put in earplugs? Gonna sit okay with your concience knowing you're looking at a democractic state slowly be minced up by a dictatorship? How about the massive refugee flows from it?


 * If NATO looks the other way, history shall be the judge and it shall be damming. I cannot think of any historical examples of situations like this ending well with 'non-intervention'. KarmaPolice (talk) 20:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC)


 * "Ukraine", such that it is, will not be "invaded"; civil strife in the Donbass region will be terminated. Dutchbag (talk) 20:30, 21 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Just like the 'problems' your business is having shall cease once you pay Fat Tony and co his regular 'consultation fees'. Which interestingly, said problems only started when you said no to Fat Tony when he gave you his first 'proposal'.


 * Convenient, that. KarmaPolice (talk) 20:43, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't you just love it when Republicans sound like "Stalin Enjoyers"? 20:56, 21 January 2022 (UTC)


 * "Ukraine" is essentially the cities of Kyiv and Lvov. They will not be "invaded". Dutchbag (talk) 20:55, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Even Odessa will remain part of the 140th most corrupt regime of the 195 members of the UN General Assembly. Dutchbag (talk) 20:58, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Now, if the argument is corruption and 'democracy' go hand-in-hand and is worth dying for, that is entirely a different debate. Dutchbag (talk) 21:00, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Think for a moment. Ukraine's corrupt democratic regime was tossed out in a foreign inspired Maidan Revolution in 2014 . Now the same people who said "Fuck the EU" claim democracy is again threatened. Dutchbag (talk) 21:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There are only 193 members in the UN. Vatican City and Palestine are observer states. Andrew5 (talk) 21:09, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * OMG! You blasted my points out of the water! I stand in disgrace and defeat. Dutchbag (talk) 21:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It's times like this where I seriously reconsider horseshoe theory, before remembering that it's still bunk and that people like Dutchbag really are that craven. 21:16, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Not me, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs is that craven. She's the one who negotiated the $1 billion loan that Biden threatened to withhold unless the prosecutor investigating Hunter Biden was fired. Dutchbag (talk) 21:25, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Footnote: Nuland is married to the founder of PNAC, you know, the group that murdered 's son in the neocon Axis of Evil war on terror conspiracy. Dutchbag (talk) 21:37, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm more curious to *why* they do it, really [at least most of the old Tankies were getting cash, perks etc from the KGB etc]. I mean, the amateur ones like Dutch [the professional ones are more persuasive. And more well-read]. Did the Orange One decree that he loved Putin or something? Though interecting factoid; got stuck consuming the Fox wannabe 'GB News' yesterday for a bit and even they didn't air [much] Russian apologia on the topic. And they *like* corruption and oligarchs.
 * Also find it interesting/amusing that Dutch feels qualified to define what the Ukraine is and isn't. Were they a delegate at the Congress of Berlin in a previous life or something? Though their exellent geographical/historical skills strike again; citing the city of Lvov as a main part of it despite it in fact being Polish until WW2. KarmaPolice (talk) 08:19, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * im curious to know if dutchbag has ever met a conspiracy theory they didnt like AMassiveGay (talk) 08:31, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * im also curious as to why, if he is so concerned about corruption, he is so in love with putin? AMassiveGay (talk) 08:36, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm more curious to why they're not getting all smoochy over Xi too. If powerful wealthy dicatators is hot, Putin is a copy of Penthouse while Xi is OnlyFans. KarmaPolice (talk) 11:13, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm curious why you all like sucking CIA dick? After all, these are the same guys that said Sadaam had WMD. Dutchbag (talk) 03:43, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Update: The EU needs Russia.  Oh, that didn't take long to shitcan him,  even after Chancellor Schotz told Biden to fuck off.   Maybe NATO needs a  of dissention in the ranks before it goes to war. Dutchbag (talk) 04:57, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * im gay, i like sucking dick full stop. whats your excuse? do you any evidence for your claims beyond rabid conspiracy theory and support for a corrupt dictator who attacked my country with chemical weapons, responsible for brutal wars within their own territory and it neighbours? because you dont have shit otherwise. except a putins balls in your mouth AMassiveGay (talk) 08:53, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * honestly, 99% of the shit that you spew is so much unsupported bollox thats its just easier to ignore you 99% of the time rather than waste precious time and effort debunking all the half truths and flat out lies of someone whose only interst is partisan hackery AMassiveGay (talk) 08:59, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * just for dutchbag - enjoyAMassiveGay (talk) 09:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * i say its for dutchbg, but its for me really. is it wrong to love rasputin so much, even remixes? AMassiveGay (talk) 09:40, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Vladimir Pozner: How the United States Created Vladimir Putin, 2,033,492 views September 27, 2018, YaleUniversity. Dutchbag (talk) 10:20, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * that doesnt support 99% of your piss that say here. note what i said about half truths AMassiveGay (talk) 10:38, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * its the half truths i find particularly egregious as they require lengthy posts, history lessons and reality checks to unpick. i just cannot be bothered when so much of what you say is utter dogshit. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:51, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * oh really? What have I said in conflict with, or unsupported by anything Vladimir Pozner said? (Interesting, how Pozner's speech at Yale has almost 10 times as many views than subscribers to the Yale channel). So it's simply untrue that these views have not been widely shared over a long period of time. Dutchbag (talk) 11:21, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Second question: Why can't you address any issue and only rely on ad hominims? Dutchbag (talk) 11:40, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * the idea nato is pushing for war, or biden is pushing for, or any of the dogshit around around hunter biden to name but a few bits of unsupported bullshit. not to mention the half truth of putin being created by nato, as if the kleptocracy that emerged after the collapse of the soviet union and its progression to oligarchy wouldnt have led to the rise of someone just like putin and led us this state affairs regardless, or that any if justifies russian aggression in the ukraine or elsewhere, or that whatever the us and nato may have done in the past changes the reality of the situation today, or validate the repression of the russian people by putin an his cronies or prove the veracity of russian propaganda that you love to regurgitate and gets you hard. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:03, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * as if the kleptocracy that emerged after the collapse of the soviet union and its progression to oligarchy wouldnt have led to the rise of someone just like putin and led us this state affairs regardless.
 * I think we're in total agreement on that. So you admit a focus on Putin, as if it's all his fault, is misleading. Dutchbag (talk) 12:15, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe you meant to say would have led to the rise of someone just like putin rather than would not. I don't know. Maybe you should get your head out of your ass or your lips off the bottle. 12:20, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Bottonline: you can't ignore the Vladimir Pozner video - it's the second most viewed video on Yale's youtube channel in its 14 year history. Dutchbag (talk) 12:24, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * what i said - 'as if the kleptocracy that emerged after the collapse of the soviet union and its progression to oligarchy wouldnt have led to the rise of someone just like putin and led us this state affairs regardless' note the 'as if' at the start of that sentence. im piss poor at proof reading for sure, but you dont seem to understand words. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:27, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * and if 'I think we're in total agreement on that. So you admit a focus on Putin, as if it's all his fault, is misleading.' is what you got from what i posted then you REALLY dont understand words. which is a reason i generally ignore your shit AMassiveGay (talk) 12:31, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * So what are you saying? we would be in the same place regardless, or we would not be in the same place regardless? Dutchbag (talk) 13:20, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If the UK actually desires war with Russia, it's going about it in a *very* strange way. Really slow moving against Russian money infesting our banking system, RL *cuts* to our military, nil work done to build up gas/oil storage capacities to ride out energy embargoes, little official rhetoric [or official unofficial, for that matter] and a pretty firm confirmation that our military forces won't fight there [which Moscow shall *know* as true because of the lack of mobilisation etc]. And I'll tell you this; UKGov is way too incompetent to successfully pull off any mass disinformation campaign.


 * My knowledge of the USA is less, but one thing is fairly clear; a Biden administration wants a 'Ukraine war' as much it wants a hole in the head. What's more, generally speaking neither does the Pentagon; all it's focus is on China and is currently grappling with all the symptoms of 'imperial overreach', from lack of suitable personel to fill uniforms to an increasing timidity to use such force - if the USA really cared over this, she could easily have sent a carrier group or two into the Black/Baltic Seas, move land/air forces into the Baltics/Poland/Romania etc. They're all got stealth armour to make them invisible, or do not exist.


 * Lastly, most of the other NATO/EU members either flat don't want war or are simply 'too busy' with other issues. Germany has made this crystal, and France is not that far behind. If NATO is a hotbed of anything right now, it's of cold feet, not aggression.


 * Ukraine herself also knows in a stand-up fight she cannot win against Russia. What's more, she knows in such a war she would fight alone. So, why the hell *would* Kiev choose to commit suicide?


 * So... a bunch of cowards and weakings are picking a fight, when most of them don't have any history of such actions either.


 * Oddly enough, the *only* person in this story who does have a history of aggression and brinkmanship is Putin. What's more, isn't it interesting that this problem reared it's head at the very part of the year where Russian forces are most-prepared for offensive actions, as well as the point where 'the West' is either too busy and/or too divided to do much right now?


 * Motives stink too. Most NATO powers are mainly fussing over domestic concerns and/or China. They have almost zero desire to pick a war with Moscow right now - are Europeans *really* going to pick a fight with a major energy supplier in the middle of winter, at a time of soaring prices? In fact, one of the reasons Europeans are being flaccid over this is because of the gas issue. What to they have to gain from war? Nothing. Generally speaking, we don't go into jingoism.


 * But someone *does*. Putin. His position is not hugely strong right now, and Russia's power vs the rest of the world is fading [demographics, economically, scientifically etc]. Along with his creeping visions of mortality, both physical and political. What he desires is for the West to basically condone the tearing of a strip off Ukraine for his 'Greater Russia' plan and to accept Kiev as a satellite state of it - a prize which shall really help in his long-term plans and 'legacy'.


 * Put those together, Dutch and then wonder why nobody is buying your narrative. None of it bloody adds up in any way or tallies with observable facts.


 * Therefore,I shall say you're utterly full of BS on this topic.


 * I think that's a suitable 'final thought'. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:07, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If we go to war, there could be something to gain. If we are successful, we might get Russia to give up some of their nukes. Like when the US fought Spain, we gained PR, NMI, Guam. The Philippines is different because until we won a war in 1902 we didn't really control them. Andrew5 (talk) 19:39, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

For some reason I feel like telling you this discussion is 42kb. Of which 28kb is not in the collapse. Andrew5 (talk) 20:00, 23 January 2022 (UTC)


 * while we all here, heres putins's own words on ukraine, and here is a response from ben wallace, uk's secretary of state for defence. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Honestly Ukraine should make an alliance with countries like Belarus and Central Asian nations to fend off against Russia. Especially the Baltic States too. Also, now that the Saloon is below 250kb is amazing.Andrew5 (talk) 23:38, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * countries like belarus? the same belarus thats best pals with russia? hahahahah AMassiveGay (talk) 23:47, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Belarus isn't best friends with Russia...it's just that they hate NATO and the West. However, Pakistan hates both Armenia and Israel, but those two countries also dislike eachother as Israel prefers Azerbaijan. Andrew5 (talk) 23:50, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * um, ok. whatever you say. AMassiveGay (talk) 00:02, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Shit. On november 12, 2021 they actually did become formal allies. Andrew5 (talk) 00:34, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Newsweek just reported on the "self-proclaimed Donetsk Peoples Republic."   Question: How does that differ from the U.S. self-proclaimed Declaration of Independence or the NATO Afghan National puppet regime? Dutchbag (talk) 19:15, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * probably the fact ukraine is a democracy and/or not a human rights abuser, but go on, you tell me AMassiveGay (talk) 19:39, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * What prompted this out-of-the-blue whataboutism? At any rate, Ukraine separatists have been a thing since independence. Not sure why this is news now. But this thread is a weird one. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 20:24, 25 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Here is a better question: how could they be construed to be equvalent to a bunch of Russian dipshits causing trouble in eastern Ukraine?Ariel31459 (talk) 20:28, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Interesting criticism of RationalWiki?
https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2016/02/13/rationalwiki-guts-a-readers-attempt-to-correct-its-article-on-female-genital-mutilation/ Epic Games (talk) 01:50, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * user: Aneris is a banned user.Ariel31459 (talk) 02:11, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Wow, Aneris. The user who got banned by the Board for repeatedly trying to pedojacket people. 02:14, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * By the board too, 4-1. Not even by Coop. Andrew5 (talk) 02:23, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I just said that. 02:24, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, as a heads up to everyone, that blog post is from 2016. 02:25, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * "it seems to have swung too far in the opposite direction—towards censorship of Incorrect Thought. Wikipedia says this about the site:"
 * Meh. 02:39, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * "The world is full of pro-Ivermectin nuts, and believe me, I hear from them. I don’t allow most of them to comment as I consider them dangerous"
 * Not that the whole ivermectin promotion by certain right-wing nuts is bullshit, but tee hee, another example of one complaining about "censorship of Incorrect Thought" when it's a merely a thought one agrees with and tries to push on a place that does not. Also, apparently to this blogger, "woke" means "every culture war hot-button issue I disagree with". PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 13:58, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * is that only user rmf banned. if no case, you need template like wmf and miraheze. 2600:387:9:5:0:0:0:81 (talk) 02:41, 25 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Also Aneris is just factually wrong about FGM being specific to Islam. It's specific to the cultural groups who intersect with Islam in certain regions. Sorry, that was bugging me. 02:44, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Why was they banned by the RMF? Thats a bit weird. Epic Games (talk) 05:08, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Re; Aneris' 'pedojacketing', calling someone a pedophile is slander unless evidence is given, hence not allowed here (billionaires excepted). Bongolian (talk) 05:50, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

another burkina faso coup?
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-60102087

Interesting to see this happen again years after the thomas sankara time. 2600:387:9:9:0:0:0:C0 (talk) 19:28, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Another coup in Africa. Just when you thought things were getting better over there. Epic Games (talk) 23:47, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Tucker Carlson wants to have sex with Candy
This is a thing now, apparently. I can't find the original clip, but basically, Tucker whines that the M&M's Green mascot is becoming less sexy. Because, y'know, it's bad that we aren't trying to advertise everything with sex appeal. He's just the guy that whines for the sake of whining, but absolutely everyone is mocking him over this. Whatever the case, you'd be better offer accepting candy from the guy in the unmarked white van than Tucker. 22:33, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I heard about that. I am trying to wrap my head around how bizarre that is. --Non-Binary EAS Creator (talk) 23:23, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Here's the clip courtesy of Mediate, in case anyone cares. Not exactly unexpected coming from the network that sells propaganda via the male gaze, aiming for the dirty old men crowd that envisions "little starbursts" just by merely looking at Sarah Palin. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 23:39, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Isn't he the type of guy that would normally complain about candy being sexualized in the first place? You'd think he'd be happy with Mars' decision here.
 * Honestly, the internet has ruined sexy adverts for me. A near-naked beauty queen does nothing to sell trucks for me when I can just go online and find someone who looks almost like her (or is her) and watch that person get railed in any number of situations.  I went from downloading the Hilton sex-tape to not giving a rat's arse about any recent celeb photo-leaks; it was a different time 20 years ago, we didn't quiiite understand just how bad revenge-porn was, but we mature and grow and learn not to repeat our mistakes.  Heck, the internet has ruined pron as well; a pretty lady used to be all I needed, but now I need a story or a reason for the sex to be happening.  Watching pron really does turn men more feminine, or something.  00:30, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * So... they're changing the... shoes.... Just the shoes? I thought it'll be a redesign like Lola Bunny (who got redesigned to be less an object in the Loony Tunes Show already once, and she's a more developed character it seems too) where the guys collectively twisted their stained boxers over. Toucan Sam's redesign was waaaay more offensive lol. As well as Sonic's first design for his movie a few years ago, that was super abominable. Gee, Tucker, where were you when Pauline in Super Mario Odyssey was redesigned so her body proportions were more realistic, like a broader waist? Old Mario vs DK Pauline, Odyssey Pauline AND Pauline gets to be mayor of a town and not a damsel any more, proving how much the woke emasculated Japanese pansies at Nintendo want to be ruled over by women... or something.Pauline would eventually go back to toonier proportions, but not quite as bad as before Odyssey I think Oh, and where were you when Tawna Bandicoot was replaced by the more girlish Coco Bandicoot?   01:00, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * They also got a slight personality update, apparently. It's a nothingburger as far as redesigns go, really. And Tucker Carlson melted down over it, so the free publicity Mars is getting probably delights them. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 01:55, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

the real controversy is the ongoing existence of M&M world. that place is a fucking abomination AMassiveGay (talk) 01:46, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * He really melted with his mouth, not with his hand.
 * Anyway, I think the real issue with M&M's that got ignored is the whole "slavery" thing. Just where do you think cocoa comes from?  FairTrade is a sick joke, as the certifiers are generally "Non Government Agencies", which is another word for "Corporations".  Even if the certifiers do their due diligence, it's difficult to prove that certified plantation is actually growing 500 tons of cocoa or only growing 100 tons and buying up 400 tons of slave-cocoa from the other plantations to be resold onwards, as a form of choco-laundering.  Much like the problems with ivory and poachers sneaking into the "legit" supply chain, the only way to guarantee the problem won't persist is to not buy it in the first place... 04:54, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Who's to say that Tucker hasn't already fucked the green M&M. -- Techpriest (talk) 13:32, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The brown M&M looks the same as the green one and her design wasn't changed?? This is a manufactroversy to the highest degree. Jake Holmes ''yell at me 14:15, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

this isnt a story about sexualisation of cartoon characters its about gender. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:46, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * How so? Jake Holmes ''yell at me 17:15, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * because mars are removing the only visual indicator of gender, removing the only visual indicator that a green chocolate covered peanut is meant to be a girl - high heels. zingers about about tucker wanting to fuck cartoon characters will only land in an echo chamber that wilfully misunderstands what he is really driving at and thus lets him get away with it. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:49, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * She still has eyelashes and a voice. Everyone assumes that Red and Yellow are boys because Billy West and JK Simmons.  18:53, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The green M&Ms were previously wearing heeled go-go boots. I admit I'm clueless on fashion, but I pretty much thought they were a 1960s thing. Like, associated with Nancy Sinatra (a woman who judging by her political views wouldn't touch Tucker with a 100 foot pole) and 1960s "space age" aesthetic. I get that Carlson is whining about male gaze style gendered clothing shit (which at Fox News, as I said, they aim straight for the pants of the Rich Lowry types of the world), but it's actually fitting that he's whining about something so "old fashioned" like this. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 21:08, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No. In media we assume every ambiguous thing male. "Male unless stated otherwise". If you don't have a ribbon, if you aren't pink, or if you lack high heels or eyelashes, you're male. Not even ambiguous "they", but male. It's particularly galling when obviously female birds are shown in video, like the female house finch of Birdie Sanders fame, abd people are still gendering her as "he" and "look at him". 21:13, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait can someone please explain what everybody freaking over about? I honestly can't give an ass about candy mascots. Epic Games (talk) 23:29, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The cartoon mascot is slightly less sexualized. Right-wing media is contractually obligated to catastrophize over this incredibly minor change. 23:43, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh. Who gives a shit. Epic Games (talk) 23:46, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Weirdos and losers, that's who. Personally the clip in question was good for a brief laugh, after which I went back to not caring. 23:53, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Not even "sexualized". High heels aren't inherently "sexualized" but they're clearly gendered. 00:07, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Sigh... The character is designed to be sexual in nature, as the history of the character in commercials will show. The right is complaining about the character being slightly less sexualized. The symbology is sexualized in nature. This is about the character redesign being less overtrly sexualized. 00:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The basic gist as I understand it was in 1997, M&Ms wanted to play on an urban legend going around in the 1970s that green M&Ms were an aphrodisiac, and created Sexy Green M&M for a Super Bowl ad. I didn't know that before this news cycle, and I didn't need to know that. (Except to have another useless factoid to throw around at the elders when they complain about dumb youth shit on TikTok.) PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 00:47, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Stupid question, I know, but shouldn't a Proud Conservative like Cucker Carlson be happy it's less sexualized? Wouldn't sexualization be the bad thing in this scenario? Considering that the Fox crowd freaks out if a gingerbread man is called a gingerbread person. Jake Holmes ''yell at me 02:47, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That's not really how it works. Something happened that fits into the "woke left is destroying everything you hold dear!" narrative, so the right-wing media machine spins it into a manufacturversy. They then harp on it for the rest of the news cycle before moving on to the next thing to spin. That's the culture war in it's entirety. Pure disingenuous contrarianism. My advice is to check what laws the GOP has been passing on the state level, because when the machine is this loud it usually means the GOP is trying to distract from something. 03:30, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, this was a suprise
Court shoots down Alabama map as racial gerrymander. All the new proposals are now 5-2 Republican, as a new blue seat will have to be created. Andrew5 (talk) 01:43, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Slight side note, Mississippi approved there essentially same 3-1 map. That will likely not get sued. What are your thoughts on Alabama though, cause thats what the thread is about? Andrew5 (talk) 02:38, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Good. Gerrymandering should be abolished entirely. By the way, it's "surprise", not "suprise". LongStylus (talk) 06:43, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

R/antiwork collapsed much harder than donkey kong could ever do
I knew it would fall like a fad. https://www.reddit.com/r/WorkReform/comments/sdjx1e/antiwork_is_not_coming_back_anytime_soon_top_mod/ 2600:387:9:9:0:0:0:34 (talk) 00:05, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No need to bring r/SubredditDrama here. :)
 * However, there is a lesson here about this story (for those wondering what it's about, see here, basically an r/antiwork mod bombed on a Fox News interview, the usual Reddit shenanigans then ensued.) If you are scheduled to be interviewed on a propaganda network filled with simple tropes, that are primarily designed to allow the old-man-yells-at-cloud "back in my day" retired old "conservative" Boomer types to sit at home and get angry at minorities, Democrats, young people, and various other "others" (they aren't working, either, so they have a lot of time on their hands for this)... prepare. Don't give them what they want and be a walking stereotype. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 00:33, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * r/antiwork used to advocate for completely abolishing work. Look at its front page in 2017: The interviewee was probably a "traditionalist" member. So no wonder it failed. LongStylus (talk) 02:07, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Creative-Commons pre-4.0 loophole
Absolutely ghastly shit. Remember that if you upload a picture to this site that you make sure to check the license. Last thing we want is one of these ghouls coming over to here. -- Techpriest (talk) 13:31, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It's completely nuts that a company makes money off of people making typos by sending them typo-laden threats. Is this even real life? LongStylus (talk) 21:45, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Interesting. It looks like they can afford rent for an office at a strip mall and at least two salaries based on legal threats alone. They probably don't have a lawyer on staff, so it's all bluster and minimal expense. Why even bother with an office though? Maybe it gives the appearance of legitimacy, except Google Street view doesn't show them as of 2021; could be it's just a storage unit at the same location. Bongolian (talk) 21:11, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * We might need CC 5.0 licenses, which prohibits licensors from pulling off these kinds of tricks. LongStylus (talk) 08:39, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It already has been fixed in CC 4.0. The specific issue is the so-called "cure provision" (or rather, a lack thereof). Basically, pre-CC 4.0, if you broke the license, there is no way to "cure" the breakage; you've become an infringer, even if you fix it later. In CC 4.0, the terms of the license say that if you notify someone and they fix it within 30 days, the breakage is considered "cured", which closes this entire loophole completely. Probably just some small office to store the paperwork and (my presumption is) to reduce filling up the mailbox of the owner with mail related to their practices. -- Techpriest (talk) 13:29, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I decided to venture into the stock market
I felt like the pay I'm getting at work was somewhat disappointing and I decided to do something I thought I'd never do, Investing in the stock market. I currently have 4 shares of Ocugen, 1/4th of a share in Abbott, 1 share in Western Digital, and Webull gave me a free share for Banco Santander. I've currently only made a $3 profit, so I'm waiting a little while for any returns to happen. 16:29, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm waiting for a massive correction to occur before I pump more of my cash into it. Which is a problem, because the government is destroying my cash savings through inflation in the meantime.  My problem is that I look at the fundamentals; does the company have a good profit margin, is it increasing, what is the EPS and P/E ratio, etc.  The Price/Earnings or P/E ratio is important, and a "fairly priced" stock would have a P/E of around 20; more if the company is expected to grow, less if there's serious problems on the horizon, but anything above 40 is probably a financial fantasy.  That's why I didn't buy 500 (now 2500) shares of Tesla for $20 each when I had the chance, would be $2.5m right now.  Even now, I still think Tesla is at least 10x what it's actually worth; if I had $1T, why would I buy all of Tesla when I could buy Ford, Toyota, GMC, Chrysler, Daimler, VW, and still not even reach half of Tesla's alleged net worth?
 * Speaking of, I bought $5k of Ford a few months back, currently worth $7.5k and it's paid a dividend or two since then. It's a solid company to add to your portfolio; you won't get rich but you won't go broke buying it.  Getting me thinking about it, Honda also looks good, loving that 4% dividend payout, bit scared of the EPS of 6 but hey, can't be scared of money...  17:08, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Smarter move, don't play in the overhyped casino. 18:02, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, what GC said.
 * Remember this above all else; the stock market is where you should Invest, not Speculate. When you Invest, everyone can win, even if some win more than you do.  When you Speculate, you can only win what someone else loses, and the more someone else wins, the more likely you're a loser.  18:15, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd argue slightly differently; speculate all you wish, but remember that when it comes to short-term trading, you've basically gambling [as 95% of movements are utterly random]. So never gamble with any cash you cannot afford to lose, *never* do anything on margin and keep it 100% separate from any 'solid investments' you hold [like Corrupt's Ford holdings.]. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:17, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I gambled a bit with options a while back. Doubled my money, even predicted a memestock the exact day before, but not worth the time it took constantly monitoring it.  Heck, I own one of the stocks that became meme'd, Corsair, but that's currently my biggest loser.  Not really upset, that one was a longterm play anyway (half my computer is made with their components), hoping it takes off before the end of the decade.  My view is that graphics cards and the chip shortage are the problem, and once gamers can buy the cards again, they'll also buy RAM, PSU's, harddrives, etc etc.  19:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Lol, good luck with that dream. The moent more hardware goes on the market cryptoros are just going to buy it all up. 20:37, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, I meant don't play the stock market. At all. Don't get into stocks. Period. Stocks are gambling, and 9/10 you'll lose. 20:38, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * So where is your money invested then? 20:45, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * In my bank account. Obviously. 20:55, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I can't guarantee who will have more money next year, or even in 5 years, but in 20 years the guy who put his money into an index fund will be a lot wealthier than the guy who put his money into HSBC... 21:13, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

The two problems with individual investors buying stocks is the daunting amount of research to make an informed decision, and the fees for buying or selling. People can instead buy mutual funds with no direct fee and no minimum investment. Mutual funds have the benefit of not needing a lot of research: just look at their investment strategy, performance record, and built-in fees. Index funds can be a good investment for minimizing built-in fees, and some of them perform as well as or better than the best mutual funds. The best strategy for investing is long-term (minimum 5 years, preferably 10 years), with periodic incremental investments. If you need the money in the short term: don't invest in anything with fluctuating value such as stocks or mutual funds that invest in stocks. Bongolian (talk) 21:18, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I subscribe to the "Boglehead" investment strategy myself (named after the man who founded Vanguard and pioneered index tracking funds), for the most part (have a small amount in growth). I'll also admit that a lot of people don't make enough, unfortunately, to even think about this sort of strategy. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 21:29, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * F mutual funds. Index funds all the way if you don't want to bother watching it.  Virtually no fees, none of the bullshit where a company creates 50 random funds and then tries to overcharge you for the one fund that "beats 98% of the other funds" through dumb luck, none of the crap where the rich bois have their transactions done as longterm capital gains using your stocks so that you end up paying short-term capital gains tax no matter how long your money has been in the fund.  21:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I would also go with ETFs, they tend to be even cheaper annual fee wise than even low expense, no-load mutual funds, are more liquid (not a big deal though for buy and hold), and are slightly more tax efficient. Brokerage commission these days is zero most places, so one factor that was negative for ETFs is not an issue these days. However, no-load low-expense mutual funds aren't that different, at least for the type of funds being discussed here. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 21:57, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Invest in fiat currency instead. Epic Games (talk) 23:54, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * How about I invest in my special lock instead. Esqueli (talk) 18:50, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The way inflation/interest rates are right now, you'd get better returns 'investing' in tins of corned beef and packets of socks than an ordinary bank account, GC. KarmaPolice (talk) 21:11, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I "lost" 2% on my Honda already, but I'm not the least bit upset. It'll rise and fall but it'll survive and pay out.
 * In the old days, you worked your whole life to build a business such as a bike shop, then you could retire and still get paid by your kids running the shop, who inherit the business and then retire as your grandkids run the shop, and so forth. Today it's a bit different.  You work your whole life but instead of the bike shop, you and 10,000 other people own a sliver of Big Bob's Bikes, and you also own a sliver of Teagan's TV's, and a sliver of Mindy's Mining, Erin's Airspace, Paul's Pub, etc etc.  But the key is to focus on those dividends, the price of the stock is meaningless if there's never a dividend...  21:36, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Which is the problem. A huge upswing in short-term share trading [plus glut in capital] has massively eroded the 'value' of dividends to attract investors. Which is why they are generally pretty low when compared to historical rates. Part of the reason why long-term funds like pensions are becoming ever-more worried. KarmaPolice (talk) 14:04, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Depends on the stock. Toyota is underpriced if you ask me, with a P/E less than 10 and a dividend yield of 3.5%.  Because Toyota isn't as sexy as the car company whose fleet spells out "S3XY"; TESLA, which has a P/E ratio around 300, and never paid a dividend and is so poorly managed that it was running a deficit in spite of having a backlog of orders.  Is TESLA worthless?  No, but the gains are never going to materialize.  If some dumbasses want to invest in it, that's their problem, but I demand in return that it stays their problem when the price finally corrects to $30-40/share.  A lot of people borrowed money to buy TESLA stock, and if they can't pay back, the banks aren't on the hook because they will just pass those hooks to the general public via bailouts...  14:26, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Toyota's probably being "dinged" a bit for betting on fuel cells instead of batteries for future non-fossil fuel cars (which actually probably makes them a decent long-term play, as they probably will catch up eventually and make an electric platform). But yeah, 5% dividend yields on the entire S&P 500 have not been uncommon in the past, but only a few stocks will yield 5% today (overall the S&P 500 yield is between 1 and 2% these days). The rise of tech stocks I think changed things; everyone wants to find the next Amazon that gives sky-high growth, and tech stocks typically pay paltry dividends if at all. If you are at a certain point, taking the plunge on a few "growth" plays is fine (what happens in that space is that some don't do well and a few do spectacularly well), but it's not a space you can bet the farm on. And Tesla is not that sort of company now, in the early 2000s sure it was, but Tesla now has been around for nearly 2 decades. And we're pretty close to many other companies (with better QC than Tesla :p ) coming up with their own electric vehicles to directly compete with Tesla. What then? PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 15:39, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Answer: M&As.
 * Tesla is too small to survive long-term as a fully independent carmaker as-is. It's all about R&D and volume; Tesla shifts about the same number as Audi, but has to bear all of it's R&D costs while Audi can spread it over the whole VW Group [not to mention the Toyotas and Fords of the world]. This is what I call 'the Saab problem'; far too big to be niche, far too small to compete in volume with the big boys. Tesla's USP is about them all being electric, but this means it shall vanish in the next five years. Then it shall be fighting a much more unfavourable battle with the likes of BMW who currently shifts 5x the numbers and has much better reputations for build quality...
 * Therefore, it needs to expand. Fast. New product ranges, new market segments to bear that R&D costs. While it's still relatively flush with cash. It's why they launched their first motorbike and are developing a pickup. I'd argue it would be best to either buy, make or convert a mass volume car maker as their budget sibling. Otherwise, the most likely future is kinda predictable; it shall hit the buffers at some point, then another, bigger boy shall come and buy them all up. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:59, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Someone died in a weather event. But it wasn't a human.
Iceberg breaks up near South Georgia. Andrew5 (talk) 14:38, 27 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Meanwhile, in completely irrelevant but non-weather-related news, a cat has been reunited with its owners after eleven years.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:33, 27 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Interesting to see weather events keep on going while the car business is booming. Esqueli (talk) 18:49, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * What does that comparison have to do with anything? Andrew5 mobile (talk) 19:02, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It is an unremarkable and totally non-weather-related news story.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 20:57, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Bob, your attempts to prove my weather news is stale is also stale. Andrew5 (talk) 21:20, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Disasters are getting more intense while fossil fuels get burned more. Esqueli (talk) 19:04, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, but #1 tornadoes aren’t being fueled by climate change (in fact they might be getting less intense, as we are in a record long amount of time without an EF5 tornado and 2018 had zero EF4s as well.) and #2 it’s other impacts as well, cars aren’t the main problem. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 19:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * aside from who mentioned cars?, cars account for 27 percent of all carbon emissions in the us alone. so cars aren't the main problems is kinda arse. dangerous arse. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:11, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Electricity accounts for 25%. Andrew5 (talk) 21:20, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

If you could be the opposite sex for one day what would you do?
Epic Games (talk) 23:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Why would I do anything special? 23:48, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * My biological sex is male although my gender identity is non-binary/demi-girl. So it would be female. --Non-Binary EAS Creator (talk) 00:09, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I mean, I can't say I wouldn't try out my opposite-sex genitalia so see what it's like, but beyond that, there's really not that much appeal in one gender over the other in most non-physical tasks. At least, not beyond how society treats each gender...  00:30, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Consider what a waste the experience is, inasmuch as I'm a 64 year old male with a total hip implant, full dentures, rather bad eyesight, failing hearing, a bad back, slightly overweight, and a damaged nervous system due to Guillian Barre Syndrome. I can't imagine that being suddenly a 64 year old female with a total hip implant, full dentures, rather bad eyesight, failing hearing, a bad back, slightly overweight, and a damaged nervous system due to Guillian Barre Syndrome is much, if any, of an improvemnt, and that I would have appreciated the whole trial much better in my 20's, when everything was working properly.  Even then, I'd proabably have only played dressup with myself. Kencolt (talk) 03:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * you probably right. Epic Games (talk) 04:36, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

go dogging. AMassiveGay (talk) 07:39, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I guess I would just manually test out the alternative plumbing and associated recreational areas. Because a day probably isn't really enough time to from and explore a lesbian relationship. I also share Kencolt's problem in that I would also need to ask for some 45 years to be removed from my age in order to get full benefit.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 09:09, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * no you wouldnt if you just went the hetero root. men are easy. AMassiveGay (talk) 09:33, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm sure that's absolutely true. But the hypothetical didn't include change of orientation.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I'd do sexy things. Friedman (talk) 13:36, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes and no. Single men are easy, but as the saying goes, the good ones are all taken.
 * There's also no guarantee I'd end up a sexy lady either. As an amateur strength trainer, my generic gym-rat body would be She-Hulk if on a woman.  While yes, women with some muscle and lady-abs is sexy now, there's a much lower limit than with men.  16:52, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If you ended up as your 100% identical counterpart, Corrupt it would be very interesting to produce a load of workout stats to see how/where they fall - does your wider hips lower your 3K time, how much shoulder strength you've lost etc. Plus, you can shove those stats into them online fitness checkers which none of us here have never used and have never felt inadequate after doing so - it would be enlightening to see that [for example] as a guy you were at 'top 40%' for leg strength but were 'top 30%' as a gal.
 * Would also be an experience to hit the gym too; to find out what 'problems' there there would be [and how bad]. Though let's assume in this magic you also get suitable [but identical] clothes; it's no fun if you had to spend 80% of your day trying to find a suitable sports bra first. [unless you turn out to be in the flat-girl brigade]. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If I put on any bit of weight I get moobs, and I naturally have a large butt. That's part of why I have to work out, to keep myself from looking too feminine.  Genetically speaking, if I were a girl I'd be hawt, but how attractive I'd be depends on more than just genes.  As I said, how much of my muscle am I keeping?  18:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * "Could" implies a choice, in which case I would choose not to be the opposite of what I am. If I had no choice, I would lock the doors and turn the lights off.UncleKrampus (talk) 19:00, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Good point, Corrupt. I mean, a guess would be a distaff Karma would be 5'4 and 84kg - but if I managed to keep my dumbbell curl weight the same, I'd go up from 11% to 34% according to a fitness calculator I don't know or use. But if my abilities shrank accordingly, it would seem I'd be down to 7kg. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd figure out if my trans-questioning thoughts hold any weight, or if I just have issues with performative femininity. Jake Holmes ''yell at me 19:32, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Eh, every guy on Earth has wondered what it'd be like to be a woman, that doesn't make you Trans. Part of the whole Human Experience thing is learning how to accept who you are and fit into society.  Most people who wonder if they are Trans, aren't, or are "cis enough" that they can learn to accept themselves with all their own quirks.  Others really would be better off as the opposite gender, and ultimately, you have to do what's best for you because no one else will.  Whatever you discover about yourself, you will be better for it.
 * There's an interesting philosophical question from this. Assume society becomes perfectly OK with Trans people.  What if 2% of people might be happier as the opposite gender but with therapy 1.6% could learn to live with themselves and find about the same amount of happiness as someone who transitioned whereas only .4% actually need to transition to be at peace?  Should we as a society encourage that 1.6% to transition or to learn to live with themselves as is?  Does it depend on the money/tech available, do we base our policies on whether we "need" more women or men at any point?  Personally, in a world where changing your gender was as difficult as dying your hair, I can't say I wouldn't change every few months or so just to try it out, and in the world where we upload our meat-brains to machines my sexually identity would be "Gundam", but that's me.  21:47, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm actually AFAB, Corvid. As of late I've been having a lot of questioning thoughts on the subject of how I approach gender and if whether or not my attraction to the masculine form has any bearing on my own identity. Also, the Gundam bit feels kind of out of pocket, to me at least. Jake Holmes ''yell at me 02:32, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I wonder if you dudes would have second thoughts before walking alone out after dark. 22:20, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * if its for one day i doubt we would lose the sense of invulnerability, and probably come a cropper as a result. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I would wear women's clothing I think. Epic Games (talk) 23:28, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Honey, that's what the 2nd Amendment is for. 'Murrica!  23:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah. And nobody said nothing about loosing muscle mass. I'd still weigh 210.Ariel31459 (talk) 23:58, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * guess all these women getting raped must be asking for it, if thats all it takes. someone should tell sarah everardAMassiveGay (talk) 08:22, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * as i said, i dout the sense of invulnerability would vanish over night. AMassiveGay (talk) 08:26, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Lefty, no I would not. Because I live in an area where attacks of that nature are actually very low - one day, I'd like to actually do/find some stats to see how much of the fear is media created and how much is from actual statistical probability. Plus, I live in the UK; 'not going out after dark' would result in women going home and locking the doors at 4PM in winter.
 * Though if I was my pure distaff counterpart, I'd be a rather butch proposition. I suspect I'd be less alluring a target. KarmaPolice (talk) 08:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * i remember being asked directions on NYE one year by lady. she then asked if the area is safe. i couldnt answer. it was safe for me, but im 6'4 and male. feeling safe at night is a male privilege. honestly, ask sarah everard. AMassiveGay (talk) 09:00, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * its something that we need to get through our skulls to truly understand the bathrooms and trans debate thats so divisive. AMassiveGay (talk) 09:03, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * the whole 'less alluring target' that a few here have suggested is also complete arse. its tantamount to saying you are asking for it by being 'sexy'. i used i have a neighbour who had been raped 3 times. at the risk of sounding shallow, she was not a 'looker', not in the traditional sense at least. its bullshit male privilege.


 * incidentally, the lady who recently who moved in the flat below me recently told she was raped by her cab driver going home from a night out. a woman on her own at night is at risk. full stop. i keep saying it, but ask sarah everard. there is reason for the outrage her rape and murder produced. AMassiveGay (talk) 09:20, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * some statsAMassiveGay (talk) 09:38, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has been suggesting woman are not more at risk than men. Ariel31459 (talk) 19:00, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Sarah Everard was a *very* special case; how many other rapist murderers have legitimate warrant cards? That was the main reason for the massive anger, in my opinion - the very person who was meant to be the protector was the culprit. And no, saying that I'd feel a distaff me wouldn't be really desiriable is not any way near the 'she was asking for it, look at her skirt!' justification BS given.


 * No, it is not 'bullshit male privilege' to wonder if sensationalist media over-reporting has increased the fear of the act past it's actual likliness [causing elements of a moral panic, like with say certain little boats in the Channel]. Nor is it to ask whether we are seeing a level of incorrect 'stranger danger' fears, similar to the one we saw with kids in the 90s [that we feared Tina/Timmy meeting random strangers when statistically it was relatives/authority figures who were the true threat]. I am not saying there isn't a risk, I am not saying the experiences didn't happen or that they weren't bad. What I do object to is building whole policies on anecdotes and biased media reports rather than actual real evidence [of which I bet exists somewhere, or could easily exist if a half-decent actuary could get at the raw data].


 * Lastly [and most importantly], you don't know where I actually live. You cannot comment on 'how safe' my area is for sexual offences. I took a look [2019 stats], and while the tally is a bit high the definition is so broad *and* I do not know how many of the sexual offences were the 'stranger danger' type to be able to really comment, save what I've noticed myself. Like the fact I have often enough seen solo women jogging/walking etc at night while listening to music and so on.


 * Anyway, when being asked 'is it safe' I would think in all ways, not just sexual. In my local area, I would say along the lines of 'I'd watch my phone and wallet when about and not leave any windows open if I went out, but apart from them the main pain in the head is the various 'damn kids' stuff and the chronic flytipping [which sometimes turns to arson due to said kids]. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:39, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 'the very person who was meant to be the protector was the culprit' thats very much the point. alone at night after going out with friends, walking home alone is advised against, so you get get cab and hope they arnt a rapist as you get into a stranger's car which a taxi effectively is. and now you cannot even trust the police themselves from raping you. thats the reason for the outrage. outrage i might add was there before the police effectively shrugged their shoulders and told women to be more streetwise and before the rape culture of boys club (do you not think that same culture is not writ large? ever read 'loaded' or similar lads mags?) that is the police was revealed, where the rapist's nickname was 'the rapist', telling us what we already know about thre low chance of prosecuting sex offenders let alone successfully, or even that victims of sexual violence will be taken seriously in such an environment.


 * 'while the tally is a bit high the definition is so broad *and* I do not know how many of the sexual offences were the 'stranger danger' its one in ten of sex offences and i wont deign the 'definition is so broad' with comment as it does not deserve a civil. response.


 * no i cannot tell how safe your area, not knowing your area. but as i said you cannot tell how yourself area is for women not being one. the very point i initially made responding to lgm. alluding to moral panics and handwaving stats away as 'too broad' doesnt make women feel or be any safer and only helps perpetuate a culture where sexual violence goes unpunished, denying legitimate concerns AMassiveGay (talk) 09:39, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Y'know, I never really thought about it, nor would I really know. Andrew5 (talk) 12:18, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, where did you see me even attempt to defend the stupid advice the police have given on this subject? Or the 'boys will be boys' mentality which has allowed so much crud to be minimised/dismissed in the past?


 * 'The definition is so broad' point is because my county's constabulary's category is 'violent and sexual crime' which includes everything from and including child abuse cases, rapists, peeping toms, drunken fights outside pubs and kids getting into a scrap at a local playground. What's more, it would appear that quite a decent % of rapes were in fact committed by partners, ex-partners or people already well-known to the victim. I would *tentatively* suggest such people would be a threat to the victim in places like their very home, and thus are less relevant to any question of 'street safety'. Perhaps, if you'd not jumped to conclusions you might have politely asked me what I meant by the line rather than biting my head off?


 * All this was in fact the main thrust of my whole point - *I do not have enough actual information to be able to make a decent judgement on it*. What I have is anactodal evidence, media reports, 'what people feel' and my own biased senses.


 * I disagree with 'you cannot tell how yourself [if your] area is [safe] for women not being one.' point because that's where properly done surveys, investigations etc come to the fore. It's our ability to take our minds away from our 'own little bubble' and learn more about the wider world amongst us.


 * What's more, I pay attention to the world around me and what the women within it are acting, saying and so on. You missed the point where I pointed out that I have repeatedly observed women, alone, at night doing activities such as jogging with music headphones [even I don't do that!]. If there was a serious perception amongst women in my local area that the risk was considerable I suspect they'd not be doing that. But once again, I did not say it was 'safe', merely that it *appeared to the scanty evidence I had on-hand* that it was relatively so.


 * In short, quit viewing this in binary terms. Just because I am not your echo it doesn't mean a) we don't agree on a lot of the thing and b) the bits we don't must be because I'm coming from a denialism/minimisation route seen by the idiots of the world. KarmaPolice (talk) 12:54, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * where exactly do i accuse you of defending the police's poor advice? that whole paragraph is explaining the significance of the sarah everard murder and cannot be be dismissed as a 'special case.'


 * as for 'biting your head off' perhaps you should have made it clear you were referring to something other than the stats provided in the link i provided, because thats not clear at all.


 * i am well aware of 'most' cases of sexual violence is perpetrated by someone the victim knows and/or in their own home. this is immaterial to a discussion concerning the safety of women out at night on their own. the fact that women do go out at night alone does not mean they are not concerned of their safety. and i question how many women you see 'jogging with music headphones' at kicking out time.


 * here are some more stats AMassiveGay (talk) 13:46, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Tell me this, then Gay; why the hell did you feel to expend a paragraph telling us/me about the issues which had already been mentioned, then? It was almost like you were somehow 'daring' me to try to refute them or something. And/or attempting an appeal to emotion.


 * As for about the stats... what part of 'I think this needs much better study etc' is confusing? This is a very complicated, sensitive topic and what's more, we've had successive governments in the UK who have not really desired to have the real answer. My main question here was in fact only one aspect; that of media reportage biases and possible inaccuracies of public perceptions of the risks. I literally pointed out the situation with the 'stranger danger' issues with child abuse, which traditionally also had that perception bias [thus resulting in many abusers being overlooked].


 * Anyway, actually on stats. I actually think I've got enough from your last one to do something with. *pulls out notebook and pen*


 * So... I saw in my county stats that 2019 had around 850 attacks [from rape charity stats]. Let's say this is a 50% lowball. So 1,700 a year.


 * The ONS says that 15% of female attacks are strangers and 9% are in classic 'stranger danger' locations. This means that 'about' 255 were the former and about 155 the latter.


 * Share of my town of a % of my county: ~4.5%.




 * ~11-12 'stranger rapes' and ~7 'stranger location' rapes in my town in 2019. [However, we don't know the overlap of these two].




 * Vague guestimate; chances of an woman suffering the former in MyTown in a year is ~0.05% and the latter is ~0.03%. Even taking into account all the various issues with my shaky, incomplete stats, those percentage chances are still pretty low.


 * As for 'this is immaterial to a discussion concerning the safety of women out at night on their own', no, it is very material because *all* I was talking about was a) 'stranger danger' / media bias reporting and b) the actual safety of my own home town for women. Nothing more, nothing less [save a comment on the Everard case]. The ONS figures you gave suggest my hunch for a) might be onto something and have helped me to produce a starting rough guess for b), showing those joggers/walkers etc have a sane view of the risks. KarmaPolice (talk) 20:32, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I know statistically, people talking on their phone in their cars are always going to be far more likely to cause harm to me as well as the food in the fridge, but why not look over my shoulder at night? I'm told by my boyfriend to not go out to do laundry later in the night. 22:14, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That would make the assumption you'd see your attacker *as an attacker* before they attacked. How many victims worked it out before the event? Is your action merely a piece of 'security theatre' you perform, makes you feel better but of zero actual use? I don't know, and don't think there's any stats which show it either. Which is the whole point of my feeling that 'more study is needed'. KarmaPolice (talk) 05:46, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

That went dark pretty quick. Epic Games (talk) 05:56, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It was suppose to be light. Epic Games (talk) 09:53, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

AMassiveGay (talk) 13:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 'Jess Phillips, the shadow domestic violence minister, said there had been a societal change – but it had come from women and their allies. “In the cases of both Sarah and Sabina, the response of women in the country has been to pivot it to be about violence against women and girls more broadly,” she says. “It’s not about an obsession with stranger danger. It’s just like, ‘This is the crap we have to put up with. We live in constant fear.’”' AMassiveGay (talk) 13:58, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * AMassiveGay (talk) 14:09, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Either you've missed my whole point, Gay and/or you're simply doubling down on the 'feels' argument. It's quite possible to have 'constant fear' of things which the threat is exaggerated, misplaced or even [on occasion] non-existent. However, I am pleased to see Phillips is coming to accept [and voice, kinda] that the 'stranger danger' issue is seriously warping the discussion and thus, the efforts to stamp said actions out as much as possible. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:26, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Now THIS is some news!
Bryer retires from Supreme Court. Biden will pick a black women for the Supreme Court, with it being very likely to pass. This could give dems a boost in 2022 as already, Biden's approval went up 0.5% and his dissaproval went down 0.7%. Andrew5 (talk) 21:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Until Joe Biden tackles high inflation, gas prices and the supply chain issues, he isn't going to move the needle much in terms of public approval because people very much care about pocketbook issues. The Fed is going to raise interest rates fairly soon, but the amount of interest hike isn't going to be enough to tackle inflation. The Federal Reserve under Paul Volcker raised the Fed's benchmark interest rate from 11% to a record 20% by late 1980 to try to slow the economy's growth and thereby shrink inflation and it still took about 4 years to tackle high inflation. But it did help cause a recession.


 * Biden is unelectable as long as high inflation persists. Jimmy Carter was unelectable due to high inflation and the perception that he was being bullied by the Iranian hostage takers. And if the Fed does something drastic like they did under Paul Volcker, it could cause a fairly lengthy recession which would also doom Biden's chances of being elected. Most economists predict that persistently high inflation will haunt the world economy this year. Presidents only have so much power. Sometimes circumstances doom their electability. KBConWiki (talk) 13:28, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, on election day, Trump was down 8% on the approval rating but lost by only 4.5%. If Biden can replicate that, he can be down 3.5% and still win. But the electoral college might not favor him. Trump had an edge of 3.3-3.9%, which to Biden, would mean he could be down by around 7%. But if it flips against him, he will need to break even.It also depends on who he picks, he needs to pick the right person. The Senate also depends on what seats are up, and the House based on redistricting. Andrew5 (talk) 14:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Joe Biden is going to face gridlock and GOP investigations after the midterms. When you add inflation to the mix, he is toast. The die was cast before he took office. If he was an inspiring leader, he might have overcome the steep odds against him, but he isn't an inspiring leader. He is a grumpy old man. KBConWiki (talk) 15:08, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If the GOP picks Trump, Biden will win.Andrew5 (talk) 15:13, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It's too early to call. 3 years is an eternity in presidential politics. Biden could have another brain aneurysm or die. The economy could totally tank. A lot of things could happen. KBConWiki (talk) 15:26, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Even though it is too early to call, most polls favor Donald Trump over Joe Biden in 2024. The political betting websites favor Trump too. And inflation is a tough nut to crack. If Trump is elected, I hope the pandemic will be over by then. Because Trump will not push vaccination, mask wearing or social distancing. The most we could hope for is him having some kind of Operation Warp Speed type program to come up with an antiviral for Covid-19. KBConWiki (talk) 16:07, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm sure the conspiracy theories and partisan efforts had nothing to do with Biden's failures... 16:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The Democratic President Harry Truman said, "The buck stops here." And there are plenty of staunch Democrats who admit that Joe Biden made some serious mistakes during his presidency. KBConWiki (talk) 02:34, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 03:29, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Recent bridge collapse in Pittsburg
At 6:39am EST (11:39 UTC) yesterday, a bridge collapses in Pittsburg, injuring ten. Thank god the infostructure bill went through (of course, needing Republican support), so these things don't continue.Andrew5 (talk) 17:12, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

OnlySky
Apparently the nonreligious bloggers on Patheos, after increasing restrictions made by the Christian site owners, all up and left, going to a new website called OnlySky Media. Opinions on this new...thing? Hypermarket (talk) 02:24, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Honestly it's not suprising they left a website they didn't agree with - Mike did that; split from Metapedia, join Rightpedia (which was later taken down). However the websitr will probably expand. Andrew5 (talk) 23:53, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Boston's screwed
Boston could have biggest blizzard on record. As for me, they're saying 9-14 inches (23-35 cm) so I should also be on high alert. Andrew5 (talk) 19:30, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * My heater has been turning on late at night/early morning lately. 65F inside the house is COLD by my desert-folk standards. With that said, I’d die in Boston, a frozen hunk of skinny dude in the snow. Probliknaut (talk) 21:25, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Laughs in Maine. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 05:57, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Blizzards! GAH WE ARE SCreWED!!1!! Doesn't this shit happen to every place in the north east every couple of years or so? In 2010 here in Maryland, we had two 24-30 inch nor'easter snowstorms in three weeks, and we survived just fine. The big bonus was that the storms made for a beautiful big green spring. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 06:11, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, when a blizzard struck here in January 2018, it killed 22. When it happened in January 2016, it killed 55. When it struck in February 2011, it killed 36. These storms are extremely lethal and this is shaping up to be potentially a cat 4 winter storm. Andrew5 (talk) 14:27, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I've long wondered how they calculate these tallies. If an old dude keels over from a heart attack shovelling snow from said storm, does that go into the tally? KarmaPolice (talk) 18:17, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes.Andrew5 (talk) 18:26, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

First death confirmed. Andrew5 (talk) 21:46, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * However ... Scream!! (talk) 01:07, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * But Boston got verified with their biggest snow day in January, at 23.5 inches (~59.5 cm). Andrew5 (talk) 01:12, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Russian Ukrainian war - possible draft?
If there is a draft and you are called up to service, what will you do? 1.145.250.164 (talk) 08:46, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Laugh, and send a copy of my birth certificate.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 09:08, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There isn't going to be a draft. There isn't going to be a war between the US and Russia. Period. 13:16, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I might show up if I get to be a combat medic. Otherwise, I don't know. LongStylus (talk) 14:56, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Bad knees. Flat foot. Near sighted and astigmatism. It would be the wrong idea to put me against a Russian. After all, I’ll probably get distracted by borscht and vodka. But in all seriousness I don’t see all this posturing going anywhere. Probliknaut (talk) 16:49, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It's massively improbable, to the point of impossible. The vast majority of possible American draftees are unsuitable for military service [physical/medical/criminal/educational], most won't have desired skills and would take at least three months to produce a bog-standard footslogger. Which Ukraine doesn't need; it needs *weapons*; such as AT/AA infantry weapons, artillery, air defence items etc.
 * But near sight does not matter much as long as it's sufficiently correctable with glasses. Plus, it's quite possible for you to fill a rearguard/desk role if it frees up a physically capable person for the front. Lastly, there's areas which don't give a toss about flat feet and bad eyes, or even artificial feet and glass eyes - like the cyber corps. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:52, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, starting the draft with give the anti-war movement a colossal shot in the arm. A volunteer army is honestly just more pragmatic given that the draft is political poison in this day and age.-Flandres (talk) 19:59, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Most of the time, I won’t even bother with foreign conflicts if u.s. lawmakers are like “yes. Let’s intervene for the rich boys.” 2600:387:9:9:0:0:0:9E (talk) 01:11, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Ive always been slightly disappointed that gays are allowed in the military now. kinda liked the safeguard against any kind of potential draft, however remote that might have been. cant even rely on the hiv these days to keep me out. oh for the good ol' days of rampant discrimination and when HIV was a death sentence. at least now im getting on a bit it would be less likely i guess AMassiveGay (talk) 10:37, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I actually dated an Israeli for a bit. He was in the service when he was in his early 20s (not too too long ago). He said that, at least in his group, his fellows were super supportive and that there were several other out LGBTQ+ recruits and that his straight friends he made there even went out to gay bars a few times with him. He said it was actually a bit of a sexual paradise at the time (guy in uniform and all). While I hardly believe this is remotely the reality for most UK LGTBQ+ service members, well...it could be. It ought to be. Fucking bullshit that it isn't. Shabi  DOO  11:39, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * A part of me wonders whether this is partly due to the IDF being much more integrated/representative to wider Israeli society than UK Forces are. After all, it's a difference between a force which is heavily % conscripts from all layers of society vs one is crewed by long-service professionals drawn from a pre-selected pool. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:27, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If my very cursory research is correct, it’ll only be a few years for me to be ineligible for the draft- damn it all if they nab me prior to then. I’m a coward, anyways. Edit: too cursory, I guess. Shit. It’s a long ways off. Probliknaut (talk) 02:48, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

If there is a draft, I would be ineligible to serve until further notice. I've already tried to enlist in the US armed forces, but I was disqualified over some BS medical condition that I won't disclose here. Long story short, until I'm cleared by a specific type of medical professional, I'm ineligible to serve, anyway, so I wouldn't have to worry about being drafted. G Man (talk) 20:33, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The last draft was in 1973, as Americans hate drafts, but, I do think that if it escalates to WW2-level, a draft will occur. Andrew5 (talk) 21:32, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Going to admit: the ongoing COVID pandemic and the threat of right wing terrorism is wearying on me
2020-2022 seems to be one long unending year with plenty of death caused by COVID and the threat right wing terrorists pose to a democracy.

I guess that it has been very depressing to me. I am just desperate for life before COVID and what is currently going on in the world. Is that bad of me? --Non-Binary EAS Creator (talk) 02:26, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you concerned that you are being selfish? If so, I don’t think so. I for one would love to live in a world without a pandemic and it’s associated misinformation and (for whatever damned reason) political ties. But anywho, don’t feel bad about it. It’s okay to call shit shit. Probliknaut (talk) 02:36, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * And I’m kind of shoehorning this in, here, but I am re-reading Achewood as we speak and stumbled on this strip. So I guess what I mean to say is, it was always lame- but we’re just extra-aware with the mire the world is constantly slogging through. Probliknaut (talk) 02:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The woot of the pwobwem iws thawt wogic, cwiticaw thinking, statistics, science awnd ethics isn't taught in the depth iwt shouwd be in westewn democwacies. Thawt iws why conspiwacy theowies, iwwogicaw thinking awnd sewfish thinking awe hindewing measuwes tuwu contwow the pandemic.
 * thewe awe many big pwobwems facing westewn democwacies awnd at theiw woot iws poow educationaw systems. Thewe needs tuwu be mowe schoow choice. kbconwiki (tawk) 05:09, 28 januawy 2022 (utc)
 * Interesting, any videos that can give me an introduction to logic? I would like to see more school kinds that have guarantees instead of all but one being a gamble. 2600:387:9:9:0:0:0:92 (talk) 12:47, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ignore the broken record of a troll AMassiveGay (talk) 13:41, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh come on. Just because I got a little rousy yesterday means I get denied advice for this period? 2600:387:9:9:0:0:0:81 (talk) 13:59, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing AMG isn't talking about you, 2600 BoN. Just that, we've have certain repeated new account Salon trolls that love to wax on and on about logic, critical thinking, statistics, science and ethics, while failing to apply the same standards to their own thinking. (Which is why "school choice" is the solution for this troll's problem, of course. Nah, we have that already, in American politics that's just shorthand for "government welfare for private schools". Private schools go either way these days at any rate. Some are indeed more rigorous than many public schools, though there are quite a few rigorous public school programs in America, just depends on where you are. Other private schools simply exist to build strange narratives about supposed all-powerful wizards in the sky. The ideas they have might not get in the way of basic math, but might throw up some roadblocks when you get to, say, biology.)
 * At any rate, I did a quick peak around an online learning site (Coursera) and quickly found a "Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking Specialization" online course courtesy of Duke University that seems well reviewed. Might be more in depth than what you want (this is a course), though, but logic / critical thinking is actually a decent sized topic. Probably merely the will suffice to start if you just want a skim-level read... PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 14:35, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Life before COVID wasn't much better for me. The pandemic has given me some much-needed time to think about my life, so it's not all bad. LongStylus (talk) 13:16, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Smaww bunches of disowganized wight-wing tewwowists awe nowt going tuwu take ovew any of the wowwd's majow democwacies. Awnd the pandemic iws manageabwe fow most vaccinated peopwe as iwt dwasticawwy weduces chances of hospitawization/death. Kbconwiki (tawk) 13:47, 28 januawy 2022 (utc)
 * A drastic reduction is not the same as nothing. We are still going to see hundreds of thousand of more deaths worldwide. And the coming decades are going to be defined by a wave of disabilities caused by long COVID, independent of hospitalisations. Queexchthonic murmurings 13:51, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The mainstream right does not want you to do that, Stylus. They want you do shuffle back to your 2019 groove without a word of complaint, to think of '20-'21 as a kind of elongated 'holiday time' where things were strange. But now it's back to 'normal' so quit dreaming.
 * Which is what I think shall be the most interesting thing for the next 12-18 months. The fight between those who want to make a better 'post-Covid world' and the ones who simply wish to go back to 'before' with zero changes. One critical [and obvious] fight-zone shall be the nature of work; I'm hearing quite a few folks who do not want to 'go back to the office' at all, and a lot more who are demanding/desiring much more 'flexi' situations. Yet bosses are the ones pushing the hardest to get their underlings back in their cubes. Yet demographics show there shall be a light labour market in the 20s which means our worker-serfs shall be less inclined to shuffle back to their cubes under threat of the sack. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:55, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Shall it be a battle or a boring “they are communists” thing from corporate donors? 2600:387:9:9:0:0:0:81 (talk) 14:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * A battle, as it's not an obvious 'labour vs capital' thing. There's some capital which shall be more 'pro-flexi', from companies who are saving lots of cash from no offices to the providers of home office kit. In some cases, the execs are for it while it's the middle-managers who are the most anti [some rightly/wrongly fearing that the future office shows how pointless they are]. Some unions shall like it [members are more able to have better work/life] while others shall oppose due to the fact it makes it even easier to outsource to say, Bombay and Madras office functions previously done in Birmingham and Manchester. There's also going to be a generational issue; here in the UK, the 'Boomer Boss' was perhaps the most entrenched opponent to not just homeworking, while younger cohorts were much more flexible in the hows/when/where regarding work. Lastly, you'll have the poorer workers who actually prefer to have 'the office' because their cheapskate employers are tying to have eternal homeworking *without* passing on any cash for workers to get a proper home office set up.


 * What's more, we might see lots returning to offices, but *different* offices. Think about all them big HQs in Downtown cities; sure, you might need to be in close contact with your group/team/etc, but not all them sods on the other floors. A strong message coming from white collars is not that they hate the office, it's that they hate the commute. So, instead of having everyone in one big office which requires hours of commuter slogging, I'll slice up the staff into work-groups, distribute the little offices into the commuter belts and on the occasion the different groups need to have a meeting, it's done via Zoom. KarmaPolice (talk) 14:53, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * In some ways COVID was sparing. For instance, officials in Arkansas estimate that COVID is why no one has died when an EF3 tornado struck Jonesboro on March 28, 2020. And the tornado still caused $300 million and 22 injuries. (Hence also why the outbreak/tornado lacks a Wikipedia article, because nobody died.) Andrew5 (talk) 15:04, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Covid, Right wing threats and rising authoritarianism abroad shouldn't make me so pessimistic, but yeah, the future looks bleaker and bleaker.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 18:46, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There's reasons to hope. I think the global 'we' are getting a firm grip on Covid now, 'right-wing threats' if any other extremist phase is anything to go by shall burn out soon enough and many authoritarians get themselves chucked out of power due to mass incompetence and/or stupid levels of corruption.


 * One thing has just struck me. Who chooses the school in this 'school choice' stuff - the parents? What about when your alleged relations are really thick and/or have a warped sense of the world, like mine did? If they'd had their way I'd have left school at 10 after mastering the '3Rs' and 'do something worthwhile' which I suspect would have been backbreaking labour of some form. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:04, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * dont know who said, it was a whiles back (in relation to uk politics not the us), but a lady opinion haver was having her opinion on the the subject of school choice. she said for most mothers school choice was a red herring. they all wanted their local school to be a good school and tey wanted to be able to send their kids there. they did not want their local school to be subpar and a breeding grounding ground for future crims, nor did they want to have their children attend schools miles away because the local school was so shit or they could not get their kids in the local one because it is a good school and filled with kids of the chattering classes outside the catchment area and have to bus their own kids a less good school further a field. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank god for nuclear war over Ukraine - that should unite the country against the covid pandemic and rightwing terrorism. 03:37, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Why are you so obsessed about Ukraine? 🤔 03:53, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Andrew5 (talk) 13:52, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Damn good question. Dutchbag (talk) 18:56, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Two new states sued for gerrymandering.
Idaho was sued over apparently cracking Boise, and New Mexico was also sued over cracking rural areas in New Mexico, diluting the Republican vote. Andrew5 (talk) 14:40, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * They pack, they crack, they do the whack. 2600:387:9:3:0:0:0:B3 (talk) 15:39, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Check out the proposal for Maryland's 3rd congressional district. You can play the gerrymander golf game here (no subscription needed): Bongolian (talk) 18:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I gave up at WA-06, that is very hard. Andrew5 (talk) 21:40, 28 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Question: has any state passed a gerrymandering bill in the last 50 years that did not result in a lawsuit? Dutchbag (talk) 03:38, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Arizona wasn't sued (yet) but their gerrymander was pretty egregious. Tom O'Helleran was already gonna have a hard time in an R+6 district, but now it is solid red at R+15, he has no chance. Kirkpatrick, who before was D+2, is now R+7, and in a red wave that means ousted. Stanton went from solid blue at D+15 to a D+1 tossup, meaning he might get ousted. It could literally become 7-2 Republican, or if not that 6-3, whereas without gerrymandering Republicans probably would've only gotten a 5-4 map. Andrew5 (talk) 13:56, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Bot Impersonation
In case anyone's confused by some recent changes acitivity, one of the repeat vandals registered an account for EditfiIter (note the capital I instead of the l) in a doomed attempt to cause mischief. Queexchthonic murmurings 14:12, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It's probably the same vandal that tried to impersonate me, using the same technique. See User:LongStyIus LongStylus (talk) 16:30, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Userbox problem
The images for most of the LGBTQ+ uboxes have mysteriously vanished. Jake Holmes ''yell at me 15:05, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * See RationalWiki:Technical_support. Andrew5 (talk) 15:08, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I.e., this is a more widespread problem involving RW connections to Wikimedia Commons. Bongolian (talk) 20:11, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Andrew5 mobile (talk) 20:19, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Worst RationalWiki editor?
Who was the worst RationalWiki editor you ever had to deal with? Epic Games (talk) 01:19, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That is a tough one. That said, either nobs or RationalDriver i.e. a literal Neo-Nazi. --Non-Binary EAS Creator (talk) 01:28, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Let sleeping dogs lie. Bongolian (talk) 01:30, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I gotta say either Ken or Mike. Both were permabanned and since have made hundreds of socks. Andrew5 (talk) 01:47, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Most fun troll was LogicMaster777... 03:53, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * How was he/she the most fun troll? Epic Games (talk) 05:08, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * He truly believed that because countries were synthetic creations (the Earth doesn't give a crap about our borders anymore than we care about the borders declared by anthills), constitutions and laws were all fake. 05:14, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * LOL Epic Games (talk) 05:36, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * "TK". Though probably before most people's time.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 07:36, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * BoN . 😉 07:50, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

This is a poor choice of subject. disappointed people have engaged with it. im tut tutting right now and shaking my head AMassiveGay (talk) 07:51, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Surprised that I'm the first one to mention Nathan Larson/user:Tisane yet. Yeah, I wasn't here too, but the guy wrote an article claiming that child rape isn't wrong. Being banned from RW is already extremely hard. But he was banned 10 years ago. GeeJayK (talk) 13:42, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * On second thought it might be user: Aneris, as they were banned by the RMF (see below). A recentism bias might be Unclescrooge or ADefenceOfChristianity, as they were permabanned by ATIM votes (Scrooge: 22-3. ADOC: 17-1, also a Ken sock.) But then again GR was permabanned by 20-2 coop 14 months ago for more severe issues. Andrew5 (talk) 14:43, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The walrus started off as a pretty funny troll imo. Then they started harassing people, which sucked. armed_roomba (she/her)What am I doing wrong this time? 18:20, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with LGM above,  18:44, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh the pain. Patty Pat 23:15, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yet another username troll? Those are getting old. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 19:35, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It is an honor to be RationalWiki's worst editor. Also, I am learning about organic chemistry, and oh wow it is interesting. Revenant Raven (talk) 06:00, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Gonna say LGM ┐(´ー｀)┌ -- Techpriest (talk) 17:20, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Anyone remember Nx? Scream!! (talk) 18:19, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Canadian Conversion Therapy Bill
Canadian lawmakers have recently passed a bill outlawing conversion therapy practices (!!!), but it's garnered a ton of backlash from the religious sector, who seem to claim that it would prevent them from reading Genesis 1 or counseling an LGBT person. Jake Holmes ''yell at me 15:25, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This mostly speaks to how much "Christianity" has turned into shitting on teh gays (a minor part of the Biblical text, but a seemingly major part of modern North American Christianity). I think the bill text is quite clear. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 15:49, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Conversion "Therapy" should be banned everywhere. Screw the "freedom of religion" excuse. --Non-Binary EAS Creator (talk) 16:58, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Fundies steaming on their willies as the suns of the profits do. 2600:387:9:9:0:0:0:4A (talk) 20:11, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The right-wing fundie components of the religious sector would also be opposed to the banning of faith healing. Their opinions regarding health about people should not be considered. 20:55, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The right wing fundie sector screams about their "rights" while violating the rights of their children; because children are 100% property without thoughts or emotions. The fundie thought process is much like doublethink from 1984 (if you don't know: believing two contradicting views at once). --Non-Binary EAS Creator (talk) 23:27, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No doublethink, just poisonous, outdated views; in this case that children don't actually have rights. Tell me, how can you violate rights of persons who do not have them? KarmaPolice (talk) 00:31, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The way you said it implies that children are property. Children are people and do not deserve to be forced into something that is completely harmful. Keep in mind that the right wing fundies are the same ones who say unborn children/fetuses have human rights. --Non-Binary EAS Creator (talk) 02:11, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * What part of 'poisonous, outdated views' was missed here? I was arguing from the POV of said parents, showing that it's not actually hypocrisy by their lights. And revealing the *true* issue at hand. You also see this in older folks [in the UK at least] who don't think animals are sentient, or if they do are simply on the 'absence of primal needs' and that's it, *slightly* above a plant.
 * Now, campaigns against 'murder of the unborn' is much more classic hypocrisy, in the respect they don't give a flying about said possibles when they become actuals and require help. KarmaPolice (talk) 15:00, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread. --Non-Binary EAS Creator (talk) 23:36, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Trump's attempt at seizing voting machines near the end of his disaster and joke of a presidency
https://www.thestate.com/news/politics-government/national-politics/article257835268.html

For those of you who don't know- Wannabe Furher Trump signed an executive order at the end of his term allowing for the seizing of voting machines during the 2020 Presidential Election (which everyone should get a free puppy after that mess). Obviously that did not happen but obviously Trump loves to go above and beyond to keep power. Who cares about a free and democratic election? --Non-Binary EAS Creator (talk) 23:51, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * As much as Trump did a bad job at his presidency, it ended over a year ago. Leave it in the past. Rehashing this does nothing. Andrew5 (talk) 00:58, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Damn, Andrew made my point before I did. 01:08, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, that was a surprise. (Also it appears I learned my lesson from this. Andrew5 (talk) 01:15, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Guess you are right. --Non-Binary EAS Creator (talk) 02:12, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No, it is interesting to know this, it is a more significant piece of evidence that any other that he was bent on overthrowing an election. It is also not a tiny possibility that he could be elected again in the future. So no...I don't think zombie's post here was unreasonable, considering it isn't one of many in the last few weeks/months and that there are current relevant news events (politicians still talking about it, people being convicted of it, his daughter being invited to a committee about it) etc. Shabi  DOO  02:38, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * As long as the whiff of illiberal "democracy" remains alive in the GOP, Trump's pathetic attempts to stay in power in the dying days of his presidency nonetheless remain relevant. About 1/3 of the US population still believes his "big lie" that there was election fraud, and Trump's hold over the GOP as a whole is still very strong, although just a little less strong as it used to be. The authoritarian bent in the GOP extends far beyond just one man, and it's possible that the next person who tries these shenanigans won't be as stupid as Trump was. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 04:38, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Also all crimes happened "in the past". This "it happened in the past" type argument can be used to hand-wave away just about anything.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 09:42, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There are actually statue limits on crimes. For example, in New York, disposal of solid waste has a 4 year limit, meaning if I committed it anytime before January 30, 2018, and wasn't caught, I couldn't be arrested. Full list for all states is here. Murder, rape and other Class A felonies are really the only exception. Andrew5 (talk) 13:20, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * the effects of trumps presidency do not simply end when the ballot closes, nor does discussion of things during his term end after an election, or that all the facts are known and uncontroversial about all aspects of his reign that posting new developments is 'rehashing' and doing nothing. trumps legal issues are on going and far from resolved. controversy and courts cases surround the integrity of the election that ousted him and far from resolved. many these things only became an issue after it was lost. many other legal issues prevented them being investigated while in office. electoral integrity in the us, efforts to circumvent democracy, to disenfranchise voters is, corruption and the rule of law very current and very relevant with grave implications. there are false claims to subvert democracy in the us being made constantly, loudly, knowingly, and unashamedly. lies about a stolen election and voter fraud, imperiling democracy with the liars inciting violence, gerrymandering, disenfranchising voters by any means, liars defending democracy from a threat they made up with measures they are pushing that actually does threaten democracy and deliberately so. there is no evidence for their lies, just loud and constant repeating said lies. the facts that have emerged and continue to emerge need highlighting. they show where the corruption really is. where the assault on democracy came from and who really tried to steal the election and how. this is not old news. more information is more good. its not anykind rehashing and 'leaving it in the past' is impossible. lies and conspiracy theories will over take you with your head firmly in the sand. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:12, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, so Andrew wasn't arguing my point. My point was that we shouldn't obsess over Trump specifically, as he's only one element in a larger political trend. Not that we should just shrug and ignore the effects of his presidency. I retract my earlier comment. 16:48, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Trump's influence is waning. One of Trump's events suffered poor turnout. Trump wants McConnell ousted but it remains very likely he will remain Republican leader after 2022. Trump's endorsed candidate in the TX-06 election by 6.4%. Trump's endorsement of Mo Brooks is failing, because remember, both his primary and general election based candidate failed in the 2017 special election. Trump's backed candidate even suspended himself in the PA senate race. Trump's influence is waning - this is just giving him more attention, which is fueling him. Andrew5 (talk) 16:50, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * And honestly, Democratic infighting is probably even worse. Mainly because of progressives, which in some ways is worse then Trump. The Squad refused to approve Biden's infostructure bill - without Republican support, it would have failed, 221-215 (hence why the Republicans are so angry for the 13 who voted for it.) There is a reason Kamala Harris is down 15 points. They are now a heavyweight on the Democratic party. The only thing that's different is Democrats dislike progressives. That's the only reason we aren't jumping on progressives. Oh, and the fact that lefists run this site. Andrew5 (talk) 16:57, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I just want to point out, for the record, that Andrew just tried to make at least three pivots. Do not take this person seriously. 17:03, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I just want to point out, for the record, that GrammarCommie (along with others) restlessly argued the Illinois map was fair, and has also attempted to permaban me over this. Do not take them seriously. Andrew5 (talk) 17:07, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I did not, in fact, attempt to permaban you. That is a bold faced lie. I attempted to coerce you. Duh. 17:10, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I also did not argue that the map was fair. Quite the opposite in fact. So now you've attempted to pivot again, and you're just straight up lying. 17:11, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * To get back to the topic you so desperately want to avoid, the political movement that got Trump elected is still a force within American politics, and is still trying to re-litigate the 2020 election, covid measures, "CRT", and pretty much any other reactionary manufactuversy they can get their hands on. They remain thoroughly authoritarian and seditious. Anyone denying this should be mocked and then promptly ignored. 17:15, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe you were trying to coerce me, but you still abused your administrative rights in the process. Now that I've read carefully, you didn't defend it...but did nothing to argue why it was bad either. (Why was it bad? Well, you pack the Republicans into 3 districts! RW: And that's totally not a problem.) Now I will ask the question: Why do we spend so much time discussing politics in the Saloon when all it does is make threads so bloated, Archive405 filled up in a week. Andrew5 (talk) 17:16, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * WTF! The community discusses whatever it is interested in! And the community is evidently a lot more interested in politics than, for example, "it's snowing in winter" topics.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:06, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Going back to your other point, GrammarCommie, Trump at this point has a minor voice in the Republican Party. When I worry about the GOP, I don't think of Trump anymore. What's the main problem with the GOP? The main problem with the GOP is their gerrymandering, which already got their maps in Ohio and Alabama shot down, has lawsuits pending in Texas, Georgia, and North Carolina (and possibly Kentucky soon too), just approved a pretty egregious South Carolina gerrymander, will likely pass an extremely egregious Tennessee gerrymander, and denied any representatives in Utah, pretty much permanetly, when having a tossup or lean D district in Utah is totally appropriate (unlike Oklahoma). But Democrats have done it too. New Jersey (ik it has an independent comission but it was Democrats who fully won), Maryland, Nevada and New Mexico. I'm disturbed that the courts excused the Illinois and Oregon gerrymander too (5-1, tossup is D+3 and can only flip to 4-2 in a red wave year, despite it only being Biden +16), and could possibly propose one of the most egregious gerrymanders in history in New York: a 23-3 or 22-4 map. Republicans have done it too, which is far worse then Trumpism. Now did Trump influence gerrymandering? Possibly slightly. But it was going on really since the 1960s.

So we should focus on redistricting for now, and worry about Trump when he becomes relevant. Otherwise we should stop giving him unnecesary oxygen. Andrew5 (talk) 17:23, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Address the subject or be silent. I do not give a fuck about your sniveling attempts at pivoting. 17:24, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok fine. Here is the ultimate question - What is more important? The waning influence of Donald Trump, or the egregious gerrymanders from both Republicans and Democrats? Andrew5 (talk) 17:27, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * So you don't actually acknowledge the far-right elements of the GOP, of which Trump was merely the avatar, enabled by their leadership which is now desperately trying to save its own ass, is a continued threat? Moron. 17:28, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think Trump fully influenced it. Modern high-partisian dates back to Newt Gingrich in 1995 when he became Speaker, and refused to negotiate with Bill Clinton, and even got him impeached. The is nearly 3 times the age of Trump being in politics. 2020 wasn't the first time someone refused to concede an election, it was just the most high profile. Take the aforemention AL Senate election. It's unfortunate to see Trump still refuse to acknowledge defeat but there are far more pressing concerns in US politics right now.Andrew5 (talk) 17:32, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I mean, I'm most fully disturbed by some of his egregious insults, like when he called New Hampshire a drug infested den (that's right, he claimed the election was stolen from him even though he won (although to be fair, New Hampshire was only 0.37%)), and when he called Baltimore a rodent infested city no one would want to live in, getting himself condemmed by even Republicans. I know that's stale too...but it's important to note. Andrew5 (talk) 17:37, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * What part of "was the avatar of" do you not understand? You're literally a walking example of my point. You're so focused on Trump as an individual that you completely ignore the broader trends that led to his rise to power. 17:44, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know. The Tea Party movement.Andrew5 (talk) 17:45, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The Alt-right, which evolved from the Tea party, which evolved from the Neocons, which evolved from the Religious right, which in turn evolved from the racist Southern populists. A trend that has outlasted Trump's presidency, which the GOP leadership continues to court even as they try to force Trump into the dustbin of history and politics. Trump was/is only one component of a greater whole. The fact that you keep trying to doge this issue is deeply telling of both your views, your (lack of) character, and your (lack of) standards of conduct. Trump's presidency is over (thus far), but the elements that enabled it and then in turn were enabled by it live on. And those elements, those movements, those trends of behavior and thought, are the real issue. Not Trump as an individual, not some pitiful "great man" derived explanation that lets us sit complacently in our narratives, but the real ongoing threat to this country. 17:58, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Typically I'm never in a situation where I have to defend my views from external pressure this much. But Trump and the alt-right, while maybe the biggest threat to America internally, is not. Multiple threats are greater then this.
 * Gerrymandering, which is essentially the government deciding who your representative is (except in a primary of your party).
 * Climate change. Can't have a functioning democracy if half of your nation is destroyed (if the oceans can hit 50C or 122F, a hypercane can do this).
 * Foreign threats, of nuclear war and also invasion. They can cause a lot more harm then one man.
 * Trump did a horrible job as president. But there are other, more pressing things going on rather then talk about him. Andrew5 (talk) 18:05, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You know that's a classic Not as bad as fallacy. Right?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:09, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I did, but am I breaking it? Andrew5 (talk) 18:11, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You are egregiously committing it.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:14, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Not saying it hasn't been broken by others in the RW Saloon but...wow. I didn't think I was doing that bad. Andrew5 (talk) 18:18, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Your non sequiturs lead me to think that you don't even understand the conversation we are currently having.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:22, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The conversation we are currently having...well, the squabbling since 16:48 was a result of the aforementioned fallacy, but before it appears to be yet another criticism of Donald Trump due to his apparent seizing of voting machines, and how this could impact the future. Andrew5 (talk) 18:24, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Groan. Goodbye.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:27, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, that was my perception of it. It isn't an invalid perception. Andrew5 (talk) 18:31, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It very much is invalid. 18:35, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Really? The beauty of politics is everyone can have slightly different opinions, and a democracy enables it. Problem is, it spawns into riotous arguments, like as Shown above. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 18:53, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You were too stupid or dishonest to understand any of what I was saying. Morons do not have a valid say. 18:57, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, you're pivoting again. 19:00, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Morons are people, too. Even a mentally incapacitated person cannot be deprived of the right to vote without due process. Dutchbag (talk) 19:02, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Try reading before commenting. 19:03, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Wow, GrammarCommie. Just because I got in the 70s on both of my exams last week does not make me a moron. (Besides they were my lowest grades in months.) Going back to this specific issue, it appears all I did was commit one fallacy...a lot of times, but comitting fallacies does not make me a moron. Plus you probably comitted a fallacy, specifically ad hominem. Andrew5 (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Out of all pressing threats to democracy you think gerrymandering is the only one worth mentioning???? 19:14, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Unless Trump gets elected he does not pose a threat to democracy. And I doubt that. Andrew5 (talk) 19:16, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I mean, the "Trump won the 2020 election" people, while they are annoying, can just be ignored. Unless the GOP mainstreams this, which to my knowledge they aren't right now, then they should be ignored. If Trump declares he will run in 2024, we can re-discuss this. Andrew5 (talk) 19:18, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Strawman my position one more time. Go on, see what happens. 19:19, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, as much as I would like to continue this pettiness, I actually have a life so...also, now that we are dug out and I can actually go places, I'm gonna do that. Andrew5 (talk) 19:21, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you ought to go back posting about weather in the U.S. and not sure why just in the U.S., but yeah. 19:23, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Go on and run weasel. It would be better were Andrew to remain silent, lest he bring about his own ruin.  19:26, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Fucking spineless coward... 19:27, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, his middle name should be changed to "pivot". Gerrymandering being the only worthwhile mention a threat to democracy and not the conspiracy theories and the impeachment failing and the open corruption of Trump and enolements violations and the long voting lines and whatnot.... Wow. 19:31, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Also it's "THAN". I might've failed English class several times but even I know between "then" and "than". 19:34, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, so that explains why I got a 90 on my essay and….this is getting off topic again. But then again, that’s what the whole thread appears to be doing. The good news is, if we don’t comment for 5 days then this is archived. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 19:37, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Fuck off coward. 19:38, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yep. Get lost, you're dizzy and disoriented from all that pivoting. 19:39, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

GC, please calm down. Your hysterics are getting as tiresome as Andrew's pivoting and weather related posts. Shabi DOO  19:45, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * At least when the guy posts about weather in some random place in the United States, I can ignore it. 19:52, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There are multiple current threats to democracy aside from gerrymandering and Trump, and the bulk of the threat largely comes from the Republicans. To wit:
 * A) Multiple GOP controlled states adapting voter suppression tactics (which may or may not work, depending if there is a re-alignment and if the tea leaves are being read wrong). Worse, multiple GOP states have adapted laws that shift responsibility from counting votes away from election officers and more towards legislatures. This is including attempts to insert more partisan secretary of states into office. What if Georgia didn't have someone like Brad Raffensperger in charge, for instance, in their special elections, who was more willing to actually bow down to Trump, during the 2020 elections?
 * B) Multiple extremist fascist groups like the Oath Keepers are floating around these days, and (as the Oath Keeper show) they are willing to go to more seditious routes. Not exactly new news (see the 1990s militia movement) but a key difference today is that politicians from the top are willing to pander to this class more and more. How do you think Trump would've reacted to the Oklahoma City Bombing back in the day? It's an interesting speculative question, considering the eggshells Trump walked on "reacting" to the Unite the Right violence. No Republican that I can think of back in the day had nothing but condemnation for McVeigh, and the response of Republicans like back then was to introduce  instead. (One can quibble on the details of this legislation, but such is a fair better response IMHO than condoning terrorism or Nazis). Such coddling is how the 2021 U.S. Capitol riot happened, Trump and Rudy Giuliani and others for all practical purposes inflamed the passions enough to spark the mob.
 * C) Multiple GOP politicians adapting more hardline routes to appease towards "the base" (read: white nationalist types). I'm thinking politicians like here, who seems much more politically capable than Trump ever was. I'm not sure all of them privately are white nationalist shitheads (always remember, Ron DeSantis is an Ivy League elite) but some people like power more than integrity.
 * D) The emergence of a more extremist media than Fox News ever was, like OANN. Fox News has even tilted towards Putin-loving white nationalism with Tucker Carlson. (I will say DirectTv/AT&T nixing OANN, their own creation is possibly a sign that some of "the elite" are getting uncomfortable with the Frankenstein monster they've created...)
 * Democrats unfortunately have responded with some un-democratic tactics (eg redistricting, but that's been an American "bug" in politics for a while), and there will always be a few radicals on all sides no matter what you do. At a party level, however, the overall tilt is pretty clear. Multiple people have analyzed the situation from the outside and concluded that the Republicans are increasingly looking like an illiberal democracy party, ala Fidesz (Hungary / Orban) or Turkey (Justice and Development / Erdogan), or even these days India (Modi / BJP). The Democrats have moved much less in an illiberal direction.
 * This backsliding in democracy is far from guaranteed, of course, there's a lot of reasons why the GOP backsliding is not an inevitable path. But the more we dismiss the shenanigans as merely rising and falling with one reality star idiot, the more likely it will happen. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 19:56, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I am calm. Disgusted with Andrew's childlike complacency and outright dishonesty, but calm. Finally! Someone gets it!  19:58, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Coherent gargle blasting, yeah. Usually, issues like this involve complex multipronged explanations, not this "district lines go brrrrr" and "nuke go brrrr". I also would consider the influence of money in politics, such as super PACs, Trump's brazen corruption (look at all the indictments in the Trump administration compared to the relatively quiet Obama administration) and attempts to wither regulations and other checks (also attacking the press relentlessly), and also remember the election interference and Republicans letting that happen and cowering behind legal pedantry of the term "collusion" when cornered. 20:04, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * PanGalacticGargleBlaster, best arguments I've heard yet for war in the Ukraine. Only I think FOX is on board with the warmongers. Dutchbag (talk) 20:35, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Right now, Republicans do seem to be posing a bigger threat to democracy (thanks PGGB for the layout). That being said Republicans do maintain a 4.1% edge over Democrats, and also, not every Republican is like Trump. Like if Abbott loses the election, it will only be a problem if he refuses to concede. Andrew5 (talk) 21:39, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * (EC)So long as we are talking about the threat of Trump/the future of Trumpism, there's something I would like to point out. This is a bit off-topic but I feel like discussions of this sort always forget it.
 * Trump is only a problem because a pretty large amount of voters are okay with his opinions. If something happens to him, his cohort of voters won't just vanish, they will simply choose a new champion. In turn, ambitious GOP presidential hopefuls will pander to this bloc because of how large it is. The threat to democracy isn't Trump the dude, let alone anything the Dems are doing (so don't start with the "radicals on both sides" crap), it is the fact that a bunch of fascists exist in the American electorate. In fact, discussions of far-right movements across the planet always seem to hyper-fixate on "get rid of the big guy then roll credits" when they should ask "where does his movement come from and how do we get it to go away."-Flandres (talk) 21:57, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Democrats and the legacy press cannot dictate what issues are important Americans. So Trump's foibles, mistakes and the importance of January 6, 2022 to many Democrats cannot breakthrough in many cases. Sean Illing who writes for Vox.com and is a former politics professor said it well: "Okay, but between what Democrats say and what the voters hear is a layer of conservative media that exists solely to scramble Democratic messaging. A messaging campaign only works if it allows you to dictate issue salience, and I don’t think Democrats can reliably do that anymore." Donald Trump's railing at "fake news" had an effect on how much many Americans trusts the legacy media which favors the Democrats. It also affected their ratings. CNN is down 90% in viewership post Trump. Thrackkx (talk) 21:48, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Huh, CNN is left leaning, but I guess yeah, they're losing people to mock.Good point.-- Andrew5 (talk) 21:56, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Ha! What's "left" to USians is middle of the road or even slightly right to the rest of the world. Scream!! (talk) 22:01, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * As someone who is very categorically left wing, it's always amusing to watch the ignorant spew such nonsense as "CNN is left leaning". I'm sorry, but are they arguing for a massive, and dare I say radical re-organization of wealth distribution? Are they arguing that the class structure itself is unjust? Perhaps they're challenging the legitimacy of the wealthy to dictate anything at all? Perhaps they're spearheading the rights of the marginalized, both social and economic? Checks notes. Oh, they're just bog standard liberals. How trite. 23:36, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Question: With inflation, will Ukraine have to up Hunter Biden's salary from $163,000 a month? That won't buy a Happy Meal in few more months. Dutchbag (talk) 00:21, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

For anyone wanting a TL;DR of this thread: Andrew5 just spent a lot of time and effort proving leftists correct when they say that neoliberals are a bunch of gullible morons who pave the way for fascists to seize power. Then Dutchbag came in with his standard right-wing idiocy to try to deflect from the point. 2A01:388:3F5:161:0:0:1:3E (talk) 16:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * And Dutchbag talking about Ukraine again??? 16:14, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, why does Dutchbag talk about Ukraine so much? Andrew5 (talk) 17:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * As for Ukraine, I get that it is a serious issue that needs to be resolved. That said, it is being talked about too much here. I am guilty of it I admit but we should stop focusing solely on that here. --Non-Binary EAS Creator (talk) 00:43, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Divider
Question - Is there any Presidential hopeful to whom Trump would be the better alternative - and, if not, what would be the nature of the theoretical beast? Anna Livia (talk) 19:21, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I mean, I’d rather have Trump as president then, say, Josh Mandel, former Secretary of State of Ohio who literally burned a mask, or Majorie Taylor Greene, Lauren Boebert, Matt Gaetz or Roy Moore. That’s about it. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 19:38, 31 January 2022 (UTC) Striking comment as I misunderstood. Andrew5 (talk) 21:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * How about a Democrat, considering the GOP has literally nothing of substance to offer. And that's really only because it's the only other show in town.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 20:56, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I mean, the only way one could honestly see Trump as a good president would be one was operating from the position of fascism or hard accelerationism, and even then it'd be a tough sell at this point in history. 21:08, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * From the GOP: There is little that is better than Trump. That said, if I had to choose a GOP member, it would likely be Tom Scott. --Non-Binary EAS Creator (talk) 21:47, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If the election were tomorrow between Liz Cheney and Kamala Harris, who would you vote for? Dutchbag (talk) 08:33, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Criticism of Hamas from residents in the Gaza Strip
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-60173481

I guess when the only government in the Gaza Strip i.e. Hamas refuses to negotiate a treaty (and they are in no real position to fight Israel), oppresses free speech, refuses to have elections and has mountains of money while the population suffers- it would be easy to see why people is Gaza Strip are fed up.

Obviously this does not absolve Israel of human rights abuses but Hamas is not much better and Fatah in the West Bank is not smelling like roses either. Governments bicker at the price of civilians. --Non-Binary EAS Creator (talk) 21:51, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

The US is broken: discuss.
It's time for the US to be  'turned off and back on again' . The current Republican party is the worst thing to happen to them since Pearl Harbor and should be designated an illegal organisation. How to solve it? Scream!! (talk) 21:58, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Wow, that's the most lefist statement I ever heard. As much as I have gotten into many quarrels with RW over this, I've never heard anything this egregious.
 * Way to solve US - shun the Trump wing of the party, then allow more moderate to be able to take over who can work with Democrats (shun out progressives too.) Andrew5 (talk) 22:00, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The USA cannot be turned on and off again like a computer anytime in the near future. The U.S. has: a constitutional separation of powers which fosters gridlock and incremental change; lifetime SCOTUS appointments; the filabuster in the U.S. Senate; the Electoral College which gives rural people a big influence; a large amount of religious freedom which gives conservative churches a big megaphone; a civilian controlled military; a large gun owning population and small far left/right populations. Thrackkx (talk) 22:13, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, the filibuster is not in the Constitution, hence why only 51 votes (including the VP) is needed to remove it, not 67 (plus, it requires zero House support, an amendment requires 290, and no support from the states, an amendment requires 38.) Andrew5 (talk) 22:25, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that the filabuster was in the U.S. Constitution. The fact that traditional, rural people have a big influence in the USA due to the Electoral College is a big bulwark against radical change. I spent a year working in rural America in the N. Midwest/NE America regions. I saw Confederate flags, Trump signs, gun rights signs and black porch jockeys. I didn't meet a single leftist calling for radical change. Thrackkx (talk) 22:38, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The rest of the civilised world has already enacted sensible policy changes (or are near to enacting them), which are now fairly uncontroversial, for the most part with clear advantages for most/all and have led to healthier, safer and more prosperous nations. Yet in parts of America among a few other outliers in the developed world, these are all dangerous "radical changes". It never ceases to amaze me how much people can fight what are reasonable and helpful policies which will almost certainly be immensely to their benefit. Zheesh. Shabi  DOO  23:02, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, all the Democrats are calling for the filibuster removal, but it still failed 52-48. But when Dems can flip 2 seats, or get rid of Manchin and Sinema, they will probably get rid of it. (They'll probably get both - Sinema ousted in a primary, Manchin in the general election as he is literally in an R+40 state.) Andrew5 (talk) 22:41, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This reminds me of Naomi Klein's book "The Shock Doctrine". The idea that you can "reset" or "hit rock bottom and rebirth" is a dubious one at best in most cases, often leading to predictably disastrous consequences with fairly rare victories in the aggregate. Why "turn on and turn off" when you can simply correct the course? Shabi  DOO  22:57, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

If wishes were fishes, we would all have a fry. Things aren't going well for the Democrats right now so the flipping of 2 seats is not in the cards. Corporate Democrats won the political power game in the 2016 presidential election so Joe Biden won the nomination and the more radical Bernie Sanders lost the nomination. The USA was designed by the landholding, upper class Founding Fathers so radical change will not happen. Barring a financial collapse, revolutionaries are not going to be given the reigns of government in the USA. Thrackkx (talk) 23:00, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Flipping 2 seats is totally in the question, if Democrats can do really good persuasion. It's not impossible. Andrew5 (talk) 23:05, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not impossible that millions of dollars will accidentally flow in my checking account and that my accidental benefactor will tell me to keep it. But it's not probable. You have to stop engaging in magical thinking. The USA is esentially a two party system that swings back and forth and things aren't going well for the Democrats.


 * To echo Shabidoo most revolutions do not achieve positive results. The French historian Ferdinand Braudel pointed out in his book Capitalism and the Material Life that the slow accumulation of technological/scientific improvements causes some of the biggest changes over time and that revolutions rarely cause significant improvements. But technological/scientific change is happening at a faster rate now. A ton of change is happening right now due to the internet, AI, increased computing power and other technological/scientific changes. There is a great book on this I recently read. It is Azeem Azhars' book The Exponential Age: How Accelerating Technology Is Transforming Business, Politics, and Society. Thrackkx (talk) 23:35, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Well...the American Revolution established American independence (though not sure if that's a good thing), so...though the Republican Revolution of 1994 was not a very good thing long term.Andrew5 (talk) 23:53, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Weren't the Americans who fought for independence funded by capitalists who wanted to pay lower taxes? LongStylus (talk) 00:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, but remember it's the same country that, for one egregious offense, sent Japanese to internment camps in the Midwest back in the 1940s. Which was still within the last 85 years. Andrew5 (talk) 00:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The French funded a lot of the American Revolution. If you subscribe to the realism school of international relations, it is because the French were rivals of the British and were seeking greater power in relation to the power of the British. Thrackkx (talk) 00:16, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

As an American, I can agree that the US has many problems that are caused by the GOP. I am aware that some democrats are part of the problem but largely the GOP. Does not mean that I have any hate for my country; just means that I recognize that there are plenty of issues in need of resolution. --Non-Binary EAS Creator (talk) 00:20, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd say its around 50/50 split IMO. Andrew5 (talk) 00:37, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The USA is controlled by the people with money. It wasn't a fluke that corporately backed Joe Biden and Barack Obama were the last two Democrat presidents and that Donald Trump made Steven Mnuchin, a former employee of Goldman Sachs, the United States Secretary of the Treasury. If you're an American looking to experience big political change, then move out of the United States. It's that simple.  Thrackkx (talk) 00:50, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If it was not the GOP enacting those shitty economic policies on behalf of capital, it would be the Democrats or some other institution with power. The primary difference between the two is just culture war stuff, because that's the only conflict that capital will allow. Any other form of conflict is just shut down immediately because it actually threatens power. Something terrible is going to happen in the near future. I don't know what it is or on what scale it might take place, but it's coming and I can't see it. We are all falling Andrew, and it's just so wonderful. Revenant Raven (talk) 01:04, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Obama was probably coporally backed in 2008 due to the recession, but no way 2012. No way they picked Obama over Romney. And in 2020 they were split as while Trump did impose coporation laws no one liked, Biden also raised taxes on them. Andrew5 (talk) 01:05, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It's idiots like Bette Midler and Neil Young are the root cause of America's problems, and have been so since the 1960s. Dutchbag (talk) 01:18, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The Democrats were mainly winning on the cultural war issues for 60 years. But every Republican dog and every Democrat dog has its day in American politics. The Republicans are now on a roll when it comes to the culture war. Roe vs. Wade is on its way to being overturned or being severely restricted. Thrackkx (talk) 01:22, 31 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I love how everyone is talking about people and not systems. "It's the rich! It's the poor! It's the left! It's the right! It's the center! It's the Dems! It's the GOP!" No one is questioning the underlying incentive structures which shape all of these groups though. You all might want to try that. 01:21, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Or continue fighting over the effects of those incentive structures... Breaking out of narratives is challenging for some after all. 01:32, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I discussed the American political system in my January 30, 2022 at 22:13 post and January 30, 2022 at 22:38 post. Thrackkx (talk) 01:37, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * But 3what undergirds that system? Therein lies the real questions. 01:47, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Values undergirds that system. The Founding Fathers were mainly white, Christian/deist, land owning, upper class men from Britain who designed a system that would be very resistant to very rapid change. The UK has more respect for individual liberty than say France or Germany due to its history (Magna Carta, common law, religious history, etc.). The Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution is partly a reflection of its British history. So the governments in the UK/USA have a harder time of foisting unwanted changes on its populace than say France/Germany.  Thrackkx (talk) 02:00, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * And whence cometh the values? Is it really so hard to believe that it's all mere illusion, foisted upon us by ourselves and society so that we made numb our sense from the truth that order is delusion and chaos eternally reigns? 02:27, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * A societies values are mainly a reflection of its history. If a society does not have a cultural revolution like China had, those values tend to change slowly. But even China, which had a cultural revolution, retains much of its Asian/Confucian values. When people travel to the USA, UK, France, Mexico or other regions and then come back to those places 10 years later, much is the same. Thrackkx (talk) 02:38, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * EC your assessment of uk, its history, and 'respect for individual liberty' is such vague nonsense that its entirely meaningless, makes the comparisons to france and germany worthless, offering no insight. how does the uk respect 'individual liberty' more than in france or germany? with what metrics? how is the uk similar to usa in having a harder time 'foisting' unwanted changes on its populace than 'say, france and germany'? why france or germany? what about wanted changes? you've said nothing here but undefined vagueness supported only by undefined vagueness AMassiveGay (talk) 02:51, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

What I wrote appears nonsensical to people who do not know their history. There is a reason why Britain never had a revolution like France or Nazism like Germany. I suggest reading about the Magna Carta, common law, the history of limited government and the history of religion as a beginning to your enlightenment. Thrackkx (talk) 03:08, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * if you had any clue about what the fuck you are talking about, you would not make such vague references to such broad subjects so vast in scope to support a point so vague and undefined. you would not be comparing countries so disparate with so little reference to their differences or their similarities, so little attention their differing histories, their differing cultures, their political systems, so little of anything useful, of any details or nuance, anything at all that might indicate some kind of insight, some kind of understanding at all of any of the terms you liberally sprinkle your posts with that are loosely connected, terms and phrase with well known significance generally, but posted here with no explanation or clarification of their specific significance of whatever point it is you think you are making.


 * if you knew what you were talking about, if you had a valid point to make you would make it. you would make it clearly. you would support with relevant evidence. you would explain your reasoning. you clarify and define things as required. you would clarify and explain what you mean when asked to. that would give us all something to wrestle with. to attack or defend. to assess the worth of your words.


 * unfortunately your obfuscation provides nothing for us to work with. there can be be dialogue when you hide behind inanity. there is nothing to defined enough to attack or defend. whatever point you hoped to make about cultures and politics and change is so shallowly made, no point is made at all. it could not survive any attempt at clarification. a world view so myopic, so limited in its understanding lies behind the obscuring vagueness, is not worth engaging with, there is nothing to engage with. AMassiveGay (talk) 04:46, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Any books, articles or other sources in mind? I want to read more about those things. LongStylus (talk) 05:19, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Ok. I could have provided more resources about these matters rather than merely alluding to them. If people want to have an informed dialogue about these matters, then I suggest reading: Liberty, Community, and the Free Man in Magna Carta, English Bill of Rights, Limited Government and the Rule of Law and Why the Puritans Favored Limited Government (Why the U.S. Has Three Branches of Government) and John Wesley. It would also help to know about Church history/church hierarchies with various Christian groups and Christian theology as far as various Christian groups (Like the differences between Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists, Puritans, Presbyterians, Congregationalist, Eastern Orthodox, etc.). For example, countries with a more top down forms of Christianity (Catholics and Eastern Orthodox) tend to have more top down governments than where less hierarchal forms of Christianity are prevalent (Protestants). Thrackkx (talk) 05:34, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I noticed that one of your sources is History, which is deemed unreliable by English Wikipedia Anyways, providing sources is well-appreciated. LongStylus (talk) 05:37, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Your welcome. Thrackkx (talk) 05:38, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I used to have some level of indifference towards libertarians until I found out what they were actually about in their ore extreme forms. Fuck the Puritans (Salem witch trials). Bongolian (talk) 05:46, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * As far as the Puritans and the Salem Witch trials, you are never going to find a pristine group of humanity free from error and sin. There were 19 victims of the Salem Witch trials. But overall, the New England colonies of colonial America which had a lot of Puritanism enjoyed a lot of liberty. Thrackkx (talk) 05:59, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * For those who are interested, I have a few more resources in the form of videos: John Wesley: The Man Who Saved England and John Wesley's message & method arouse England's conscience -- even as France heads toward Revolution Thrackkx (talk) 05:52, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You're not going to convince me by starting from a religious points of view on what a secular state should be. Bongolian (talk) 08:11, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It is indeed a bizarre way to go about it.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 09:49, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Since we are talking about the foundations of the political system of the USA, I will offer a Ben Franklin quote that pertains to some people in this discussion. “Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn.” ― Benjamin Franklin Thrackkx (talk) 13:17, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * But isn't an unwillingness to learn a shame? Andrew5 (talk) 13:24, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That's beside the point though. If the US is broken, why on earth would we go back to a previous order, especially considering that such an order was the result of conditions of a previous time. Would it not be more prudent to look to the conditions of our own time to inform our solutions? 14:07, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * What a shitstorm. The header was intended as (mostly) a joke - isn't it surprising what gets started by accident.😆 Scream!! (talk) 14:11, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Have you considered turning the thread off and on a few times? 14:37, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Pro tip: politics isn't taken as a joke here. Don't start political threads unless you want massive arguments and discussions to pop up. I remember when we had like 4-5 concurrently, and the Saloon was 300 kb. Andrew5 (talk) 14:52, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Wow! Pro tip from a pillock! Please don't communicate in any way with me or respond to me in the future. You are obviously an immature Republican wannabe and almost everything you write is anathema to me. Scream!! (talk) 17:29, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Wow, what a way to jump to conclusions. I'm trying to play moderate, and give the GOP and Dems equal slack. Also, so what if I do have a slight Republican lean? Isn't it my right to identify with a political party? Andrew5 (talk) 17:38, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, The US recently had what was arguably a joke president.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * And it still does! Biden is arguably just as bad as Trump. Honestly, Obama and Bush 43 weren’t great, and I’d say our last good president was Clinton. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 15:18, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Have you perchance considered not shooting your mouth off? "Biden is just as bad as Trump". I was unaware that Biden was openly attacking the concept of a free press, assassinating high ranking government officials, ignoring threats both at home and abroad, engaging in open corruption, blatantly and openly lying with almost every breath, getting into petty pissing matches with government departments and state institutions, attacking the integrity of the election process itself, engage in hamfisted trade wars, cozying up to authoritarians, courting and refusing to condemn Neo-Nazis, getting into petty feuds both in real life and online, banning ethnic groups from entering the country purely on the grounds that they are of an ethnicity that he and his base dislikes, gutting regulation, selling off government parks and refuges to craven business interests, refusing to address conflicts of interest, and more that I can't remember off the top of my head. The sheer delusion it takes to equate a bog standard corrupt liberal politician with someone like Trump ought to result in commitment to a sanitarium.  15:43, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Biden is bad due to his incompetence. First off, polls indicate Biden is down 11.2%. Trump at this time in his presidency was actually down 14.9%, but Biden is still 2nd lowest. First off, he handled COVID well...until evantually Omricron ruined it. Biden is also proposing spending trillions of dollars WE DON'T HAVE on infostructure (I want to Manhattan once and saw a sign saying we owe $27 trillion in debt), and his party doesn't know how to sell it. He was hijacked by progressives, clearly. Biden is not this centrist he claims to be. Also, under Trump, we never lost a major war. Under Biden, we did. The catastrophic defeat in Afghanistan, making it only the 2nd time we lost a major war. And honestly, the fall of Afghanistan was even worse as it literally took place over just two days - August 15 and 16. kabul fell, and as such the Taliban returned to power. That's the saddest part of 9/11. Biden may not have lied as much, but he is clearly still not doing a good job running the country, being unable to get anything done.Biden is like Jimmy Carter, almost. As such, America is still not in a good state. Andrew5 (talk) 15:49, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * So you should indeed be committed to a sanitarium. The level of straw grasping you have to resort to to even begin to imply equivalence says much about you. Mainly that you are dishonest, stupid, and/or insane. A sanitarium is probably the best option. 15:59, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * To say Biden is as bad as Trump is ridiculous. Biden may be a disappointment in some ways (though honestly what do you expect any president to achieve under such division with a blocked senate?). This isn't the same as helping turn America into a more dysfunctional democracy while damaging trade and international relations with just about every single international ally the US has, and in the process making it extremely difficult to say or achieve anything through the nuance necessary to do anything sensibly. Shabi  DOO  16:22, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Biden is almost as bad as Trump. The only exception is Biden is trying to be good and not alienating our allies. Idk about you but personally I care the same about nothing getting done and the economy as our allies, simply because we need to be functioning internally. Biden seems to be given some slack due to his predecessor, but save for that, he'd be regarded as one of our worst presidents. Andrew5 (talk) 17:38, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you illiterate? 18:02, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hint, if you aren't a moron you'll answer that you are in fact, illiterate. 18:04, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * For those who are wondering, not only does Andrew's source not back up his claims that Trump and Biden are essentially the same, already tenuous given how much shit Andrew is glossing over in order to double down, but it actually argues that Biden isn't popular because he's thus far failed to carry out the left-leaning reforms he promised. So again, Andrew really should just answer that he's illiterate. He can therefore gain a token fig leaf to save what little face he has left. 18:49, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

EC since thrackkx has been talking about more than just the founding fathers of the us, i would like to again draw attention to the fact they are still making vague claims about governance in disparate countries still with no actual examination of the politic systems, the histories, or the cultures of either mention explicitly countries or now alluded to with a no less vague and unsupported 'For example, countries with a more top down forms of Christianity (Catholics and Eastern Orthodox) tend to have more top down governments than where less hierarchal forms of Christianity are prevalent (Protestants)' and ultimately still meaningless by having no real explanation of what is meant by 'top down government' in this case, and no examples given to justify the claim that protestentism is the cause for some governments being less (more vagueness to an already vague idea) top down than were those where pesky papalists are abound. its all so vague and poorly explained.

now the real point becomes more obvious (kind of), something about the significance of protestentism in some vaguely defined governments in unidentified countries apparently prevents revolutions and makes you freer, the reasons for the vagueness and the lack of any important detail or explantion becomes more clear. they have nothing. no examination of the relevant histories of the specific countries mentioned. no mention of the differences between britain and france, politically, demographically, economically. no mention of the revolution that had already happened in britain before the french had theirs. no mention of the civil war before that, and how all that coloured the preceedings. or how the agricultural revolution changed things. or the industrial revolution. or reactions to the french revolution itself made radicals less violent. or the causes of the french revolution. and that is just britain. none of that because that might point to something other than protestentism being key. and there is no discussion of why or how protestentism was key to poorly defined differences in poorly defined government, just that the founding fathers of the us were largely protestent themselves. we'll say nothing of the hundreds of years since that time. nothing important could happened in that time could it?

complex histories spanning hundreds of years boiled down to the point only vaguely protestantism vaguely remains as the be all and end all and the sole reason for different countries being different countries, and dont get anything more than this. its just all so fucking shallow. shallowness + arrogance + ignorance = pure dogshit AMassiveGay (talk) 15:26, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * aqnd john wesley did not save england or prevent revolution. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:28, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The US revolution is and is not an exceptional case of a radical transformation gone right. From an outsiders point of view, one who greatly admires things about America but does not hesitate to point out things I find disturbing, and having not been engrossed in the mythology, I have a somewhat more objective view of it. A few things to keep in mind: The US revolution was partially triggered by acts of terrorism, acts which today are generally unacceptable under most circumstances. While the revolution did bring about amazing democratic reform and an incredible new experiment in nation building as well as an eventual highly influential super power and economic powerhouse, one which inspired changes in other countries...keep in mind that other similar colonies (albeit decades or even many decades later) achieved the same without the violence, civil wars all ending slavery much earlier and adopting social reforms decades ago. Canada, Australia and New Zealand to name the largest of many others. They achieved their goal with much less upheaval, internal conflict. Yes I recognise that all circumstances are different and that we can play a lot of "what if"...that being said, a violent revolution was not necessarily the only path towards achieving what America achieved. Shabi  DOO  16:04, 31 January 2022 (UTC)


 * What are your thoughts on atheism? 16:14, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Couple of points of order:


 * P1 - 'England did not have a revolution'. Wrong, ours was the period around the Civil War [c1630-1690]. It was a struggle between two main visions for the future; a Royal Absolutism a la Louis XIV vs an selective oligarchy [which we ended up with]. A kind of odd conflict; the oligarchs won the war, then the dogmatic Puritans overthrew the oligarchs, they got their revenge by re-installing a Royal Absolutism, but then re-allied with the 'moderate' Puritans to conspire with foreigners to launch 'regime change' when they got a new monarch they didn't like.


 * There were also future echos heard, of both modern democracy and socialism, from the 'Levellers' and 'Diggers'.


 * What's more, we have had later bouts of 'disturbances' which could have turned very ugly; the Radicals of the 1790s, the Chartists in the 1840s, the massive waves of strikes from the 'New Unionism' in the 1880s leading to the unstable powder-keg of the Edwardian Era; Irish Home Rule / Suffergettes / People's Budget / working-class militancy / anarchism [in fact the situation by 1914 was so bad it's believed the Germans might have gambled on WW1 on the belief the UK would be too distracted to help France].


 * P2 - 'Puritans had lots of liberty'. I call out BS. If nothing else, it goes flat against the experiences of Roger Williams and Lord Baltimore who so loved said 'liberty' they decided to settle elsewhere. We have to bear in mind that when the Puritans spoke of 'liberty', they meant solely religiously - aka they did not have to conform to the Church of England. Let us not kid ourselves; the Puritans were dogmatic zealots who did their best to set up a theocracy and if transported to 2022 they'd find the current Evangelicals pretty congenial company.


 * KarmaPolice (talk) 16:32, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It is best not to engage with anyone who views documents from the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation as historical documents.
 * To be honest, this thread has been spinning out of control due to these, er, unusual "historical" interjections. The thread started regarding the modern Republican party (admittedly with a wee bit of hyperbole). If you want to look at the religious influence on this angle (and the development of political fundamentalism, which in its modern form only started in the 1970s), 18th century politics is way too far back. It is better to, say, compare and contrast Billy Graham with Franklin Graham. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 16:55, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You can't understand political systems and politics unless you understand history/culture. It is true that some American states did not have religious freedom in terms of a particular sect of Christianity during colonial times, but church attendance was pretty low compared to what it is now in terms of the states as a whole (In 1776, only about 17 percent of the country were church members, compared to about 65 percent in 1995 according to the scholar Rodney Stark). So many were not that religious. They still had lots of freedoms as a whole in terms of world history - especially if you compare it to atheistic cultures with state atheism. But overall, I would rather live in areas where Methodists were or other more tolerant sects of Christianity lived than in a state controlled by the Puritans. Thrackkx (talk) 17:13, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd argue against that characterization of the Puritans. Unlike the American Religious right, most of the Puritans actually believed what they said and, were they transported to the present, would be disgusted by Conservative Evangelicalism on both moral and religious grounds. 17:18, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know GC, the Puritans had a really dark side.Ariel31459 (talk) 18:52, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing that they didn't, only that were they around today as they were back then, they'd likely come into conflict with the Religious Right. In short, both had horrible ideals, but I do not see them as allies. 18:56, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

This discussion was tainted by sock puppetry, specifically from Ken. But there was other conversations going on here as well. Do we collapse the whole thread (as it was exploding with tension anyway), do we leave it as is, do we collapse only Ken’s specific comments? I don’t know what to do here. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 19:40, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No, why on earth would we do that? 19:59, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Anyone else see why I despise Andrew? Who the fuck does he think he is: I don’t know what to do here. SHUT UP YOU TOSSER!. Scream!! (talk) 20:24, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually Andrew is good for playing "spot the argumentative fallacy". Without even reading the whole thread I can spot Gish Gallop, balance fallacy, non sequitur and not as bad as. We should set up a bingo card.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 20:36, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the answer is to let the archive-bot have its meal at some point. 20:30, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I assume he thinks he's himself. Unless of course he's actually someone else, in which case that someone else would be him. 20:31, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Feeding Andrew to the archive bot seems a bit harsh don't you think? 20:32, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I think he means to not discuss here for 5 days, then the discussion will be archived. Andrew5 (talk) 20:34, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I mean sure, he's stupid and intellectually bankrupt, but feeding him to the archive bot seems inhumane. 20:36, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The archiver bot will have a 36kb discussion meal if no one else comments. Andrew5 (talk) 20:39, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry it had to be this way. Truly tragic. 20:45, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

The last time the US paid it's debt was in the 1830s. In the Clinton years, had we progressed, we would've gotten rid of it in ten years. This also makes Bush 43 a bad president. Andrew5 (talk) 20:51, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Might want to read up econ, debt isn't that big a bogyman anymore. 20:54, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It all depends. Debt isn't an inherent problem when the PV of services rendered is greater than the PV of debt incurred.  The problem is when the politicians are putting their fingers on the scale of what those PV's should be.  21:53, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Here's the thing though, investing in infrastructure, the thing Andrew thinks is a waste of money, is pretty much a solid investment. In contrast with the US, China has embarked on a multinational infrastructure project (the Belt and Road initiative), which though incomplete has already helped make them wealthier than the US. "Why?", is the obvious question. The short answer is you have to spend money to make money. The long answer is infrastructure projects specifically deal with the things that economies are built on, i.e. roads, rail, trains, ships, harbors, power, etc. So not only should this sort of thing be done, it should be done more often. Or we can just let China run the world while we implode economically. Our choice. 22:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't fully say it was a waste of money. However, America cannot be spending anything when it owes over $1.1 trillion to China and Japan. Now a lot of people have to pay much higher taxes, including people who aren't so wealthy (anyone with over $400k). And the failed BBB was worse - $1.75 trillion. Yet we have more debt then money. GC, this is not making money. Honestly it'll take decades for us to save a trillion on infostructure before we make this back.Andrew5 (talk) 22:11, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * We don't owe them anything. They make money off our debt. The more debt we have, the more money they make. Wait to expose your ignorance on international debt trading, something literally every nation, including the US, does. Just stop, you don't know how the national debt works, or how national finance works, or really how anything works. Your repeated displays of ignorance are bordering on masochistic. 22:25, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * To makes this even more more hilarious, a quick search reveals that Chinese debt held by the US is roughly $2 Trillion. Lmao. 22:30, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There is a reason has a Wikipedia article - it's a notable topic. This website has us down nearly thirty trillion bucks. Other countries have debts too, but not as extreme. While you do need to spend money to make money, if you spend too much, you don't make it back. And then you're better off not spending any. --Andrew5 (talk) 22:28, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Lmao, the national debt clock is considered obsolete circa 2020. 22:31, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Really? It says nowhere about that in the Wikipedia article which remember, is a good article and therefore needs to cover it fully. For a tropical-storm related good article to see what it has to look like, take a look at Andrew5 (talk) 22:35, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You get all your news on Econ from Wikipedia articles? What are you, 4? Also, no, we're talking about national debt, quit trying to pivot you cowardly weasel. 22:40, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Infrastructure is one of the best ways to pay off national debt, thereby lowering the amount of money anyone with a share of our debt makes. Infrastructure usually results in business expansions, which result in more jobs, which results in more spending and saving, which results in more government revenue in taxes. The only thing we can ill afford is idiots who don't know how any of this works commenting on the matter. Idiots like you. 22:43, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hell, this is such an established, noncontroversial principle that almost every economic school of thought, from Marxists to Neoliberals agrees it's a good idea. 22:45, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe it was a good idea, but the US lacks the money to pay for this. It's almost like we're completely ignoring the fact that we owe $2.5 trillion to Eastern Asian countries. Andrew5 (talk) 22:48, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Dude! We don't owe them money. That's stupid. Do you think nations go around owing money to each other like loan sharks? What the fuck have you been smoking?!?!?! They bought some of our debt, which given they literally make money betting on, they are never going to collect on, even if they could. Which I can't stress this enough, they can't. International debt trading is less like IOUs and more like corporate stock. You make money by sitting on it, not by collecting it. 22:55, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Then why have other sources pick up on it? Andrew5 mobile (talk) 23:03, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * DUDE!! Do you not read your own sources?!?!?! It literally says China could stop buying our "stock"!!! Your own sources is arguing against you!! Just admit you don't know how national debt works!!  23:13, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, and the news article (I notice you have yet to cite a reputable econ journal) is from 2018, back when Trump was fucking around with Tariffs. You know, one of those points I raised that you glossed over while trying to pretend Trump and Biden were the same.... Like dude, half the rightwing media propagandists are more honest than you, and most of them are paid to lie and mislead. 23:18, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Infrastructure is important as fuck, indeed, and I agree that the US should spend money on it. However, physical capital cannot provide economic growth in the long term due to diminishing returns and depreciation, even if it helps. Only innovation can do such thing. So, my personal opinion is that the American government should focus more on basic research and primary education, though I repeat, infrastructure is still relevant. The Chinese case is in fact a good example of this, and before them, Japan and Korea. Some people thought these countries would fall into slower growth rates as they were just using more capital to make their economy growth. It didn't happen, because they also managed to create highly innovative economies. In 2018, the American Infrastructure was still a lot better than the Chinese one, but when it comes to education, you guys are lagging behind at least when compared to the Chinese major cities (I’s bet the primary education in China is very good in the countryside). I doubt anyone will be interested in such boring, technical details, but can Google "Solow model" (or pester me on the talk page) if you wanna know more.

As regarding deficits, while my opinion on them has changed a bit over some recent events and literature (indeed, as long as interest rates are low, they aren't that much of a big problem in America), they still mean less savings, which means less investments. So yeah, if we want more investments and innovation, we need lower deficits at least to some extent. Not now, now it's not a very good time for an adjustment, we have to fight the pandemic first, but in the future America will have to do something like Bill Clinton did (the alternative is what Paul Volcker did. Or even worse, what ). If anyone wants to know more, Google "crowding out effect" (or my talk page, though Google knows a lot more than me). I know, I too got worked up again. I just love this subject too much, even more than I love history of the economic thought. Once one starts to think about [economic growth] it is hard to think about anything else. GeeJayK (talk) 00:01, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I mean funding for education, research grants (if I remember correctly) and small business incentives were in the BBB, but that's dead in the water after it was separated from the big infrastructure bill so... As for diminishing returns, I'm not so sure. Unless I forgot something, we should see surges in economic activity that, pardon me for using the meme, should make the line go up, thus leading to an increase in the total wealth, which, should our government be run competently, could then be put into paying off our debt and making sure our deficit is under control. As for China, well I don't normally praise them but their economic departments are run by some very smart people, and it shows. 00:08, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Seriously China's economic plans make me green with envy at how well thought out they are. I literally hate how stubborn the US is when it comes to managing economics.  00:11, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

pop goes the weasel
Given the mess above, I am adding this to allow for a more clear discussion of the issue. Andrew5 (talk) 20:57, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should feed Andrew to the archive bot after all. Pretentious asshats are a bore. 21:03, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe RationalWiki should stop jumping on people who aren't lefists. Don't I have the right to a political opinion?Andrew5 (talk) 21:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No. 21:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * "Maybe RationalWiki should stop jumping on people who arent lefists. Don't I have the right to a political opinion?" Haha, good pun, Andrew! LongStylus (talk) 21:26, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Well did I commit a fallacy? Andrew5 mobile (talk) 21:40, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Then what was me in the Neoliberalism discussion that people tried to correct me on? 21:48, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It's ok to have a rightwing position, you just need to be able to defend it logically. 21:55, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, ok. Andrew5 (talk) 21:56, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * And don't forget, Andrew, talking points are not arguments. They are appeals to emotion. Rightwing appeals to emotions sound like trolling to progressives. Suggesting that Biden could be worse than Trump should enrage even progressives who despise Biden. Think more, talk less.Ariel31459 (talk) 22:36, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * However, it appears we only elected him to not be Trump. According to this article Biden has done a terrible job with inflation, an already massive issue. He got a D for economy, D for crime (mainly because Biden did squat to help), Biden made a flimsy excuse for Omricron claiming he didn't see it (isn't that all what Trump did?) and only got a C. Of course they got an F in Afghanistan. 44% of Americans want Biden to not run, and only 36% do. Oh and he got an F for immigration. Plus, the Hill is an unbiased source of information. He only got elected because he wasn't Trump or Sanders. Andrew5 (talk) 22:44, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't like Hill as a source for grading a president's first year. "He got a D for the economy." What does that mean exactly? Wages are up, the markets are higher than ever. There is inflation of course, but no respectable economists blame Biden for that. See, these are bullshit political talking points. You need to stop.Ariel31459 (talk) 22:55, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * He literally doesn't understand how national debt and international debt trading works. I wouldn't hold my breath on him becoming self aware. 23:00, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Ariel, a lot of the wages stuff was Trump’s fault. Reverting Trump doesn’t make you a good president. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 23:05, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah. The sad part is even people who should know better swallow this kind of horseshit. "F for Afghanistan." What does that mean? Style points? Biden got us out. I fail to see failure in an act that every progressive in America should rightly approve.Ariel31459 (talk) 23:12, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not arguing Biden is anything but OK Andrew. Compared to Trump he looks good. Probably he will finish top third, with Trump neck and neck with James Buchanon and Andrew Johnson.Ariel31459 (talk) 23:16, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It is important when reading a political pundit puff piece (and "presidential grade" articles tend to fall in this direction) to figure out the pundit's style. The columnist, Joe Concha, has a Twitter account. His primary gig appears to be Fox News. Much of the Twitter feed is spent ranting on so-called left wing "hypocrisy" and "censorship", retweeting ex-Fox "right-wing" types like Megyn Kelly (or others -- retweeting Andrew Sullivan, that's a blast from the past), and bitching about Biden picking a Black woman for a Supreme Court job (and, naturally, pimping out Fox). Like Kelly, he also appears to be one of those with conservative leanings, but also one who tends to shit on the Angry Baby for his obvious lies and bullshit. So not quite the modern GOP style. He also loves American football. You can adjust your expectations for such a column accordingly, and I'd say the Hill piece fits perfectly with this pundit's worldview. For other people's worldviews, "your mileage may vary". PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 23:32, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I stopped reading the thread when andrew started fearmongering about us being indebted to East Asian nations. that's one part economic illiteracy (public debt is not the same as personal debt!) and one part racism right there (ranks right up there with the Jewish banking conspiracy theories). G Man (talk) 23:46, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * How was any of what I said racist? Andrew5 mobile (talk) 00:51, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, going back to Afghanistan, Biden did a terrible job. Sure, he ended a war....by essentially allowing the Taliban to take over. We lost. We lost our second primary conflict and our first since 1975. Sure, it wasn't entirely Biden (Bush 43 started it, Obama could've pulled out and Trump actually tried)...but it was still under Biden.It's also uncanny how he was still up 6% at that point, with exactly 50% approval, compared to 43.8% dissaproval, yet 2 weeks later he was dissaproved of. Andrew5 (talk) 01:40, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm going to tell you a secret Andrew. The Taliban was always going to take over when the US withdrew. The rapidity with which the corrupt government collapsed was entirely due to the lack of faith the Afghan people had for it. The US lost the war in in the sense that it was always going to lose the war. Trump arranged for a US withdrawal in 2021. Yeah he did a shit job alright. Biden decided to get out despite the problems. You keep conflating public approval with good quality government. I could point out that today Biden loses to a generic republican candidate, but manages to beat Trump, Cruz, Pence and Desantis in head to head contests, but that is not relevant. People are not very happy, but neither are they very stupid.Ariel31459 (talk) 02:05, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Andrew5: Mario The Door is This Way.jpg 02:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The US was always going to lose when we withdrew, but we could've done a much slower pullout. Also, the poll says Biden would win by 1%. In 2016, Clinton won the popular vote by 2% but still lost. Trump could still win despite losing the popular vote.Andrew5 (talk) 02:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Congratulations Andrew. That is a right wing talking point. The R's could have done it so much better, yet after three republican administrations, and almost 20 years, they failed to do so. Kind of makes you think ( I hope). You don't win any friends by being pedantic either. Unfortunately even the Russians understand the electoral college. Ariel31459 (talk) 02:46, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

it's called Yellow Peril. You can either google it and engage in a meaningful discussion, or you can stfu. G Man (talk) 21:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh my god: another awful satire from bb
https://babylonbee.com/news/trudeau-tests-positive-for-fascism Epic Games (talk) 04:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, definitely way too forced. Even when they have a point, like here (I live in the heart of the population of people who thought politically correct protests were good, even the kinds that blocked roads that were essential access to lifesaving treatment, but getting together with your family was FUCK YOU FOR MEETING IN PERSON AAAAAAAGGGGGHHHHH, and if you think I'm exaggerating you've never been to either New York and its suburbs or southwestern Connecticut), they still come off like massive goobers. Someone could probably pull it off, but not them. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 05:20, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Kind of ironic considering the uproar over a very small idiotic bit of the recent Canadian truck vaccine mandate protesters displaying the Nazi swastika. (And Confederate flags. And the . Er, yeah. There seems to be a very strong correlation between "how Nazi you are" and "how likely you failed history class".) PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 14:34, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Nah, the correlation is between "how Nazi you are" and "how much you suck at life". Nazis look for disaffected young men who struggle to date, keep a job, stay connected with family, and offer them salvation.  Their life isn't in shambles because they just suck, it's a shambles because of the manipulations of an outsider group!  It's the same all over, from the Iranian Revolution to the Russian Revolution, from ISIS to Incels, the most vicious bastards were always those worthless sacks of crap who could never get their life together under the old system and blamed everyone else for how their life sucked.  The only way to permanently end Nazism or similar is to prevent men from becoming disaffected sacks of crap, but sucky people are going to suck.  15:39, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

What happened with pictures?
In many articles the pictures have been gone for a couple of days now. --Spafky (talk) 16:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Having same problems too. User:GameEnd 16:11, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * RationalWiki:Technical_support Andrew5 (talk) 16:17, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Super Bowl
Rams vs Bengals who you picking? GameEnd (talk) 16:15, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Eh, I really don't care for both. Andrew5 (talk) 16:17, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Well its between a Guy who's really good but was on a bad team before and a team that was the laughing stock of the league for 30 years. GameEnd (talk) 16:18, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The Bungles. It's rigged. Dutchbag (talk) 21:23, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't really like Football. --Non-Binary EAS Creator (talk) 00:15, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Bengals. Spread the love all around the league, they haven't been in the Super Bowl in decades, so they deserve it. armed_roomba (she/her)What am I doing wrong this time? 00:30, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * But hey, at least it wasn't . Andrew5 (talk) 00:35, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yah, it's really a participation trophy for the Cincinatti fans, which L.A. fans have not earned yet with either the Raiders or Rams. Dutchbag (talk) 00:42, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I probably want the Bengals to win, actually. I don't like LA sports because I hate the Dodgers. Mainly because they beat the Yankees for the 2017 World Series. That, and also LA sounds more appealing. Andrew5 (talk) 00:54, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

The Detroit Lions have never seen the Super bowl and likely never will. If they do, Hell will freeze over. --Non-Binary EAS Creator (talk) 01:25, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Here's an idea: rig a Superbowl between Minnesota and Buffalo - somebody's gotta win. But both are so gun shy now, neither wants to risk the embarrassment of going back. Dutchbag (talk) 02:04, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * They did win in 1935 and 1957, pre-Super Bowl. (Super Bowl, TMK, began in 1967). Andrew5 (talk) 02:32, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Looking for Youtube alternatives
I've been curious about YT alternatives, but most sites are copy-pasted lists of each other, always listing Vimeo, DailyMotion and some even mentioning Metacafe for 2022.

I did come across a couple of actual alternatives, such as BitChute, DLive and Odysee. The problem with these is visible on their frontpage: loads and loads of alt-right BS and lots of cryptobros. I've also come across D.Tube, which looks "better populated" at first glance, so to speak.

On the bright side, Peertube has several instances and doesn't seem to be popular with those cranks, which is great. A final find, seemingly straight out of 2012, Tracle, which lacks loads of basic features, such as being able to delete anything, like your own uploads or your account.

Can anyone point to other halfway decent alternatives to YT? Preferably ones that haven't been taken over by cranks and conspiracy theorists. Mistermano (talk) 19:12, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The Invidious network is a more private alternative to Youtube, and I have completely abandoned Youtube because of this. There are a bunch of different nodes, but they can be accessed like any other website. An Advocate (talk) 19:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Vimeo and Dailymotion are, well, as far as I know, pretty much it for "mainstream" dedicated multilingual long-form video hosts, apart from streamers like Twitch. (I guess Veoh also counts but it's small and kind of strange at first glance.) Most of the other English hosts are like Bitchute and exist primarily to host people who insist on violating the TOS of Youtube... which leads to exactly the sort of content you expect. (Somehow D.Tube and Peertube have avoided this fate, miraculously!)
 * Veoh looks kinda stuck in time. It works, but the player lacks precision when trying to jump to specific times, plus arrow keys do nothing. A real shame, but a valid alternative. Mistermano (talk) 20:08, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That being said there also are language-specific video hosting sites like Niconico for Japan (even though YouTube apparently is big there too) and Tencent Video for China, as well as other sites that allow video uploads as part of their platform (Instagram, Facebook, etc., all the way down to more niche usage like Smugmug), or allow it as part of file storage (Google Drive, Dropbox, etc.). Depending on what you want out of a "YouTube alternative", of course.
 * Invidious at first glance looks like a mere front end alternative to YouTube? PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 19:45, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * (Also, it looks like a few competitors to Vimeo and Youtube in the B2B space, like Wistia, Sproutvideo, and others. I assume you are not talking about that.) PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 19:54, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No, not looking for business stuff, just looking for something that lets you upload your own content without having to worry about instant bogus DMCA. Mistermano (talk) 20:09, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Invidious is only useful for watching YT outside of YT. So, it's a better watching experience, but no way to upload stuff through it. Mistermano (talk) 20:08, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

They're practically nonexistent. You could watch and/or create video content on social media apps and sites like Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook, but only after you create an account on those platforms (except Twitter). G Man (talk) 21:35, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * GTV is pretty good. Dutchbag (talk) 21:44, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * LOL, you seemed to have missed where this account was not wanting alt-right stuff. :p That site is new to me, but this is the brainchild of Steve Bannon and a kind of shady exiled China executive named, and targets Chinese from what I can tell. (From the Wiki the content seems to mix the usual Bannon junk with COVID-19 misinformation and CCP bashing.) I doubt the OP is interested. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 22:44, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It's got Hunter Biden's Greatest Hits, no tags no flags.  Dutchbag (talk) 00:52, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 12 Video Sites That Are Better Than YouTube. Srich (talk) 05:55, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Guess you didn't read my first post, nor did you actually peruse that list. Some highlights: Metacafe (fully dead), Internet Archive, Crackle (streaming similar to Netflix), TED Talks Mistermano (talk) 13:53, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

It will be decided tomorrow….
Whether the NC gerrymander will be shot down. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 23:29, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You do realize that whatever happens is just a manifestation of much larger changes? It seems like you think this is what matters, and what is actually causing these things to occur. Take note of the fungus causing the rot, not the rot itself. Revenant Raven (talk) 02:31, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I always get a kick out of these anti-gerrymandering rants cuz it is, after all, duh, the people's elected state legislators who draw the maps. And then the people's elected governor who signs the bill into law. So yah, try once again explaining how it's anti-democratic, and should we abolish state legislatures or appoint dictators or bureaucrats to draw the maps? and who would appoint an unelected commission? Elected officials? or should elected judges draw the maps or judges confirmed by elected officials? 05:28, 2 February 2022 (UTC) &mdash; Unsigned, by: Dutchbag / talk / contribs
 * Gerrymandering generally favors the GOP because they control more state legislators and state governors, but recently it may turn out to be even Steven for Democrats/Republicans. Srich (talk) 06:07, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * All 4 resolved court cases favored Democrats (though Republicans in Alabama are sueing to the US Supreme Court, because of course. We'll have to see how that pans out). Republican maps were denied in Ohio (where the map will likely take away a Republican seat now, not add one and take two from Democrats), Alabama, but were upheld in Illinois and Oregon. (This is not a politically charged statement, FYI, I’m trying not to complain about it). Andrew5 (talk) 15:07, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Please stop making these threads. 20:17, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know who to slap with this, but I'm ready. 20:37, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Remember back when I expressed skepticism about the claims of gerrymandering from the Dems? Remember how Andrew thought that meant I was endorsing Gerrymandering and then engaged in borderline defamation every chance he got? Remember all that? Yeah, he looks pretty stupid now doesn't he? 20:59, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Remember back when I expressed skepticism about the claims of gerrymandering from the Dems? Remember how Andrew thought that meant I was endorsing Gerrymandering and then engaged in borderline defamation every chance he got? Remember all that? Yeah, he looks pretty stupid now doesn't he? 20:59, 2 February 2022 (UTC)


 * If only there were a place where people interested in Gerrymandering could talk about it.Ariel31459 (talk) 20:59, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I mention this because (1) it is both a partisian and racial gerrymander, and (2) this stuff interests me and I want to post about it. Politics interests me nearly as much as weather does. Andrew5 (talk) 21:40, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a shame you neither know anything about politics nor are you willing to learn. 23:03, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Generally, people who complain about gerrymandering tend to be people who take pride in losing. Dutchbag (talk) 23:27, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Just wait, if the Dems ever do win by gerrymandering Dutchbag will 180 so fast it'll leave vapor trails. 00:06, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I don’t take pride in losing, I think that gerrymandering is a threat to democracy. Actually I was pretty upset when I barely lost a major math competition (I got 13 out of 20, the winner got 14. It was a difficult packet). Andrew5 mobile (talk) 01:06, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Republicans are a threat to democracy too, yet you can't manage to say anything bad about them without making sure to imply the Dems are just as bad. 2A01:388:3F5:161:0:0:1:C4 (talk) 09:04, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Republicans are a part of American Democracy. There are too many Democrats who want one party rule. If you want one party rule, then go to China. Srich (talk) 11:08, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Andrew5 mobile (talk) 11:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * LOL, "good posting" that bit of silliness. Let's tweak and re-word. *cough*
 * "Atheists are a part of American Democracy. There are too many American Christians who want an authoritarian theocracy. If you want an authoritarian theocracy, then go to Russia."
 * Ah, feels good. Tucker Carlson will be ticked off! PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 12:52, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, I didn't think of it that way. Andrew5 (talk) 15:00, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "Racism is a part of American culture, there are too many progressives who want to abolish racism. If you hate American culture so much, go to [insert bogyman country here]". Try using actual arguments and reasoning rather than thought terminating cliches. 15:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Seriously, anyone trying to fence sit is a moron and should be ruthlessly mocked. Truth is not found between two contesting parties, but where the evidence leads. Anyone who says otherwise is a moron without a thought in their skull. 15:16, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That is true, but Cherry-picking is also a serious problem. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 15:55, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I noticed this in town
Numerous yard signs saying "No Solar Farms". Funny enough, they are in the same yards as yard signs that support Trump and his authoritarian policies. Bet they believe a conspiracy about solar farms. --Non-Binary EAS Creator (talk) 01:07, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Expecting any form of reasoning from those people is just setting yourself up to be surprised or disappointed. Revenant Raven (talk) 02:26, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Solar is a long term proposition. It will take time to improve the technology and take other measures to make it cheaper. Vox.com: How cheap does solar power need to get before it takes over the world?. Srich (talk) 06:01, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Your article is from 2016. The situation is changing all the time.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 09:11, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The needle hasn't moved enough in a positive direction since 2016. The 2016 Vox article says: "Sivaram and Kann argue that the industry should set a goal of pushing the installed price of solar to $0.25 per watt by 2050 — down from around $3 per watt today. That's a mind-bogglingly low number, and it could require thinking about solar innovation in a radically new way. Current approaches to cutting costs won't necessarily get us there. We may need experimental new technologies. Or novel ways of integrating solar into our walls and windows. Or robot installers." The solar industry would need massive R&D money and subsidies and the Republicans aren't going to cooperate and neither is the Democrat, coal baron Joe Manchin. Srich (talk) 10:32, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * LOL, oh new account trolling Salon. OP is just talking about NIMBYs. A more relevant article is here. Solar farms can be massively more profitable these days on a plot than farming, particularly low-value automated crops like soybeans etc. But it's "change". Some people cling to certain ways. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 14:02, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Part of the problem is that 'price per Kwh' over the different fuels aren't equally measured. Fossil fuel generators not only normally get to offload external costs [pollution etc] onto the general public but also further down the supply chain too [think coal mines, oil fields etc]. This is not taking into account direct subsidies. Nuclear is in a somewhat similar position, what with the simple fact the decomissioning/waste costs are normally fobbed off onto the taxpayer. Lastly, I'd give it evens that most advanced nations shall see a full-bore 'carbon tax' scheme within 10 years - and like Tesla's cars, solar will then become more competitive.


 * We also need to think of the other issues. A nation with significant micro/community generation % is one which has more resiliant energy supplies, from both geopolitical issues and infrastructure - admittedly, this is more an appeal for 'energy-poor' nations such as the UK, Germany and Japan. What's more, the old-school power lines are inefficient; I saw that it's estimated between 5-10% of juice is lost en route to the destination, and large nations such as the USA is gonna be worse. I don't think solar will be much more than a niche part of the mix for most, but I can see it being really worth in some situations.


 * But there's sometimes 'decent' [or less stupid] reasons for folks opposing solar farms. For example, they can take up *lots* of space and well, what's there at the moment? We've seen similar in the UK in the rural resistance to 'rewilding'; pointing out that it basically is taking fertile agricultural land out of production and thus, removing output and employment to the community [do solar farms generate *any* employment after construction?]. Ownership may also be an issue; it might be proposed by a large investment fund way away from the community, and so all the 'value' shall end up there, not in the town.


 * Before we mock the 'No Solar Farms' signs or write them off as NIMBYs, find out why they are there first. You might just be surprised at the answer you get. Or might not. KarmaPolice (talk) 14:23, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * In my part of the world, folk seem pretty torn on solar. We get ads on tv and billboards that claim oil and other non-renewable sources are great and seem to hold solar (sometimes nuclear) in contempt, and then there’s ads celebrating solar; both seem to focus on the jobs their respective energy source bring. I have no basis for saying this but I assume it’s just lobbying from Energy Company X and Energy Company Y. Also- does anyone else drive along a highway and see vast expanses of land in the middle of nowhere, labeled as “solar land”? It’s kind of common, here. Of course most of it has been empty for years and years. But there’s a solar farm that comes to mind, for instance, just west of Phoenix. It’s not necessarily near any community- not enough I think anyone would fuss about it. I guess what I mean is- if there’s space it doesn’t seem much of a problem., are you in a particularly non-rural area?

If solar is massively more profitable, then why isn't the tech savvy, Bill Gates turning a ton of his farmland into solar farms? And why aren't big agra-businesses doing the same in mass? Also, how tight is the world's food supply in relation to its growing population? Can humanity turn a lot of farmland into solar farms at the present time? Srich (talk) 16:45, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * from what i can gather looking at dozens of charts on wikipedia, and going crosseyed in the process, electricity from renewables appears to be hands down the cheapest source, and solar is the cheapest of renewables, with pv the cheapest form of solar energy. what apparently is the potential problem is value deflation of solar power. the costs of solar energy is mostly the installation of panels and the like. running costs are minimal and effectively free electricity. but more and more solar means more and more free energy that is worth less and less when sold. so less and less profit from your investment and makes investment for large scale solar projects less financially viable not being able to recoup the initial costs of a big set up, stunting growth in solar energy which is bad news for climate changing.


 * thats the gist of the vox article. i think. what is important to mention, and is mentioned in the vox article, is that this is a potential problem, something needing to be considered, but its not going to see the the solar industry collapse anytime soon. and the worst case scenerio if it did, would be whatever percentage of electricity produced by solar at that point would not increase. wherewould still be solar. solutions provided involve sensible regulators, better storage and hybrid generation - ie an additional source of generation complimenting solar. so less problems with variability. (nationalisation of energy firms too, and not care so much about profit margins)


 * in general, use solar power has continued to grow massively since that vox article was published, and is still getting cheaper and cheaper. it is a significant tool against climate change and will remain so even if deflation one day does halt continued massive growth. thats reason enough remain optimistic about the cuurent status of solar power, albeit cautious.


 * and solar isnt the only show in town here either. wind and tidal also a part of reducing the need for fossil fuels. and there is always nuclear. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:41, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, "solar can be massively more profitable" does not mean "solar is massively more profitable", there are a lot of variables here. As the CSMonitor article indicates, these days there are large-scale solar infrastructure companies out there that evaluate solar locations, and approach the landowners of the most feasible locations with offers to lease the land. I imagine that's pretty typical for anything large scale. Not all land works well for this, not only due to solar output, but I'm sure due to location as well (the closer to those that need power, and to power infrastructure, the better). However I'm sure farmers can add panels on a smaller scale as well (as I've seen with other articles). It is also possible to have solar panels and grow crops at the same time, on the same land. (Some food crops are okay with shade.) PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 17:44, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Solar is more profitable, but only one of my neighbors has it. One thing I’m confused of if it’s cloudy, does solar still work? It’s cloudy a lot in my area. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 18:21, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * As far as farmland and solar, I am glad these decisions are largely made by practical business people rather than impractical people in government and ivory towers. Srich (talk) 18:28, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Srich, yeah 'cos everybody in business is really smart and everyone in government is really dumb. I've been around long enough to know the geniuses and dumbasses seem to be more evenly spread through *all* sectors of the economy.


 * Plus, love your use of the word 'practical'. You don't think governments don't have experts, both theoretical and applied - from economists to engineers? And that often the only 'practical' skill an idolised business exec has is how to read balance sheets and do financial calculations re gearing, P/E and so on.


 * To field Andrew's point; yes, even when it's cloudy solar panels produce juice, because if clouds didn't allow any sunlight through it would be 'night dark' during the day. I've got a relative who has a couple of them in this overcast UK, and it's only on the most grey of days where it's generation is effectively 0%. What I do know for sure that on a sunny day, their electricity metre basically is running backwards - aka they're actually selling power to the grid rather than buying from it.


 * When they had it fitted in 2012 it was guestimated that the payback time was around 15 years [acutally less than that because it's barely needed maintenence so far], and barring damage or design failure it's estimated it's full lifespan is around 30. However, that was using '12 electric prices - '22 prices are much higher now and thus, the solars are likely to be even more economic. Plus, '22 solars are much more efficient than '12 ones. It's also likely to increase the value of your property.


 * However, it's a topic of many 'ifs'. You'll need to ensure you get the right system fitted, in the right locations and on the right scheme. Depending on all the issues [your location, the property, usage patterns etc] it may not have that good a ROI than say, new insulation or new windows. Or even getting LED lightbulbs or a load of draught excluders for your doors. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:16, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Margaret Thatcher made Britain more efficient by paring down the U.K. government. China has big government and they now are mired in heavy debt and have an insufficient young population to keep up economic growth for long due to their one child policy. Even before the pandemic, lots of colleges were closing due to not meeting the marketplace's needs. Calvin Coolidge, who delivered peace and prosperity, was an excellent pro-business president. Most business people are far more sensible than government employees/officials and academics. Srich (talk) 20:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * did you forget what we were talking about? are you feeling ok? is there any light headedness or nausea? or is it just confusion and disorientation you are experiencing? is there someone we can call? AMassiveGay (talk) 20:44, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a bit of a topic salad, isn't it? Like a kind of unfocused Gish mini-Gallop. I like the way it jumps from country to country like they're all run basically the same. However, here in the UK I've worked for / had dealings with all 'three sectors' [private, public and nonprofit] and will say that they all generally appear to have about roughly the same level of incompetence. However, one bit I shall point out is that generally govt activity can look 'less efficient' because often they're lumbered with the tasks which are either a pain to run and/or are money-pits. Example, each UK county council has to look after about 2,000 miles of road, including fixing potholes, removing trees, dealing with obstructions etc and there's no way this can be monitored with tech, unlike Tescos doing inventory of stock via a central computer. Nor can the council report their road maintenence/repairs as 'profitable activity'.KarmaPolice (talk) 21:04, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * An academic in the economics department can go decades spouting Marxism which doesn't work in practice with absolutely no consequences. An incompetent government employee often has an inordinate amount of job security even if the goverment is a bad government or greatly bloated. A business has to earn a profit by serving its customers. There is a lot more accountability in business.


 * According to Global Network Against Food Crises, an estimated 161 million people experienced “crisis” levels of acute food insecurity in 2021, a nearly 4% increase over the prior year. So careful deliberation should be done before good farmland is turned into solar farms. Srich (talk) 23:10, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Food insecurity, farms, solar power. 23:57, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

First bit, Srich - I call BS. Total BS time. My own experience of Business/Econ schools [from several angles] is that roughly stated, a decent majority are 'Necolassicals', the majority-minority are some kind of 'Keynesian' and the minority-minority 'everyone else', of which Marxists are only a slice of. Basically, mainstream economists call them 'heterodox' which is basically economist-speak for 'crank'. A Marxist economist shall be banished to the cheap seats behind the pillar at the back with the sticky floor, along with the Austrians, Ecologicals and all the others writing in green ink. With the rare exception, these folks don't hold senior positions at influentual Bus/Econ schools, and if they *are* present it's often in ancillary subjects, such as economic history, politics, sociology, ethics etc. Nor do they get the big pulpits of being interviewed by the FT/WSJ, appearing on Bloomberg etc.

The interesting thing is that these days, the vast majority of business execs are graduates from said Business Schools. It's also where a lot of folks like bankers and stockbrokers come from too. These 'Marxist academics' - if they exist - must be the best deep-cover capitalists in human history, what with churning out generally speaking many pro-capitalist graduates yearly.

My theory is either a) you don't know what 'Marxist' actually means, b) you don't know what a Business School actually looks like or c) both of the above.

Anyway, one of the main issues is that generally speaking, a business thinks of 'micro' while the government thinks 'macro'. A company is merely concerned about optimising it's goals [profit, market share etc] while the government is more concerned about the shape/condition of the whole market and how it knocks on to society/country. This means the latter often makes calls which are economically 'stupid' but are overriden by demands of 'national interest'; for example, 'buy native' contracts for defence items, maintaining 'strategic reserves' and owning golden shares in critical companies to stop foreign takeovers. Even the most basic student of economics knows what is good for Wal-Mart, Amazon, Ford, Goldman etc is not *automatically* good for USA.Inc. In fact, sometimes it's bad for the country.

Back to the solar farms issue, it should be the state's role to calculate the macros of the situation. How much farmland do we need to ensure food security? How serious is the problem of energy security? In what areas should we stick/carrot to achieve our emissions cuts? What's the projected demands for energy in 10, 20, 30 years time? Is it possible for us to work on phasing out biofuels, then using that land for solars for EVs instead? Do we need to 'back winners' with investment funds? Should we enforce production standards, and if so, what?

All of these questions are way beyond any private company to answer. Hell, it's not their job to either. This is what government is for. It's why half the time it seems all they are doing is collecting reams of statistics. KarmaPolice (talk) 01:29, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * For one of my electives at a local college a crank professor gave us a reading list and we could choose the "scholarly" psychology book The Primal Scream by Arthur Janov. There is a lot of crankery in academia. A LOT. And a lot of poorly run countries too. Reuters points out that the Edelman Trust Barometer for two decades has polled thousands of people on trust in their governments, media, business and NGOs. According to the 2022 Edelman Trust Barometer, "TRUST DECLINES FOR GOVERNMENT AND MEDIA; BUSINESS STILL ONLY TRUSTED INSTITUTION".  I will trust one of the many sensible business people in the world to make rational decisions over a politician or academic any day. Srich (talk) 02:23, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I can't tell if this is Ken or not. Or if it's maybe Dutchbag on an alt. All these rambling, word salad wingnuts look the same to me. They passed the improvised Turing test though. Barely. 02:47, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You never say why said book was on that reading list. Perhaps it was there as a test, to watch students pull it apart. Or to critique 'pop-psychology'. Or to simply provoke thought [academics like trying this one, for some unknown reason. It's like they want you to think, rather than simply learn the 'right' answers or something]. What's more, it's *psychology* - a field of study which is no more than 150 years old, max. And ever-so difficult to actually nail down 'facts' in. [They don't sound like either a Marxist or being at a Business School, so why mention this example at all, hmmm?]


 * That's the thing. Academia has two strands; the imparting of knowledge and the advancement of it. The latter requires new ideas and theories - and normally, most of these shall fail. But occasionally, they don't and we advance because of it [example; germ theory]. Thus, academia can look like it has lots of 'crankery' in it, particulary if you think the place is merely 'the place you learn The Truth™' and that's it. Generally speaking, academics *aren't* cut out for leadership positions and they know it - if you wanted power, the last place you'd end up in is academia.


 * I don't give a toss about 'trust levels' from the Big Public [at least in this case]. Trust can - and is - often misplaced. And oddly enough, reality usually refuses to change just because a 'trusted' person says otherwise. Then there's the whole issue of Ultracrepidarianism. Do I 'trust' business? Well, with what? To run a business? Generally, yeah [with caveats]. But... to decide theological arguments? To win a war? How about to sort out a constitutional crisis? Perhaps not. Because strangely enough, businesspeople generally know about business - that once they're outside of their area of expertise/experience, they're as blind as any other layperson. Just like I would 'trust' my dentist to perform root canal but not reparing my car's brake-lines, while my mechanic's investment advice shall be generally ignored. Even a businessperson's experience/knowledge - even if massive - can of limited worth outside their area; a millionaire hotelier of 40 years standing is certantly worth listening to if you'd like to know about tourism and leisure, but perhaps not much if the discussion is about meat-packing plants or copper mining. And this holds also with the academic, the military officer and the scientist.


 * In short; businesspeople are human beings like the rest of us. With their biases, weaknesses and strengths. There's nothing inherently better or worse than other groups. But if businesspeople are somehow cut from finer cloth than us mere mortals, why do so many businesses fail, poor products produced and mistakes made? KarmaPolice (talk) 07:12, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The Primal Scream book was on the reading list because the professor was a crank. He was a crank with foolish ideas. Srich (talk) 11:10, 3 February 2022 (UTC)


 * really should not waste your time with this cretin. their initial point was that solar power is too expensive to be viable, the technology is not where it needs to be, which requires huge investment but thats apparently unlikely. one source is provided (twice - once initialy, then again when told 'its an old source and things change') to show that things havent changed. the same article.)


 * now, im a know nothing dumbfuck. i had no idea what value deflation was with or without reference to solar energy. took a bit of googling to appreciate what the article was warning about. i can see how it could be misunderstood about why in the article cost per watt needed to become cheaper and cheaper to keep ahead of deflation becoming greater and greater. i can see how it might be missed that this a potential problem, with costs only becoming too expensive after the deflation has grown to a critical point, until then data says is it the cheapest energy source and is getting cheaper still. deflation is happening. in california its really is starting to become a problem. but there are options, not all solutions require tech innovations, better industry regulation is big factor can be done now. its not as srich implies a hopelessly expensive lost cause.


 * generously, i could have put down srich's position to misunderstanding his source. or maybe they could explain how i had the misunderstanding or others would through the course of the discussion.


 * the response we did get was 'if its so great why isnt bill gate king of solar power? and what about food insecurity?' then we get some arse about a marxist academics they once knew and a (singular) book about discredited therapy made to a reading list they were once given, thus academia is full of cranks, a lot of countries are poorly run. and we can only trust business men to make rational decisions. and no, its not misunderstandings - its dumbfuckery and/or dumbfuck trolling.


 * quite aside from business people being the only ones to be trusted to make sensible rational decisions is as idiotically simplistic and gushing as the assessment of academia is idiotically simplistic and negative, people are in business to make money. any decisions made sensibly and rationally does not mean its going to be for the common good, and wont sensibly and rationally fuck you over for the bottom line.


 * and who the fuck is investing in solar energy in the us and driving its growth in the first place? its businesses, from homeowners to big utility companies. srich has no fucking clue what they are saying. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:31, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @karma - trust is as you say often misplaced, srich's allusions to it here means little. but trust in institutions is important to the functioning of democracy. we are seeing the effects of that lack of trust in the us today, with anti vaxxers, assaults on democracy literal and figuritive, insanely partisan media and so on and so forth. without trust it allows big business to circumvent regulations or corrupt politicians to sidemocre step safe guards and dismantle democracy with zero accountability. it allows the public at large to be easily manipulated, believing only what fits their world view. when you cannot trust the authorities or the media or doctors or the police, you end up like srich. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:04, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 'Enough rope to hang self' tactic. I have engaged Srich's points and tangents twice now, but not only have they failed to respond to any of mine they've simply started spouting 'rambling, word salad wingnut (points)', to semi-quote GC. And as that shall be duly noted by all who see this, my job is done and I can now ignore them.


 * Thing was, they *did* actually stumble onto a couple of half-decent points worth discussing – that of food security and whether solar energy can 'scale' from being a niche solution to a major one (including questions on raw material cost, R&D funding and so on). Unfortunately, it would appear at this point Srich slipped over and gave themselves concussion.


 * The amusing point is that Srich here is in fact showing the prime symptom of 'crankery' – a dogmatic belief in something (the infallibility and innate wisdom of 'businesspeople' over seemingly all others) despite when all evidence, facts even common sense appears to suggest otherwise.


 * Whatever their goals, they've failed. If trolling, I've found their persona of a business-worshipping crank amusing. If simple stupidity, I've used them as a kind of sharpening stone for a basic argument which shall be used again. If acting as some kind of evangelist for their religion, I don't think they've found any converts.


 * But playtime is over now, Srich. I've got to go inside and do important things now. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:49, 3 February 2022 (UTC)