RationalWiki:Saloon bar

__NEWSECTIONLINK__ __NOINDEX__

Russia blows up dam
So basically, Russia has destroyed the Nova Kakhovka dam, which would effectively wash the city of Kherson off the map. Strategically, the reservoir behind the dam is critical for several reasons, such as the hydropower it generates, the nuclear power plant the water supplies, and most importantly, water supply to Crimea. The destruction of the dam says many things, such as how the brutal the Russians are willing to be to win... but it also says that Russia fears it is losing. Destroying the dam is in many ways a petty way of burning everything before the Ukrainians retake it, but from a defensive standpoint it also makes the river too hazardous to cross if there were to be an invasion. Russia is effectively giving up any chance of taking any territory north of the Dnipro, in exchange for Ukraine being unable to march south until the floodwaters recede. 13:15, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I guess it makes some sense tactically at this moment, but strategically it's exceptionally dumb. Looks like desperation to me.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:01, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Like I said, it's what you do when you are expecting to lose. But there's also another message Russia is sending to Europe; we have a nuclear power plant and we aren't afraid to destroy infrastructure... 15:28, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * If it was the Russians [I suspect but don't know for sure] and it was deliberate [wouldn't put it past them, but again don't know for sure] I think it's more out of sheer spite, not desperation. The raping, the pillaging, the abduction-murders, the turning of cities into artillery-blighted piles of rubble, the attempted eradication of 'enemy' culture and society and the throwing of waves of drones and missiles at nothing more targeted than 'Ukranian cities'... tells me of an enemy which does not seem to give a flying fuck about anything approaching 'future value of territory', 'world opinion', 'post-conflict relations' or even 'military efficiency'. It's war, when waged by a mafyia state. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:58, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Russia controlled the dam and had it rigged for demolition from mid-late 2022 in the wake of their loss of Kherson. They also raised the level of water behind the dam in the days before it blew.  There is no possibility that shelling by Ukraine (if it did happen) caused the dam to collapse - artillery is not that powerful and it would take tons of properly placed explosives to blast a hole that wide!  So no - there is no "if" at all. It was deliberate. Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 22:26, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * An idea in the "Reporting from Ukraine" video summary for yesterday: Russia may have aimed for a smaller hole in the dam, in order to flood some islands with Ukrainian positions while leaving their own ones intact, but ended up making a bigger hole which over time became even bigger through the force of the water flow, making for a faster flooding than they'd expected, which doomed a lot of Russian soldiers and their equipment downstream, and explains why the Russians downstream weren't prepared to evacuate in time. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 06:57, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

A war crime in my opinion. People in both occupied territories and Ukrainian controlled territories will suffer from lack of clean drinking water. The environmental effects will be disastrous in it's own right. --Trans Fem Agenda 22:40, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * So, Russia-controlled infrastructure has been destroyed, resulting in long-term harm to Russia's strategic interests and a short-term mess in its occupied territory. This occurred as Ukraine was about to launch an offensive. Ukraine has employed tactical flooding of its territory from the start of the war, and struck the dam in question and its roadway last year with rocket artillery, with flooding the river stated to be a "last resort" at the time. And yes, this could constitute a war crime if the destruction of the dam were intentional. There's a lot of narrative here but little analysis. On a thematically-related topic, who do you suppose is responsible for destroying the Nord Stream 2 pipeline? 192․168․1․42 (talk) 12:30, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, the dam was Russian-controlled when it was destroyed apparently by a by the deliberate placing of explosives. When Ukraine finally expels the invaders they would hardly want this crucial piece of Ukrainian infrastructure to de destroyed.  It plays into Russia's short-term interests as it temporally checks Ukraine's advance in that direction.
 * There is no way to see the destruction of key Ukrainian infrastructure and and the slowing of its counter-offensive as an advantage to Ukraine.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 12:48, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Old Ukraine Map
 * Note, the blowing of the dam now means that it is impossible for Ukranian forces to move from Kherson down south [towards Crimea] or east [to the key city of Melitopol]. This means the Russians have effectively shortened their 'front' to about a third as the nearest 'crossing point' for large Ukranian forces is Zaporizhzhia. Even after the floodwaters drain off, the infrastructure to support operations shall be damaged, perhaps totally.


 * As the Russians are not planning any offensive right now and the Ukranians may have begun theirs, it is patently obvious this flooding benefits Russia. Thus, Occam's Razor suggests it's fairly cert the Russians did it [the loss of drinking water etc is simply a bonus]. KarmaPolice (talk) 14:10, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * As for Nord Stream, my theory is that Russia did it in a deniable manner so Gazprom didn't have to pay huge amounts in contract-breaking fines for cutting off gas supplies. Europe had already been complaining/noting for months beforehand that the pipeline was having lots more downtime for 'maintenence' than it had never had before [the contracts again, take into account maintenence downtime].


 * The chances that Ukraine 'did this' is very low, for the simple reason that if they desired to stop Russian gas exports to Europe, they could just turn off the pipelines which run through their own territory. . Going to attack Nord Stream, in a sea Ukraine does not have any real access to and surrounded by NATO members [plus Sweden] who'd notice anyone playing silly buggers? If Ukraine was able to pull that off, why haven't they utterly destroyed that Crimean bridge, eh? KarmaPolice (talk) 14:23, 7 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I think the two events are very different. With Nord Stream, there's something outside Ukraine that Ukraine would want destroyed to advance long-term interests, the question is if they really could and really did do it. (Russia could very easily have pulled that off, but that's not enough to be completely sure they did it.) I'm not so sure, there's more information coming out and we'll see where things end up at ahead. Sometimes the unlikely does happens.


 * With the dam, from those links it seems Ukraine considered making smaller damage to it earlier as a possible last-resort countermeasure against Russians, but: 1) They didn't need that now, Russians weren't on the offensive there. 2) They wouldn't want it terribly wrecked as it is now, and the destruction now is going to be very costly in the long term for Ukraine -- something I think Ukraine would have been willing to fight to prevent. 3) This event impedes and postpones Ukrainian counteroffensive efforts in that area.


 * It seems the damage was large enough that planted explosives are the reasonable explanation (missiles won't make that large a hole), and the area in which the hole was made was reachable by people from the Russian side but not from the Ukrainian side. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 17:29, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yet I don't think the Ukrainians would have done in Nord Stream unless they were pretty sure it couldn't be traced back to them; they know they are critically dependent on outside support to continue fighting and thus, need to remain fairly 'clean-handed' so they can keep the previous. What's more, the loss of Nord Stream means little because the Czar does not give a fuck about economic pain for Russians and more importantly the butcher's machine is more likely to run out of men and matériel before it runs out of money. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:46, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it seems a bit far-fetched -- I'm just saying I don't rule it out, given some newer indications pointing in that direction.


 * In other news about the dam, a week before the blast Russia authorized the non-investigation of damage to facilities including hydraulic structures. "Until 1 January 2028, technical investigations shall not be carried out into accidents at hazardous production facilities and accidents at hydraulic structures that occurred as a result of military operations, sabotage and acts of terrorism."


 * , do you have any analysis to share? You thought there was too much narrative and too little analysis, yet you didn't share more than pieces of narrative earlier. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 18:17, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * "apparently by a by the deliberate placing of explosives" How did you reach this conclusion?


 * "When Ukraine finally expels the invaders they would hardly want this crucial piece of Ukrainian infrastructure to de destroyed." As previously noted, Ukraine has long been destroying its own infrastructure if doing so is believed to hinder Russian operations.


 * "There is no way to see the destruction of key Ukrainian infrastructure and and the slowing of its counter-offensive as an advantage to Ukraine" As noted above, the flooding hit occupied Russian military positions. Rather than, you know, Ukranian forces as they moved in. It also disrupts logistics in Russian territory including the Crimean water supply, putting the peak chaos at about when Ukraine would be attacking. The long-term effects of that also make it harder for Russia to maintain operations in the region. In any case, destroying a dam like that is a desperate measure of the sort typically enacted when confidence in normal miitary operations is low. How likely does it seem that the Ukranian attack will dislodge the Russian forces there?


 * "This means the Russians have effectively shortened their 'front' to about a third as the nearest 'crossing point' for large Ukranian forces is Zaporizhzhia." Which also means that the Ukranian offensive (which had been mobilized, vs. the Russian forces which were entrenched) can concentrate on a smaller area (of their choosing, if Ukraine blew the dam), and do so with greater agility than their opponents.


 * "As for Nord Stream, my theory is that Russia did it in a deniable manner so Gazprom didn't have to pay huge amounts in contract-breaking fines for cutting off gas supplies." Gazprom claims that supply cut was due to sanctions impacting their operational capabilities, and cited a contract clause to that effect. It appears however that this was a tit-for-tat response to the sactions on Russia. Consider that Russia's gas exports were a major aspect of Russia's economic leverage on Europe, and destroying the pipeline mostly eliminated that. Russia or Germany could have shut off the flow any time they wanted, while leaving the option of turning it back on later if desired (Nord Stream 2 was never officially operational due in part to disputes with Germany). So those parties are unlikely to have done it. To a lesser degree, most other European countries now paying more for gas are not particularly likely to have done it. Ukraine, however, would benefit from the direct harm to Russian interests and the loss of Russian leverage over countries that were assisting Ukraine, with this being done covertly to avoid antagonizing those backers. The US had that and also the profits from taking over European gas supply. Let's see what the current media narrative is on that. What do you suppose the narrative about the dam will be in nine months?


 * "missiles won't make that large a hole" Pressurized flowing water is usually very erosive to structures containing it, so small holes in dams tend to become large holes of their own accord.


 * "do you have any analysis to share?" I wasn't the one who posted a section heading of "Russia blows up dam". Anyway, matters of fact are things that are or could be observed. Jack and Jill went up the hill, for example. A narrative is a story which relates matters of fact to intention (Jack and Jill went up the hill to fetch a pail of water), values (Jack fell down and broke his crown, and that's a good thing), or other concepts which indicate how people should feel about something (children should be careful when going about routine tasks). Analysis is the process of breaking down something complex into simpler parts which are easier to evaluate, and evaluating them in some relevant way (the path up the hill is poorly maintained and presents a significant risk to travelers).


 * "You thought there was too much narrative and too little analysis" This is a narrative. What I actually said was, "There's a lot of narrative here but little analysis." See the difference? 192․168․1․42 (talk) 13:36, 12 June 2023 (UTC)


 * That's at least more to discuss. Yeah, there's plenty of narrative in this thread, but also various pieces of information gathered in it. There was the heading and opening comment (not mine either), but also things of more substance that you didn't focus on replying to earlier. But anyway, from the above...


 * One big issue, greatly determining the overall plausibility of Russia being behind it in the way widely assumed now, is the strength of the dam structure vs. the force of what broke it. Obviously, both of us are forced to piece something together from some external sources in order to reach a conclusion. (You and I can post disconnected snippets, but if/when we go for any conclusion, we're definitely relying on things from one or more places.) I basically rely in large part on the expert consensus in media that it takes planted explosives to blow through it in the way that happened at first, that those who claim to know their stuff about explosives are speaking the truth about the structure of the dam, that it was built to be sturdy and can withstand outside barrages without anywhere near that size of damage. Also reported is that the flow of water did erode it further, but only after explosives made an initial sizable hole. Then, there's news of a seismological signature from an explosion in the area at the time, which means something pretty strong was used.


 * On how willing Ukrainians are to blow up their own infrastructure, there's obviously some trade-offs they are considering when they make such decisions in general. We however seem to have rather different ideas on what they're willing to sacrifice for what, how they make such trade-offs. There also seems to be no slam-dunk evidence to point to for either position here [regarding whether or not Ukraine would have been willing to do it]. We also seem to disagree on the basic significance of observations on the effects of the dam destruction. 1) If Ukraine did it, then they also drowned some of their own troops and equipment on islands which were hit before the Russian troops further downstream were. I think that's significant and speaks against it. 2) There were widespread Russian rumors and fears of Ukraine moving across the river in the time before the dam was blown, from what ISW has gathered. That speaks towards Russia possibly making a (rushed?) move. Particularly since Russian confidence has been reported as being low and Ukrainian as being high. 3) Crimean water supply from Ukraine is something Russia had successfully dealt with not having for years before, it was restored with the 2022 invasion. Is there any reason to think Russia couldn't manage it being cut again? --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 14:46, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * As noted above, the flooding hit occupied Russian military positions. Rather than, you know, Ukranian forces as they moved in. It also disrupts logistics in Russian territory including the Crimean water supply, putting the peak chaos at about when Ukraine would be attacking. The long-term effects of that also make it harder for Russia to maintain operations in the region. In any case, destroying a dam like that is a desperate measure of the sort typically enacted when confidence in normal miitary operations is low. How likely does it seem that the Ukranian attack will dislodge the Russian forces there?


 * As stated below the quote/above this, I note Putin has shown little to nil regards to Russian losses in men/materiel - qv: Bakhmut offensive. Thus, not giving a fuck if some Russians drown and kit is lost is within the MO of him. What's more, when you're dealing with a country's forces which have done their best to replicate the results of the German offensive in '41/'42 [mass killing, raping, looting etc]. So my belief that Russia is not considering any of the 'long term effects' of the region as they simply don't give a fuck about that.


 * "This means the Russians have effectively shortened their 'front' to about a third as the nearest 'crossing point' for large Ukranian forces is Zaporizhzhia." Which also means that the Ukranian offensive (which had been mobilized, vs. the Russian forces which were entrenched) can concentrate on a smaller area (of their choosing, if Ukraine blew the dam), and do so with greater agility than their opponents.


 * You think now that Ukraine now has a lot less options to consider the counter-offensive 'strengthens' their hand? I am not a military strategist, but hell, at least I am not as stupid as you here.


 * Gazprom claims that supply cut was due to sanctions impacting their operational capabilities, and cited a contract clause to that effect. It appears however that this was a tit-for-tat response to the sactions on Russia. Consider that Russia's gas exports were a major aspect of Russia's economic leverage on Europe, and destroying the pipeline mostly eliminated that. Russia or Germany could have shut off the flow any time they wanted, while leaving the option of turning it back on later if desired (Nord Stream 2 was never officially operational due in part to disputes with Germany). So those parties are unlikely to have done it. To a lesser degree, most other European countries now paying more for gas are not particularly likely to have done it. Ukraine, however, would benefit from the direct harm to Russian interests and the loss of Russian leverage over countries that were assisting Ukraine, with this being done covertly to avoid antagonizing those backers. The US had that and also the profits from taking over European gas supply. Let's see what the current media narrative is on that. What do you suppose the narrative about the dam will be in nine months?


 * Gazprom is a de facto government entity of a nation which is a mass liar and has long used the gas-taps as a weapon. So I think it's reasonable to not take Gazprom's word on that. I never said your scenario is not impossible, merely that I rate it as less plausable. You are also deliberately not mentioning the tensions in the ~6 months before the explosions, in where Germany and Russia got very sour over how to pay and when - for example, remember when Russia demanded Germany pay for gas in Rb via embargoed Russian banks?.


 * The suggestion that the Americans 'did it' to capture the Euro gas market is also very far-fetched. For starters, American companies were in no position to ship huge amounts of LNG to Europe anyway and nor did Europe have the infrastructure to accept it [so what profits?]. What's more, the Euro medium-long term reply to 'no Russian hydrocarbons' is to make a dash for renewables and even take second looks for coal and [sometimes] nuclear, not simply re-hook themselves to American gas [in fact, more of our LNG is going to come from the Gulf, what with it being closer to us and all that]. Lastly, that makes the suggestion that the American state is so corrupt that it shall perform sabotage attacks on a third party they're not technically at war with simply so some fuel companies can make more stacks of money. Hey, things are bad, but they're not that bad. And if it got out the USA had been behind it, much of Europe would have been really pissed.


 * You complain, but there's more analysis here than you'd credit. You see how I did analysis on your positions? I cited evidence [such as past actions by the players] to reasons why I don't think your hypotheticals are that likely. I could really litter this with quotes from various stodgy sources [for example, about the LNG issues] but I didn't, partly because I don't see the point of doing so. Your sole link doesn't actually add much more to the bones; I never said Kyiv didn't do it, merely that when it comes down to it they have less 'capability' to pull it off than Russia and would be more fearful of diplomatic blowback. In fact, your source is nothing more than 'some Ukranian person told a Euro security org about a planned attack on the pipes, who then told the CIA, who then told [amongst others] the Germans'. There's some later coincidentals, but chanelling my inner Angleton I don't think you can put too much weight to them [for example, the tactics to bomb them might have simply been the easiest method, and thus known to several orgs]. KarmaPolice (talk) 16:50, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * "I basically rely in large part on the expert consensus in media" This is foolish. Especially regarding a war. Especially regarding a war involving concerted economic sanctions and propaganda. And beyond that, look what you actually relayed there and what conclusion you're drawing from it. It appears to have been destroyed using explosives. Well sure. Both Ukraine and Russia have access to explosives that could have been delivered in a variety of packages, including bombs. And yet you somehow conclude that this indicates Russian responsibility for blowing the dam.


 * "There also seems to be no slam-dunk evidence to point to for either position here [regarding whether or not Ukraine would have been willing to do it]." The Ukranian military has previously flooded Ukrainian territory to hinder Russian operations, and several months ago said specifically that flooding the area now in question was an option under consideration (after performing a small artillery strike on the dam itself). If that's not a "slam-dunk" indicating willingness, what do you think would be?


 * "If Ukraine did it, then they also drowned some of their own troops and equipment on islands which were hit before the Russian troops further downstream were." Those Russian troops were part of the Russian defensive line, and incapacitating them would hinder Russia's performance in the upcoming battle. Were those Ukranian troops staging for the counteroffensive, or were they an emplaced group which would not be involved one way or another? And what are the relative numbers?


 * "There were widespread Russian rumors and fears of Ukraine moving across the river in the time before the dam was blown" If the goal had been to take out an attacking Ukranian force, the time to blow the dam would have been when those forces were committed in the area to be flooded (and tied down by defenders just outside that area), not when Russian defensive forces were there.


 * "Particularly since Russian confidence has been reported as being low and Ukrainian as being high." Reported by whom? Why in the world would you trust such reporting? Consider how things have actually played out so far, and which side (given reasonably accurate information) would have been confident regarding the Ukranian counteroffensive.


 * "Is there any reason to think Russia couldn't manage it being cut again?" No, but it's an expensive hassle that you're proposing Russia inflicted on its own logistics as part of a self-destructive move that appears to have been unlikely to offer meaningful military benefits for a battle that Russian forces were not at risk of losing.


 * "Thus, not giving a fuck if some Russians drown and kit is lost is within the MO of him." The RationalWiki community doesn't need to be told that Putin is a shady gangster of a political leader who sometimes does bad things, but it apparently does need to be told occasionally that Putin isn't a cartoon villain who's only attacking Ukraine because he's upset that he doesn't have a moustache to twirl. And that Ukranians can do bad things too.


 * "You think now that Ukraine now has a lot less options to consider the counter-offensive 'strengthens' their hand?" Any military option converts potential options to actuality. This is ideally done in a way that advances one's goals. If you're faced with a large front with entrenched enemies, you might want to focus your attacking force in a single area to break through, but that opens your force to flanking attacks once the defenders can respond to what you actually do. If you can lock down 2/3 of the front for a while, that would let you focus your attacking force with less of a concern of flanking. Especially if the defenders are dealing with lingering problems like flooding.


 * "So I think it's reasonable to not take Gazprom's word on that." You mean like I just said there?


 * "in where Germany and Russia got very sour over how to pay and when" Russia still wanted to sell gas, and Germany still wanted to buy it. They were just fighting about the details. Either party could have shut off the pipeline at any time the agreement at hand was unacceptable. Blowing the pipeline means that they would then not be able to come to a future deal if desired, harming both parties' positions while offering no benefit.


 * "American companies were in no position to ship huge amounts of LNG to Europe" How did you reach this conclusion?


 * "the American state is so corrupt that it shall perform sabotage attacks on a third party they're not technically at war with simply so some fuel companies can make more stacks of money." That's been American policy since the Boston Tea Party. Seriously. If you're seriously unaware of this sort of thing, you might look up how Hawaii became a state, or some of th things the US has been doing in the Middle East.


 * "There's some later coincidentals" Like the reported plan details matching the reported investigative findings, including explosive residue found in a rented yacht? Note that I was calling attention to the narrative there. These are still things that lots of parties would be interested in lying about, though at least this story aligns with the actual interests of the countries involved. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 21:52, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Quick dissection of your Gish Gallop...

P1. Questioning the consensus is good, discounting it automatically is dumb. Ultimately, as we cannot always 'do our own research' on every damn topic, we have to have a modicum of trust - for particular media outlets, and/or persons. As well as applying a level of the Sagan standard and checking it's not all off a single source. But in this particular case, if the majority of experts are in agreement. Unless you genuinely are a military/explosives/dam expert. Which I am going to assume 'no'.

P2. Generic whataboutism.

P3. Rehashing points already refuted re: Russia not giving a fuck about casulties while the Ukrainians generally appear to do so.

P4. Perhaps the Russians were worried that would be too obvious, they were worried the Ukrainians would secure the dam before they could blow it and/or falsely believed the offensive had already started? Classic example of the 'liar's defence' as deployed by Trump and Johnson - 'well, as you cannot literally see inside my head, you cannot say for 100% that I am actually lying'. In trials the prosecution does not need to prove the exact thought processes when they committed the act, only that they did commit it.

P5. Effectively all impartial sources - they are, for example watching Russian military Telegram channels and so on to work this out, interviewing POWs and so on. Reshashing P1.

P6. Russia doesn't really give a fuck about water supplies. And Crimea survived without it between '14 - '22. Lastly, not that hard to simply extend water pipes lower to take water directly from river.

P7. Never said Putin was a cartoon villian. And you seem to not understand the meaning of 'MO'. Rehashing P3.

P8. Basic bullshit which doesn't answer the point I made.

P9. Not even sure where the hell you're going here.

P10. Repeating points already made. Russian responses are not 'uniform' due to their factured nature of leadership as well as Putin doing some deception plans before committing the pipeline destruction to allow folks like you to cite them as evidence they didn't do it. Variant of P3.

P11. Repeating question already answered. But just for you; https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidblackmon/2022/10/18/europes-lack-of-lng-import-capacity-becomes-everyones-problem/ One of many reports. Again, repeat of P3.

P12. You have no evidence that the American 'secret state' is that corrupt and self-serving right now. What's more, it comes from an Administration which is very worried about escalation re: Russia. Does not pass the Sagan standard - though I do not say that situation is impossible.

P13. Repeating question already answered. P3, again.

You complained this topic didn't have enough analysis, well there it is. My main conclusion; in 874 words you have nothing new to say whatsoever. Thus, you can be ignored. While I have no clear evidence to prove it, you are displaying all the hallmarks of sealioning and galloping in an attempt to derail and projecting innacurate false balance regarding this topic. KarmaPolice (talk) 11:22, 18 June 2023 (UTC)


 * That also covered almost everything I'd like to have responded too (and with the repetition and the double standard regarding trustworthiness of external sources, thanks for saving me the tedium), but one last detail I'll add.


 * To quote what I wrote some way up about the dam explosion, "the area in which the hole was made [near the center] was reachable by people from the Russian side but not from the Ukrainian side." That's why it's so central whether explosives were planted vs. missiles used, in response to that little question. Russians had destroyed the walkway to the Ukrainian side earlier, so if explosives were planted on the Russian side where the center of the hole in the dam is, that's strong evidence Russians planted them (unless you think Ukrainians not only did it, but did it in a very greatly more difficult way without being caught by the Russian soldiers, just to make it seem like it was Russia that did it). And I think the seismological data is slam-dunk evidence that explosives were planted/used, which seems to make the question of whether experts are right that planted explosives were really needed to cause such damage moot. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 15:51, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * "your Gish Gallop" A Gish Gallop is a form of debate behavior in which (1) rhetorical support for some argument is (2) composed of a large number of parallel points that (3) are individually easy to refute but which (given the parameters of the debate) are collectively difficult to respond to. My response above was multiple independent arguments replying to things that other people in the discussion had said (rather a lot had been said that bore comment, you see). I didn't respond to everything said, and anyone interested in replying can respond to individual topics independently of others. You may note that this is considerably longer and more involved than your statement that it's a reply to, but that's the way these things go. After all, it takes more effort to explain why a quick point is wrong than to make it in the first place. I have a lot to do yet this weekend, but don't worry, some of those are silly enough that replying will be fun. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 18:26, 25 June 2023 (UTC)


 * "P1. Questioning the consensus is good, discounting it automatically is dumb." Consensus is politics, not science. It is not an epistemically-valid means of determining truth (apart from self-referential truths like a group's opinions on something). Generally, the default should be to NOT trust random statements, whether from an individual or a group. Trust entails (or should) some prior justification that the issuer of the statement is trustworthy, and "being in agreement with the majority position" is not an actual justification.


 * "Ultimately, as we cannot always 'do our own research' on every damn topic, we have to have a modicum of trust" No, we literally do not. Proper epistemology is hard, but if you decide not to bother, you shouldn't pretend to be properly informed on a given topic. This is an actual Dilbert joke. It shouldn't be news to you that there isn't enough time in a human life to become properly informed about everything, but it's possible to at least make an effort in certain areas of interest.


 * "As well as applying a level of the Sagan standard and checking it's not all off a single source." The evidence required to support a given proposition depends on the proposition. Existential claims, for example, only require a single source. The question of whether black swans exist can be settled by a single captive black swan.


 * "P2. Generic whataboutism." Whataboutism is a deflection of some point to a different point that is not relevant to the discussion, generally of the form, "Statement X," "But what about Y?" The question here is whether or not the Ukrainian government would be willing to destroy the dam in the incident that this topic is nominally about. To answer that question, it is entirely appropriate to consider related issues such as past incidents of the current Ukrainian government's forces destroying other Ukrainian infrastructure, particularly tactical uses of flooding to oppose Russian activities, and that the Ukrainian military had previously attacked and damaged the dam, issuing a statement at the time that further damage to the dam to cause flooding was regarded as an option for future consideration.


 * "P3. Rehashing points already refuted" Claiming that a point has been refuted is not the same thing as refuting it. The expected costs and benefits of a military operation are an important part of planning, and risking one's own forces come with the territory. The point here is that the apparent expected costs and benefits of blowing the dam under the circumstances that it was blown don't seem to favor the Russian military wanting to do it.


 * "Russia not giving a fuck about casualties while the Ukrainians generally appear to do so." Russian leadership isn't known for being all that concerned about the wellbeing of their soldiers, but the current Ukrainian administration seems quite determined to fight to the last Ukrainian.


 * "P4. Perhaps the Russians were worried that would be too obvious" That WHAT would be too obvious? A dam being destroyed and flooding a region is pretty obvious. And given the handling of Nordstream, it would be obvious that Western media would blame Russia regardless of who actually blew the dam. What would the benefit to actual Russian interests be of blowing the dam while it was mostly Russian forces in the flood zone vs waiting for an actual Ukrainian attacking force to be there?


 * "they were worried the Ukrainians would secure the dam before they could blow it" Ukrainian forces don't have teleportation technology. Russian forces would know of an attack with more advance warning than it takes to push a button.


 * "and/or falsely believed the offensive had already started?" A counterattack on an entrenched position is not a subtle thing. Why would they believe that?


 * "In trials the prosecution does not need to prove the exact thought processes when they committed the act, only that they did commit it." And as such evidence is lacking, the interest in this line of discussion is investigating whether the Russian forces would have wanted to do what they have been accused of doing. In a criminal investigation, potential suspects are typically checked for means, motive, and opportunity. Russian forces obviously had the means and opportunity to blow the dam, but why would they want to? This lack of apparent motive is a problem for the narrative that Russian forces blew the dam. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 18:52, 5 July 2023 (UTC)


 * So, on epistemology (this reply focuses on that angle in your text). There you have the most trollish part of your message. You are aware, I think, that in discussing any of these matters of what happens in the world, we're using references to material which contains references, in turn to material with references to... etc., etc., etc. And it's always like that; past some point of knowledge, no one but an expert who specializes in the specific area under consideration, and who knows it all inside and out, avoids relying on references to and trusting outside sources, in place of personally researching absolutely everything. And – here's the ironic part and the reason your message was trollish – you're certainly not an exception. You rely on an awful lot of stuff in your preferred media sources (and/or in non-media sources repeating media sources), while telling others that they can't do the same, because (presumably) you are above that level (while blatantly that is not the case) and shame on those who are not. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 12:06, 6 July 2023 (UTC)


 * On means, motive, and opportunity for blowing up the dam – further above you have my and KarmaPolice's arguments for why Russia had all three. You also have my argument for why Ukraine lacked opportunity and Russia almost certainly did the deed, in the form of noting the seismic reading points to planted explosives rather than missiles, and that only Russia had access to plant those explosives (you didn't address this argument). I think that's a heavier argument than speculating about motives. But on motives, you assert that Russia had none, yet outside of Russian state media, even Russian pro-war sources like those consulted by ISW agree that the Russian military was panicking about Ukraine possibly launching attacks in a way that could have motivated it. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 13:04, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * "P5. Effectively all impartial sources" And how do you know that these sources are impartial, or that "effectively all" such sources share that assessment? For example, I would guess that a school newspaper would have nothing to say on the matter.


 * "they are, for example watching Russian military Telegram channels and so on to work this out, interviewing POWs and so on" So YOU'RE not checking Russian military telegram channels or interviewing POWS. Instead you're relying on reports that someone has, and that such and such information has been derived from them. Which is, at best, hearsay rather than some methodology that would actually give a reliable indication of Russian/Ukrainian confidence. Keeping in mind what has actually happened, why would you suppose that the confidence of each side prior to the counterattack was the opposite of what it should have been?


 * "P6." It's still an expensive hassle that you're proposing Russia inflicted on its own logistics as part of a self-destructive move that appears to have been unlikely to offer meaningful military benefits for a battle that Russian forces were not at risk of losing. Which brings us to...


 * "P7. Never said Putin was a cartoon villian." A modus operandi is someone's typical methods of going about some endeavor. Putin has been at the top of Russian politics for coming up on 24 years. He may be evil, but that requires some level of pragmatism. The war in Ukraine has actual goals to accomplish, and while Putin may not care much about Russian casualties in the accomplishing of them, actually accomplishing the goals would be something he cares about. So in response to the destruction of the dam apparently hurting Russian interests to little or no meaningful benefit, do you have any explanation that doesn't reduce to either "Yeah, but Putin ordered it because he's stupid" or "Yeah, but Putin ordered it because he's evil" in the manner of a cartoon villain whose actions are only done to serve the narrative purpose of being an antagonist for the heroes to fight?


 * "P8. Basic bullshit which doesn't answer the point I made." You said above: "You think now that Ukraine now has a lot less options to consider the counter-offensive 'strengthens' their hand?" as if narrowing down one's options necessarily weakens one's position. Not only is this false, you seem to not understand the relationship between potential and actuality. Potential is maximized before any commitments are made, but actually accomplishing something requires sacrificing potential to achieve it. Suppose you have $5 in your pocket. You could use it to purchase coffee to drink or gas to power your car. If you spend the money, your options are reduced, but you've converted the potential of the money into something more directly useful (and in so doing, no longer have the option of doing other things with it). Similarly, the gas in the tank gives you travel options, but only by expending the gas can you achieve a subset of those options. Any military action (at all) trades potential for actuality. Ukraine sacrificed a lot of options to undertake the counteroffensive at all. Russia sacrificed a lot of options to set up the defenses. Do you have anything to say about the possible rationale I gave there? 192․168․1․42 (talk) 18:13, 11 July 2023 (UTC)


 * "P9. Not even sure where the hell you're going here." Above, you proposed that Russia damaged the Nordstream pipes to get Gazprom out of contract-breaking fines. I pointed out that Gazprom's contract had a clause which covers supply disruptions due to things outside Gazprom's control (like the sanctions), which would have been referenced in any dispute over supply disruptions. Do you think that a court would want to establish the precedent that companies are responsible for failure to meet supply contract obligations when subject to international sanctions? That would open up a lot of Western companies to Russian claims. But despite that, I pointed out in my response that Gazprom's actions appear to be a tit-for-tat response to those sanctions, despite what was actually said to be the cause of supply disruptions. That is, I was not taking Gazprom at its word, so your following statement of "So I think it's reasonable to not take Gazprom's word on that." is redundant.


 * "P10. Repeating points already made." But not refuted. You yourself used similar reasoning above where you said "The chances that Ukraine 'did this' is very low, for the simple reason that if they desired to stop Russian gas exports to Europe, they could just turn off the pipelines which run through their own territory." Well, Russia could have just turned off the pipes, and unlike with Ukraine doing that, that wouldn't have been meddling in a trade dispute between other parties that would have gotten everyone involved (including most of the countries providing military and financial aid) angry. Note that the Nordstream 2 pipe was already turned off at the time. Blowing up the pipes prevents Russia and Germany from renegotiating later, while Ukraine was not a party to that. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 20:36, 16 July 2023 (UTC)


 * "P11. ... One of many reports." You said above that "American companies were in no position to ship huge amounts of LNG to Europe" when in fact they did ship huge amounts of LNG to Europe. The article you linked is about logistical difficulties in transitioning from one supply route to another, and it still says that "fully 70% of U.S. LNG cargoes are now destined to the European market." That is, that huge amounts of LNG were being shipped to Europe right then, which really doesn't answer the question of how you reached the conclusion that they couldn't have been. Note that this question had not been answered previously. The article from four months later that I linked says "U.S. companies provided 50 percent of Europe’s liquefied natural gas supplies in 2022, along with 12 percent of its oil. Russian oil and gas shipments to the continent have shriveled by half, beset by boycotts, sanctions and an EU price cap. Global oil and gas trade routes have been redrawn". So yes, that's been a massive gain for US fossil fuel companies and US hegemony in Europe.


 * "P12. You have no evidence that the American 'secret state' is that corrupt and self-serving right now." "US goes on military adventures for fossil fuel interests" is power politics 101. Or not even that. I was under the impression that it's general knowledge by now. But anyway, to my mention of a US motivation in the Nordstream situation, you replied that "Hey, things are bad, but they're not that bad." They have in fact been "that bad" over the entire history of the US. The Boston Tea Party is almost an exact parallel to your "perform sabotage attacks on a third party they're not technically at war with simply so some fuel companies can make more stacks of money" comment, just replacing fuel companies with tea smugglers. And it's become part of the US founding myth! But if you want a more recent example, here's Joe Biden relating an incident in which he used a billion dollars in loan guarantees to Ukraine to strongarm the firing of Viktor Shokin (then Ukraine's Prosecutor General, who was investigating a natural gas company for corruption, including large amounts of money sent to Hunter Biden), to be replaced by someone more compliant with the interests of the US administration.


 * "What's more, it comes from an Administration which is very worried about escalation re: Russia." An administration that wants to prevent escalation would not turn Russia's war with a non-allied country into a proxy war with NATO. And Biden has actually commented on his stance. He's wanted to "up the ante" for at least seven years now, with the stated reasoning that increasing the costs to Russia would deter undesired actions. Well, we can see how that's turned out so far, but Biden seems interested in staying the course.


 * "P13. Repeating question already answered. P3, again." I was pointing out how the media narrative regarding the party responsible for blowing the Nordstream pipeline has changed in the months since it occurred. And you think that this has been "refuted" because...? 192․168․1․42 (talk) 21:27, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

is this gaslighting?
"Jesus received in the cross the punishment we deserve", "We are beings unworthy of receiving the gift of eternal life", and other similar Fundie sayings. Panzerfaust (talk) 12:49, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No. This term is becoming a bit overused. Gaslighting is a very specific form of emotional abuse where one person manipulates another into doubting their sanity. This is to make them vulnerable by having them trust the judgement of their abuser about the reality of events over their own. These fundie sayings just seem to be the re-phrasing of “Jesus died for our sins”. It has no implicit meaning about the status of your mental health. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 15:29, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It is a different form of (internalized) manipulation, though. Imagine an imperial power subjugating a group of people, and as part of that, telling them that they are inherently inferior and deserving of punishment, and threatening them with torture and more until, generations later, a large submissive population who believes and parrots those talking points lives on in obedience. That would be the psychology if the "heavenly order" was real. But in place of that, theocratic and cult-like theological authorities, and to a lesser extent ordinary preachers, play a similar role, like crusaders sent out on behalf of an empire, except that the empire may be imaginary. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 16:20, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That makes no fucking sense. An Advocate (talk) 16:31, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I mean the "unworthy" and "punishment we deserve" parts, which are all part of the overall larger "obey or burn" package, where you get to obey to be in the right (except still inherently viewed as inferior) instead of burning (though usually only in the afterlife and not at the stake nowadays). Obviously meant as an offer you cannot refuse. Added: If it helps, the heavenly world of the Abrahamic religions has sometimes been compared to a military dictatorship by others, e.g. in , --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 16:37, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Growing up in an evangelical family can lead to all sorts of abuse if you don't conform, and the "obey or burn" package is part and parcel of that. Carthage (talk) 16:57, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Regardless the message from these religious actors is genuinely believed and not presented with the intention to undermine your sense of sanity, so no...it's not gaslighting. You can describe many aspects in the ways these ideas are sometimes communicated as abusive or oppressive for other reasons, but it's not gaslighting unless someone is trying to convince you that you are not clinically sane (when in reality you are).  This term is being used so widely now its becoming harder to have clear conversations regarding what gaslighting in an emotional abusive context genuinely looks like.  It's akin to the weird watering down of the clinical term of "delusion" by certain atheists' when they describe religious people. This is despite simply being religious and a having a psychotic disorder having a widely different outward characteristics, and different associated physiological states within the brain.  Overusing terms like this can obscure the realties of people who really struggle with these sorts of problems.  Don't get me started on the memes surrounding "intrusive thoughts" which bothers me to no end as someone with OCD.   - Only Sort of Dumb (talk)
 * So far I agree. Even in the cases of the more cynical preachers who don't believe what they say, usually they have a different aim than getting people to question their sanity as such. But what about something related, when some religious explanations calling into question perceptions, feelings, thoughts, etc. are used by manipulative spiritual people? Such as claiming that all doubts, or particular heterodox ways of thought, are due to demons or their influence, making those who question theological authority question their sanity in religious rather than secular terms, and turn to the manipulative person for a sense of what's really real. Then calling it gaslighting may be justified. Believers may end up going "damn, I feel so angry at [cult leader], and recently doubted everything said, but it is all due to their evil influence. I should feel love, not rage. I must trust or I will lose my sanity." Etc. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 18:24, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I think an issue with that is that people who claim that demons are influencing your thoughts so as to create doubt are often genuine believers that demons are doing that. There isn't a malicious or abusive intent per se. Maybe the first con-artist to conjure up the religious system did have such intents and it was used for manipulative or abusive reasons.  And sure, in the context of a cult that is very often the case.  In mainstream religions though we don't necessarily have a historical reference to how they were started. It could very much have started with a group of people prone to magical thinking and attributing intention to event. Something which we seem evolutionarily prone to do. Gaslighting can happen under a religious context, but in that specific instance the person doing the gaslighting knows full well what they are doing. They intend to undermine your sense of reality so that you will treat them as the ultimate authority of the reality you occupy.  You are mentally ill, your perception is unreliable, but they are healthy and see things like a "normal person" does or how things really are. It's important to distinguish genuine gaslighting from people simply thinking and feeling differently then you do.  In the case that a religious leader was intentionally trying to convince their followers that they were, in fact, suffering from a psychotic delusion. Then yes, that would be gaslighting.  - Only Sort of Dumb (talk)
 * I guess it may be most likely when a lower-ranking devotee (in any religious or spiritual organization) happens to find out something about an authority figure (e.g. priest) sinning or doing something illegal. "You didn't really see what you think you saw, it was the demons making you perceive that! What really happened was..." --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 19:42, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * More like Orwellian "double think" in that case.  Or cognitive dissonance.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:53, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * If it was said by the authority to the follower (possibly as part of something larger), I meant. Otherwise, if it was just the follower's own thoughts, then I agree. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 20:01, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks everyone. The more I see how these people work, the more I'm convinced they command cults in everything but name, especially the worst of them and seemingly the older their leaders the more extreme they're (climate change denialism, antivaxxers, NWO BS, one who also claims leftist parties (this is not US) practice occult and demonic rituals and the current government (a center left with left coalition) is "Babylonian and Satanic"), and of course that the February 2023 Turkish earthquake was sent by God so they'd convert to Christianity seeing how much psychological manipulation is going on there (see also This. Panzerfaust (talk) 08:09, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Gaslighting is gentle. Along with prayer,I understand the original question as is this an end that gaslighting will have you believe.  You prayed for that A, don't you see that your prayer combined with your work got you that good grade?  there is a lot more in there, magical thinking, Painting the target after shooting the arrow, but you know, sometimes when everything works out, you just gotta toss it up. 2600:8804:500:FE90:7C10:899B:4280:4E02 (talk) 01:48, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * There is nothing gentle about genuine gaslighting. It is abuse, plain and simple. Spud (talk) 06:30, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * What I mean about the gentle abuse of gas lighting is it doesn't start as something big. It does start as something nasty, but it's built slowly.  If you're being gaslit, you aren't just being lied to.  You are being encouraged to believe the lie.  Which I agree is gross, but I also want to point out it is easy to fall victim to gaslighting.  I don't think the most recent idea, that it's just being told you should believe what I say,is gaslighting. 'I would give an example but you've really worn me out, I just want to go to bed.' 'You're always on my ass and not letting me explain things.'  Sometimes, those arguments are dirty tactics, sometimes they are real. There are lots of dysfunctional relationships, lots of social meters.  Gas lighting as a catch all doesn't help.  Gaslighting is very manipulative, manipulation in itself can be called violent, it's abuse, I'm not saying it isn't, but I stand by saying it's mostly done gently, with an intent to no longer have to gaslight,but to simply dictate. 2600:8804:500:FE90:7C10:899B:4280:4E02 (talk) 02:14, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * OK. I completely agree with all of that. Spud (talk) 06:20, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * this is one of those things, where a smart person I respect has said a thing and I can't tell if it's commentary on the subject but it's just so teed up, so without any ill intent I just have to do it. 'Finally! We agree on something.  So anyway, about that pepper...'2600:8804:500:FE90:9DFA:6142:3CC9:6BB (talk) 06:52, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I've had the curry. Spud (talk) 09:00, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * My man. Love ya Spud.  2600:8804:500:FE90:9DFA:6142:3CC9:6BB (talk) 04:28, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I've tested you.
Yes, I admit it, this looked somewhat controversial.

But seriously:
 * Do we agree that there are many whackjobs on the extreme left too?
 * Do we agree that apologists for pedosexuals are a thing?
 * Do we agree that child rapists are scum?

I don't know about you, but I'd answer all of these with "Yes".

So if we agree about these: Doesn't it make sense that this (Antifa wanting...) might be the truth, although it's also quite probable that the alt-right started yet another nasty rumor, as they have done so often?

Then why do you call me a troll?

As said, I've tested you by asking a controversial question - which should be fine though, if you look closer and think about it. But sorry, you've failed the test.

There are many good things here to read. Unfortunately, it seems like the smart people who wrote it have all left now. --Max Sinister (talk) 04:08, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Ngl. Even with context I am not even sure what is meant to be conveyed here. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 04:44, 19 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Ironically enough using the phrase "pedosexual" always struck me as a hallmark of "apologists for pedosexuals". Chillpilled (talk) 05:01, 19 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Why are you saying pedosexual instead of pedophile? A somebody. (talk) 05:20, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * very strange. I mean, I'm very left of the US Democrat party, and strangely, nobody I've ever met has even cared to talk about sex with children.  Except one time.

https://law.justia.com/cases/nebraska/supreme-court/2014/s-13-207.html
 * I have met people who went to church with this guy and say he made a mistake, and he repented and should be allowed to have a concealed carry, mostly because Obama was gonna take em and we had to stockpile quick.


 * Some of the grossest takes I heard bargained the idea of pedophilia being better than what the Catholics are doing.


 * I have also sat in for a friend at a Planned Parenthood tent during an art festival. Worked with an actual OBGYN and we gave out condoms and kid friendly pamphlets that explained what inappropriate touching is.


 * I do not understand this idea that you are going to bait the left into admitting they are everything you fantasize about. It's in your head, dawg, it's in YOUR head. 2600:8804:500:FE90:7C10:899B:4280:4E02 (talk) 06:01, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Fine. Just to help - to your points.  There are whack jobs on the left.
 * Apologists for pedophiles exist, in my experience it's just the right, but I will allow that whack jobs might hold any political leaning. Child rapists are scum, the least controversial take in the history of takes. So you can get how your three points are a non sequitor, yeah?  2600:8804:500:FE90:9DFA:6142:3CC9:6BB (talk) 06:30, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I was wondering what the connection was between the three points was too. Presumably there is an implied "therefore" at the end.  But I'm not seeing it.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 06:44, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It doesn't serve anyone to play dumb when this is implied so boneheadedly. You get the implied 'therefore' so address it.  There is not an argument here.  Don't try to wrap your head around it.  It is born of nonsense and relies on nonsense.  Every point is implied 'the left is at fault' as if 'the left' is something cohesive.  The wacky right is congealing into some terrible slime monster that only has to agree on binary blame of the other.  The Democrats and Republicans can both be bad, Joe Biden can be a racist scumbag and Donald Trump can be too, it's not mutually exclusive.   2600:8804:500:FE90:9DFA:6142:3CC9:6BB (talk) 07:23, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if you are responding to me. I assume from other comments that this is some US thing. All I see is a string of non-sequiturs.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:51, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * As one of the main contributors to 'the test' [which I mainly answered because I knew about PIE], I call out bollocks on comments done by the OP. The 'desired questions' were not outrightly asked and indirectly most were answered anyway - I pointed out that paedo 'entryism' was all-but destroyed by c1995 in the Anglophere LGBT communities and the 'Minor attracted person' title was from a very small group which is suspected of really being paedo apologists, while Bob pointed out the sheer impossibility of 'Antifa' making a decision of this as it has no formal leadership structure. And like the person above, I've hung about with some 'antifa' types for decades now and I've never heard anybody defend/support paedophiles [well, nothing more than 'they need to be able to access treatment']. In fact, the only times I hear that it's from altie hit-pieces, mainly on social media. And with few to no evidence cited. Fucking odd, that. KarmaPolice (talk) 11:55, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Pedophilia and child abuse is a global phenomenon; it is strange to apply a "American politics binary" to it.
 * Pedophilia is also a moral panic (in the West at least) in that people sling that word around as an accusatory weapon, fancy wild conspiracy theories around it, and work themselves into a tither over it.
 * Generally, I think attempts to assign "pedo" to someone or something political in a debate are a desperate smear, and in a similar manner to Godwin's Law, one can safely assume that the conversation is over, and the person who flailed the "pedo!" accusation lost. The exception (again, like Godwin's Law) is if one actually writes genuine, verified pedo apology; there is no question, for instance, that Nathan Larson is a pedo apologist. But most of the time, it's just dumb noise. BobJohnson (talk) 14:32, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not strange to see the American political binary applied to it, it's a combo of 'stupid' and 'parochial'; I've seen it applied to weaker things before, and sure I will see it again. In fact, one of my main rules of thumb on ID'ing a person who is at least circling the altie-fascist-authoritarian slime-monster to watch out for statements regarding 'the left' like it's an organised, monolithic block [*pins award on Sinister*].


 * On the topic itself... I suspect the slime-circulars 'confuse' [deliberately or not] two vaguely 'progressive' topics; cultural relativity and sex ed. The former can be viewed as eroding 'traditional' white American cultural supremacy while the latter is touted as the 'sexualisation' of kids. However, I would argue that if any 'side' has a real paedophile problem, it's 'the right'; particulary when you have swathes of people with the 'Right-wing authoritarian personality' which stresses a combination of a) submission to 'superiors', b) obedience by 'inferiors', c) a system of 'privileges' not 'rights' and d) strong conditioning to conform with the group. You don't need to be Sherlock Holmes to realise that any wannabe abuser can [and do] use these to their advantage. But you are also right that general apologia/advocacy is not particular to any single political ideology. KarmaPolice (talk) 09:54, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Many of the RW articles on pedo apologists (and yes, selection bias and all) indeed are from a particular "flavor" of the "right" (well, not quite, but more on "that side" than the other). Usually it's either somewhere in the libertarian or neo-Nazi space, but also critically they usually also seem to inhabit "troll" / "edgelord" space online. Other examples (aside from Larson) include Abd ul-Rahman Lomax. Also, the whole Ye presidential campaign circle (Milo Yiannopoulos, Nick Fuentes, Ali Alexander) has gotten pretty creepy in various ways in this regard. As noted in the online pedophile activism article, places like 4chan and 8chan have (in addition to their odorous politics) hosted CSAM material, and the manosphere is known, if not for pedophilia, then for people with strong attraction to post-pubescent underage.
 * However, "right" is too simplistic. This lumps in too many conservatives / libertarians that would never apologize for pedophilia. An alternative postulate I would come up with is you might see more pedophilia apologists in spaces known for their complete lack of social empathy and/or that are known for an advocacy of an extreme "traditional" patriarchal society. This fits things outside the American political binary such as the Catholic Church on the patriarchy side, as well as the pedophilia of the TERF Germaine Greer (as the extreme end of second-wave feminism also notably lacks social empathy) and the GNU guru Richard Stallman (who I can't place politically, but as someone possibly on the autism spectrum, he might have severe social empathy issues). Now, in RW articles, the one pedo apologist I've come across that might not fit either is the pedophilia apology of certain postmodernism philosophers. Not terribly familiar with 1970s French philosopher quirks, I honestly don't know what really drove their quest to remove age of consent laws. So obviously the above postulate isn't a catch-all so "there may be other spaces". To me, it ticks a lot of boxes though.
 * (Note that this is more "pedophilia apologist" instead of "pedophilia", I think the scope for the later is much broader.) BobJohnson (talk) 14:14, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Stallman walked back the worst of his pedophile advocacy, though not very forcefully. By the way if you haven't seen my recent comment on the online pedophilia activism talk page, you may like to read it. It's about how those types have adopted the Fediverse, such as their very own Mastodon servers, as a new home in recent years. CSAM seems to be present on all the largest social media platforms pretty much, though. Twitter and Facebook have a massive problem with it. I have heard rumor that it's especially bad when the people distributing it are not English speakers. That's harder for the Anglocentric sites to track. However about a million Twitter accounts based in India were banned about a month or two ago for mainly CSAM reasons. But there's a distinction between sharing the stuff and politically advocating for its acceptance. The latter is not something I saw happening on Twitter until maybe a handful of years ago. NewgonWiki seems to be the nucleus of it. I have seen them cited by people on both 4chan and Mastodon instances. They have a chatroom somewhere I'm not going to go fish out, but I would expect that's where a lot of this is being directed. Chillpilled (talk) 14:40, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I did make it obvious that I felt it was a subsection of 'the right' which had the issue, ie the ones which also had the 'authoritarian personality'. If nothing else, a lot of these folks find it difficult to grasp that children aren't property, have a tendency to defer to 'authority' in all things and if caught 'in a pickle', more likely to victim-blame and bury the issue than 'take the public shame' and deal with it. I think you're fairly right, BobJ; most apologia comes from either right-wing authoritarianism or libertarianism, though naturally this doesn't mean the majority of either of those two groups are apologists. However, I would argue that the former group has more of an issue because the above makeup makes them much more incapable of dealing with 'problems'; I mean in more general terms fundie churches have long proven to be poor actors when it came to dealing with 'shenanigans' coming from pastors or elders.


 * I disagree with the example of the Catholic Church, however; in this case I think the main reasons for complete denial and then sloth in 'cleaning out the stables' was not apologia, but simply a strong desire to 'protect the institution' and a lesser extent, their views of it. In that they deliberely did not ask the questions required, they did not discuss the matter with others and when a few cases arose which were utterly impossible to deny arose, it was put down to a 'few bad apples' and attempted to minimise them. The net result for the victims was completely the same, but feel the cause-difference is important to mention. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:18, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

If we've failed your fucking troll test, why don't you just fuck off? Spud (talk) 11:59, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Manhattan Institute
Manhattan Institute have deleted their libellous article about RationalWiki. Shouldn't the section about CancelWatch be removed? 144.126.225.14 (talk) 22:23, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 22:49, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I like the fact that the whole thing has triggered a debate within WP itself whether CJ is anyway a reliable source. I particulary like the line 'RationalWiki by its own admission really acts as hosting site for what on Wikipedia would be described as attack pages (though that does not mean that the content is untruthful)'. Coupled with this, the continuing debate on WP's RW talk page and the fact the RW pages mentioned in the original hitpiece and the Manhattan Institute got a fair tidyup suggests to me it's the Streisand Effect in action again. There's one WP'ian who seems to have it in for us but as they're a CP'ian too that is not entirely a shock [*waves to them if they're reading this*]. So, on this episode, mainly yay for us? KarmaPolice (talk) 23:15, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The person who started the reliable sources debate about City Journal (and has now withdrawn his support for it) says on his Wikipedia user page that he is Conservapedian DMorris. Yes, he's really got it in for us. But it ultimately didn't do him any good. Spud (talk) 05:29, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. Yay for us. Spud (talk) 05:34, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It's interesting that it's been removed. But under no circumstances do I think that our references to it should be removed as our anonymous IP editor suggests.  If anything they should be expanded, so if anyone in the future is investigating this somewhat bizarre series of events they can find the whole story here.  Normally I'm not a big fan of documenting internet drama - but as we are right in the center of this thing it would seem to be appropriate.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 11:45, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * There's something in that, methinks. That while not overly interesting tale in itself, it is interesting as an example the sort of thing which happens all the time. Plus, as CJ clearly wanted to bury it, I think we should find an archived version of the article and link it on their RW page. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:45, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah I just noted in the RSN debate that he was a conservapedia admin and that he was already told on the rationalwiki article talk page that an RSN discussion was pointless but decided to go on one anyway. Lavalizard101 (talk) 15:14, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Lol, they are mad that they were called and out decided to call RW "a cesspool that is too cozy with WMF office banned users and other trolls." and "a troll farm not only for Conservapedia vandals but also numerous troublemakers on Wikipedia." despite him unironically in the same edits saying he's "trying to be fair". The bias is obvious to anyone watching. Lavalizard101 (talk) 21:59, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Any idea who he meant by "WMF office banned users"? Maybe Smith, or who else otherwise? Not sure how RW is causing any trouble for Wikipedia. Chillpilled (talk) 22:53, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * On WP's talk page for its RationalWiki article, he called RW "the home of User:Keegscee and former home of User:A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver (whom they made a board member despite him admittedly being a troll)". Actually, I once had a brief run in with him, where he thought I was Keegscee and a check was done which cleared the sockpuppet suspicion. (Otherwise there was no claim I had done anything wrong on WP.)


 * Anyway, I think it's best not to bother him. He bluntly admitted to being biased about RW, and didn't pretend otherwise. Also, in this matter about the City Journal article, he supports deprecating not only it but also Manhattan Institute, and them discussing the latter on WP isn't pointless if they're able to go somewhere with that. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 23:38, 23 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't know who either of those people are, but Keegscee hasn't edited here since 2010 at least from a cursory look, unless has another account. I googled the other username and turned up this which (other than giving a quite nasty description of this person's gender) just leads to two RW accounts banned as sockpuppets. Apparently the latter was banned just late last year (for exactly the sort of behavior on RW you'd expect a WMF office ban to have been issued for) so maybe that guy just never caught wind of that. Chillpilled (talk) 08:12, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

LGMs in Congress
"Schumer proposes new legislation 'revealing' that government or contractors have been hiding evidence of 'non-human intelligences' for decades"

What the fuck is this shit? Carthage (talk) 06:33, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Why specifically him?A somebody. (talk) 20:38, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Idiot posing with stupid thing to attract more idiots? I mean, even if they were 'hiding greys' or something I seriously suspect this proposal isn't going to stop them. KarmaPolice (talk) 08:22, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * How much do you wanna bet all this is a stupid political stunt to distract from real political issues? I mean, this has historical precedent. Part of the reasoning for the Apollo missions, as scientifically valuable as they were, was to distract from the imperialist nightmare going on in Vietnam at the time. Carthage (talk) 18:42, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That's the Area 51 ruse in a nutshell: get the rubes to believe in !!!ALIENS!!!, while secretly working on your experimental military aircraft. I am thinking after some Google that this has to do with the recent however, so far, any concrete details on this seems very light. I cannot conclude anything now, but judging from history, I wouldn't place bets on the "non-human intelligence" thing ending up being valid. BobJohnson (talk) 18:58, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It is petty funny actually. Of course there is "vast web of individuals and groups” somehow managing to keep this super-secret for decades because .... well, why?  And how?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 20:31, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm gonna play devil's advocate here for a second. I've seen "theories" that suggest it's to prevent rival nations from one-upping us. After all, if we could reverse-engineer Clarketech it could give us a huge advantage over our competitors. However, why only leak it now? As you said, it'd been decades. Carthage (talk) 10:36, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Not buying it for one moment. If the US had alien superweapons then why not advertise it? It would be a fantastic deterrent.
 * And how would revealing it allow other nations to "one-up" the US?
 * Furthermore: atomic secrets got leaked to the USSR; the handful of Watergate intruders were revealed; some junior military employee leaked the Ukraine details to impress his friends.  Yet apparently this alleged "vast web of individuals and organizations" has kept this momentous secret for decades? The "why" and the "how" are as unanswered as ever.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 13:00, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I suspect that this is the nonsense that Jason Colavito has been covering in his blog for years: A group of “alienists” (If I recall correctly, those connected to Tom DeLonge) are lobbying Congress (Kirsten Gillibrand tends to show up quite often), apparently to achieve a combination of airtime for and some sort of legitimation of their crankery and possibly funds for their “investigations”. ScepticWombat (talk) 13:24, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Of fucking course they are. Greed makes the halls of Congress go round. Carthage (talk) 13:31, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Per that Colavito blog and a New York Times link, Schumer's effort (which has bipartisan support) is to get the military to share as much as they know in order to diffuse rumors about "aliens and shit". Due to the razor-thin Republican margin in the House combined with the Trumpization of the Republican party, loons in the House have to be taken more seriously than they should be, and one of those loons, is really pushing hard for a hearing on UFOs, with some help from a few other Republicans and a lone Democrat  for some reason. Such makes more sense now to me. The obvious problem with this strategy is I don't think "transparency" is going to change the mind of a UFO conspiracy type one bit, but at least more data will be good for "the rest of us". At any rate, I expect the hearing on this subject to be a pointless shitshow. BobJohnson (talk) 20:49, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Plan to raid this website being developed on the kiwifarms private forums rn
Sorry if this is an an inappropriate post, feel free to remove it, but I've stopped by to warn you guys (sorry if this is the wrong board, fele free to repost or delete) that some users in the Kiwi private section are plotting to raid this site. They're making accounts and organizing it on a discord vc.
 * Thanks for the heads up, I guess. We're kinda used to these antics by now, though... Kencolt (talk) 07:02, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually it's interesting to know they are still on-line. I thought they had too much difficulty getting hosting.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 09:56, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Which might be why they're organising via Discord. Who knows who's providing the server, or if they're aware of what it's for? KarmaPolice (talk) 12:28, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Kiwifarms is still a thing? Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 13:59, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm curious, is there anyone in particular on this site they are going after? I remember way back when, they targeted a "lolcow" that was otherwise no end of grief on this site.  16:20, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Britain and France are great at drawing borders then turning tail and run when shit hits the fan
I am referring to the Israeli Palestine Conflict. The Brits and French drew borders then ran when shit hits the fan. --Trans Fem Agenda 11:59, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * They did that everywhere. A lot of pointless conflict would've been avoided if a) the global north didn't start acting like colonizing parasites and b) they actually paid attention to local issues, like ethnic boundaries, when drawing up maps. Carthage (talk) 12:14, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Very simplistic. In fact, part of the issue the British faced in the 30s-40s was that they were trying to find a 'middle course' but neither side liked it. In fact, the most serious terrorism the British forces faced in this period was from Jewish groups.
 * I politely suggest you do more background reading before bitching? KarmaPolice (talk) 12:24, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I feel like we should not leave out that the British promised the land to multiple factions prior to the official British occupation of Palestine. There wouldn't have been much of a need for "a middle course" if the British didn't promise the land to Zionist groups to begin with. Many European states were sold on establishing a Zionist state due to thinking it would help get rid of "Jewish cabals" in Europe, keeping in mind that this was agreed upon  long before WWII.- Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 16:20, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Nowhere did I state any particulars related to the Israel-Palestine conflict. I just stated that colonizing powers in general carved up maps with zero regards for the people that lived there. I politely suggest you don't assume things about people without evidence. Carthage (talk) 12:40, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, replying to OP. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:34, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Carthage (talk) 13:40, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Given how the Europeans treated the Africans based off their ethnicites (see Hutu and Tutsis, where pre-exisitng ethnic tensions were worsened by colonization) I sometimes wonder if dividing African nations off ethnic boundries may of ended up being worse then what they did IRL. My point being that if they divided based off ethnic boundries, then I'd imagine the Europeans trying to make one ethnicity states, for example making a Hutu Rwanda and a Tutsi Burundi for the two ethnicites. The Europeans I would imagine deporting every Tutsi in Rwanda to Burundi and every Hutu from Burundi to Rwanda to make such states. I'm not saying they'd make a Hutu Rwanda and Tutsi Burundi as a fact, I'm just trying to illustrate my point. An Advocate (talk) 14:15, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Obviously the optimal solution is for the West to have never started colonizing in the first place, but that clearly didn't happen. As for your criticism, a good example of where the Brits did do this is the partitioning of the subcontinent. We all know how well that played out. Carthage (talk) 14:29, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Obviously colonization was a bad thing, but we have to work with what we got I suppose. You mentioned that the British Empire did do this in the partioning of the subcontinent, which subcontinent are you describing? An Advocate (talk) 15:22, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * South Asian. Carthage (talk) 15:25, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * One of the problems is that both borders and states are not real things. They are social-political constructs which line up with a whole series of other factors: historical, cultural, linguistic, tribal, geographical etc. European (or other) borders are not necessarily "better" than the ones the colonists made up. Even people living in European states will almost certainly not be the direct descendants of the people who drew the lines and they often cut through different ethnic groups. This is obviously not to diminish the historical damage caused by European colonizers -  I just wanted to point out that there is nothing particularly natural about any border (apart from the sea I guess). Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:27, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * An alternate argument is that they're real because they have very real effects. Social constructs are real because of the effects they have, not whether they have a hard physical basis. Carthage (talk) 15:31, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure. People really believe they exist and act on those beliefs. My point is that they exist because people believe they exist.  But a lot of social stuff is like that.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:14, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * As a general point, I think it's important to realise that the 'drawing arbitrary borders' thing happened on every continent - including Europe. They simply 'seem' natural in many places because over centuries the populations have grown to fit said borders [or were forcibly changed long ago enough folks have forgotten about it]. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:17, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * On that note, there's still plenty of ethnic tension within European borders, as with imposed French (the ethnic group) cultural hegemony over indigenous ethnic minorities within France like the Occitans, Bretons, and Basques. Carthage (talk) 17:21, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Quite true. That is because every nation-state is an artificial construct [in one way or another], and even if there is 'homogeneous ethnic groupings' the borders between them and others are always naturally fuzzy on the edges [go and look at an ethnic Euro map from say, 1914 or one of Belgium today]. Then there's what is classed as an 'group'; many of those mentioned maps would include Scots, Irish and Welsh into a 'British' [or even 'English'] grouping which many would not thank you for... KarmaPolice (talk) 18:45, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Of course, the problem with Africa's borders isn't just because of ethnic conflicts, but also because they split apart communities that had been connected for centuries. Another example of this problem is the Afghanistan/Pakistan border, which was drawn as a result of colonial wars with the British, and the arbitrariness of that border caused the west no end of grief over the past two decades. Plutocow (talk) 19:16, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Discussions of I/P have a tendency to bring out the worst in people. All I'm going to ask of y'all is to attempt to keep this discussion civil, remain calm, etc etc.  18:49, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Re: Afghan-Pakistan border. True, but there is no 'natural' line for that border to be drawn anyway - wherever that border ended up, it was going to 'divide' groups which had been connected [in various ways] for centuries. I would argue here that it wasn't the location of 'borders' which was the issue, it was the fact that a meaningful border appeared where previously it didn't exist. Generally speaking, it was only in about the 19th Century that 'borders' became properly defined [due to modern cartography] and only after WW1 where they started to become important. In places like Europe and the advanced bits of Asia this was gradual and organic, but in other parts [esp Africa] it was sudden, arbitrary and unexplained. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:58, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Karma: everything humans do in an organized fashion is an artificial construct. Europeans ranged into Africa as far back as 631 BCE (Cyrene). It's hard to accept that developed civilizations are predatory. Drawing a border is pointless by itself. There has to be a political entity with enough power to control and actually define the territory. Ariel31459 (talk) 20:11, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I was talking about poor planning. I am aware of the Zionist terrorism that happened during the Mandatory Palestine era. My main point is that European powers screwed the pooch when decolonizing. --Trans Fem Agenda 21:30, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * RE: decolonising. Part of the 'screwing up' by the European powers was that the colonised were often screaming 'get the fuck out NOW!' and hurling petrol-bombs at them - which at the best of times, isn't that conducive for 'statebuilding' [something America has also learned, just later on]. The other niggling issue was the fact that a lot of colonies were not ready for independence; as in lacked the economic capital to make a 'decent go of it' and more critically the human capital [quite a lot cost more in administration than it took in resources/taxes and were reliant on foreign brain-power to operate]. But few if anyone wanted to [openly] admit this because the former ran against the 'West stole all our wealth!' narrative pushed and the latter was denounced loudly as 'racist'.


 * RE: Borders. Yes, I am aware that a border by itself is pointless. Which was my whole earlier point; the people on the Afghan-Pakistan border long knew there was a border, but it was long irrelevant because there was no external forces to do anything about it. In fact, if I remember right back then there were border posts etc within Pakistan, basically dividing between 'core areas' in which Islamabad's will was firmly felt and the 'border areas' which it was not]. This is quite analogous to the situation in Europe in earlier centuries; that [for example] mediaeval England some of the 'edge territories' were held by quasi-independent nobles called 'marcher lords' [who often would politely tell the English king to stuff it] and beyond that the 'borderlands' [with Scotland] which was infested by clans of raiders [who would scream defiance at either king]. KarmaPolice (talk) 09:27, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That narrative isn't wrong, however. No matter how much you disparage it. Hell, to this day African countries still are economically, politically, and culturally subservient to their colonizers. A quite big issue with independence in Africa is that it wasn't true decolonization, African countries became politically independent but quickly found themselves still subservient to their former? colonial overlords. Colonialism from the get-go is designed to make your colonies dependent on you, that's how colonialism works. Carthage (talk) 09:31, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The colonization narrative is used often as a sententious strategy to get a better trade deal. That's fine. African countries want to be developed civilizations, which they can become, or already have become. Trade, sale of resources, and regional conflict, are all part of that bargain. The history of trade between Africa and Europe was not a good deal for Africa. Sad to say, the people of Africa will never get that wealth back. Ariel31459 (talk) 19:35, 22 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I 'disparage' it because it is wrong, Carthage. I'm not one to quote Stalin often, but on this topic, he was actually correct.


 * 'You know that we inherited from the past a technically backward, impoverished and ruined country. Ruined by four years of imperialist war, and ruined again by three years of civil war, a country with a semi-illiterate population, with a low technical level, with isolated industrial oases lost in a sea of dwarf peasant farms — such was the country we inherited from the past. The task was to transfer this country from mediaeval darkness to modern industry and mechanized agriculture. A serious and difficult task, as you see. The question that confronted us was: Either we solve this problem in the shortest possible time and consolidate socialism in our country, or we do not solve it, in which case our country — weak technically and unenlightened in the cultural sense — will lose its independence and become a stake in the game of the imperialist powers.


 * At that time our country was passing through a period of an appalling dearth of technique. There were not enough machines for industry. There were no machines for agriculture. There were no machines for transport. There was not that elementary technical base without which the reorganization of a country on industrial lines is inconceivable. There were only a few of the necessary prerequisites for the creation of such a base. A first-class industry had to be built up. This industry had to be so directed as to be capable of technically reorganizing not only industry, but also agriculture and our railway transport. And to achieve this it was necessary to make sacrifices and to exercise the most rigorous economy in everything; it was necessary to economize on food, on schools, on textiles, in order to accumulate the funds required for building up industry. There was no other way of overcoming the dearth of technique. That is what Lenin taught us, and in this matter we followed in the footsteps of Lenin.'


 * ['Cadres decide everything', 1936]


 * This could be said about any colony on independence. A massive lack of capital, in every form. From tractors to factories, trucks to modern skills. Yes, people got rich under the 'old system' but those people were very few in number and it didn't develop our country because they were mainly rent-seekers in nature - no way enough was 'stolen' to give everyone in the colony a decent SoL now. Neo-colonialism continued [and continues to this day] because most ex-colonies never managed to generate enough capital of their own to develop enough to escape this trap. And the advanced world still hasn't really answered this yet. KarmaPolice (talk) 20:14, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Development for who, and for and to what end? Under the system of classical colonialism development would never have been for the native Africans. A classic example of neocolonialism is the flooding of free clothing donations from the West drowning out any chance for an indigenous African textile industry from growing and thriving. You could also argue that the reason Africa lacked capital is because of the exploitative nature of colonialism. From West Africa's manpower being drained through the slave trade to the industrial extraction of minerals from Southern Africa, Africa's wealth was very much drained by colonialism. This is not in dispute, so I don't know why you claim it is. Carthage (talk) 20:26, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I do not buy the lack of capital argument given that the continent contains the largest reserves for uranium, diamonds, cobalt, platinum, etc.; while also containing more than half of the worlds arable farmland. The means to generate systems of mass production, mass agriculture,  to establish systems of trade, etc. have been and still are very much present in the continent.  Even asshat Peter Singer acknowledges in his book the Life You Can Save that  the mass extraction of valuable resources by international corporate interests is a big part to why extreme poverty exists there. This does not even touch the predatory loaning practices of institutions like the IMF. This is a continent that possessed some of the most historically influential  and wealthiest civilizations in history, this is not some backwater wasteland that never contained a mass empire.  Many of our "machines" in the modern developed world are only possible because of the cobalt we mine using child slaves in Africa. If Africa did not contain within it an abundance of potential capital, there would be no reason for Europeans to plunder it. A very similar narrative plays out in many parts of southeast Asia as well. So much of what we consume in the west, is not even produced here.  Our wealth and ability to accumulate massive amounts of cheap comforts is through capitalist exploitation of the global south.  Arguably they have a stronger foundation to self-sustain themselves off of what is produced on their land then we do for ours.     - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 21:50, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

This is the probably the best article out there explaining why is Africa poor. Unlike most stuff I post here, there are no equations and regressions, so you guys don't have any excuse to not read it. Colonization is one of the main issues, but Africa was already poorer than most of the world (and some places are poorer now decades after their independence), so it cannot explain everything. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 22:18, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you add anything to a subject without being condescending? I think a number of us know what a regression is. They are used in statistical analysis broadly across disciplines. This isn't some magic technique known only to the mystical economist. I posted an essay on here that talks about the limitations of multivariate regression analysis in quantitative genetics. Like some folks on here have studied the actual sciences, you  don't need to talk to everyone as if they are some uneducated rube. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 22:32, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to be condescending, I just wanted to encourage people to read the article. The point is, sometimes I share links that lack readiblity here. This one is very readable. That's all. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 22:34, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * And By the way, Jim Robinson is a political scientist, not an economist. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 22:36, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * There are barely distinct fields in practice when a political scientist isn't acting as some post-modern political theorist tbf. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 22:40, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You mean "they" or "there"? And why did you put my comment in bold? GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 22:45, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Why the hell don't you actually read the damn thing before bitching, Dumb? Neither history or economics is your forte. This pdf was written by a pair of seemingly well-respected economists. Thanks for the .pdf, Gee. It's waaay too late for me to read it tonight, but I shall do so and comment on it later. KarmaPolice (talk) 22:52, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * And Gee's mention it 'doesn't have any equations or regressions in it' isn't being condesending, it's an relevant comment because a lot of economists have severe physics envy and fill their works with them to the point they're almost unintelligable even to people studying Economics. KarmaPolice (talk) 23:03, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The bold thing is an accident, and assuming the question is genuine its because I am at work and posting on Ratiwki. It is a lot easier to post quickly then reading a whole academic article. I got to look like I am doing my job. Reading a PDF when my desk is in full view of the lab is less than discrete. I'll get around to reading. Still doesn't give Gee a pass to do be a snob, also he just corrected the idea that Jim Robinson is a economist; effortless display of reading before posting.   - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 23:05, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

In fact I just checked and according to Wikipedia, he's an economist and a political scientist. I don't think I was acting like a snob. In fact, as Karma suggested(and I've said before) I do have a hard time understading much of the methodology of those economic/PolSci papers coming out nowadays. I'm sorry if I sound like a snob, but again, that wasn't my intention. I guess that's enough for now, no need to derail OP's topic with this squabble. Also, please don't bring older stuff to the bar, I think I've already apologized for calling you a rube. If I didn't, I'm doing it right now. That was uncalled for, unworthy of a board memeber and a mod, and the fact that I was having a terrible day is no excuse for my behavior that day. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 23:15, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * From a skim, an executive summary of the paper could be:
 * A) Politics was fragmented and only centralized much later than other places; "absolutist and patrimonial" governments also were present for much later periods than other places. This hurt the economy.
 * B) The slave trade, which was extensive even around the 15th century, was devastating to the African economy.
 * C) Colonialism was devastating to the African economy, and set up structures that shackle the economy even to this day
 * I don't think any of these conclusions are terribly problematic. The shackles of Europe are very significant in this paper, it's not an apologist paper.
 * At this point, Africa (that is, the countries not wrecked by bad governance or constant wars -- African countries with passable to good governance are more numerous than some might "popularly think") is growing pretty good (with some places saying growth in the region even outpaces Asia these days). A fair bit of Africa is not as poor as it used to be, and the stereotype of the continent sometimes seen from Westerners (extremely poor, always at war, extremely primitive, etc.), in these places at least is bullshit. Undoing the damage further will take time. BobJohnson (talk) 01:03, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That's a good summary, though I don't remember the article very well (read it 4 or 5 years ago). One thing I disagree with the authors is how they dismiss geography. I still believe it plays a major role on the wealth and poverty of the nations, even if it's not as important as institutions. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 14:42, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * African scholars have also written prominently on the subject of colonialism and neocolonialism. If we want to discuss actual scholarship we should consult the scholars of the people we've been writing on and see what they have to say about it. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy is a good overview of African scholarship on the neocolonial phenomenon, and contains a good rebuttal to Karma's assertions that Africa wasn't "ready" for independence. I've also pointed out that neocolonialism continues to harm indigenous African development, as we can see with the case of textiles, but that doesn't seem to be in dispute here. Carthage (talk) 17:19, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Okay, so I read that essay. Here is my general summary. In the essay Gee cites, the authors admit that societies flourished within Africa comparable to global contemporaries, supporting exactly what I been saying about there having existed wealthy empires within Africa. They just think these empires were “exceptional” and unrepresentative of the relative wealth of Africa as a whole. The authors themselves admit that the essay being provided is “speculative” about why Africa is poor, and states explicitly they are not interested in re-treading old debates and actual empirical evidence.

The authors credit a lack of “economic development” to a lack centralized politics, enforcement of property rights, etc. They still credit the exportation of of human slaves as contributing to why these social institutions didn’t develop as they did in Europe. They argue that African societies didn’t get to exploit the technologies and innovations happening through the colonization of the Americas in the way Europeans were able to. The authors are not shy to admit that massive plundering of places like Madgascar and Nambia, and the mass murders that took place probably didn’t help these nations establish stable institutions to economic development, in fact, actively impeded it.

This authors reference the 1940’s work of Douglas and the 1970’s work of Vansina who cites the “lack of authority” to why the Lele people were so poor compared to the Bushong people that lived across the river. Apparently they didn’t subject their natural resources to the “upmost exploitation”. Bushong is cited as being wealthier and with greater productivity because of the establishment of centralized political institutions. Productivity and wealth is stated to have increased because it was “demanded from above”.

This gets juxtaposed to the essay authors crediting “political absolutism” (think: absolute ruler) with African societies as “predating on property rights” thus preventing economic development. Notice no mention of “lack of capital” here.

The economic shock of the Atlantic slave trade still gets an entire section of focus, and is credited as preventing economic development as well because colonization did involve a large degree of destroying established states and political institutions. So, no shit.

Then we get a whole section on “backwards technology” and tbh I think it would be fair to call some of the language utilized by these authors as racist. They admit to sparse historiography about technology in pre-colonial Africa, but cite a refusal to adopt wheeled transportation as a clear disadvantage.

Several sections are then dedicated to the impacts of colonialism actively impeding the development of certain institutions that the authors deemed relevant  to economic development. Several more function as a case studies of specific African nations, I am not going summarize every section.

But the authors even admit that the essay is just taking it for granted that African poverty is best explained by the failture to develop certain political institutions, and that there is a death of empirical investigation on the topic. Hence the authors state that this is a “very speculative” essay. They are not above however given partial blame to Africans throughout the essay. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 20:22, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That's not to say African empires didn't try developing their states. The Songhai started breeding horses, instead of buying horses through the trans-Saharan trade network, and ended up creating a breed of horse resistant to the tsetse fly. (It must be noted that West African empires relied on cavalry extensively for military power; they got these horses from traders. The Songhai sought to modernize their military and make it less dependent on the whims of fickle trade routes and foreign powers.) Also, with all of the methodological problems mentioned, how is this the "best study" available on the topic? Carthage (talk) 20:28, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the author themselves are not even confident enough with their conclusions to classify it as anything other than speculative and emphasize the need for more research. Regardless, colonization is still emphasized as being the major factor in why these institutions fail to develop, and the authors themselves express explicit suspicion for anyone who thinks the poverty is better explained by geography or culture. There is a clear inconsistency here with the “lack of capital” point that Karma was making. The authors think that these nations are capable of economic development, and have the natural resources to do so. I think a big criticism I have is what is being used as the yardstick for economic development — as it does read throughout the essay as something resembling the economic systems of Europe. The authors disparage “traditional” systems in Africa as preventing further development. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 20:34, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * So they use a very Eurocentric measurement (a problem inherent to economics) to insult and degrade Africa. Sounds par the course for traditional Western scholarly discourse. At least they emphasize the problems colonialism has played with African development. Carthage (talk) 20:44, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Vote buying in Spain
Vox, local far right idiot association, is using this to call for mail-in votes to be all thrown out, because of course they are. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 09:28, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Also these are kinda old news, by I didn't get up to speed with election stuff until today, one day before the elections, because I am well known for correctly organizing my time. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 09:30, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Well results in a few hours. Nail-biting time!Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:42, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Neck and neck at the moment. But much better than I had feared.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:43, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I’d say that the most positive aspect of the result is that Vox has taken a significant hit in both vote share and the absolute number of votes it received. Vox appears to have lost roughly 600,000 votes since the last election, despite a higher overall turnout. Now, if this is a result of the PP moving to the right to try to scoop up Vox voters, it’s a decidedly mixed blessing, but the signs that Vox might be on the decline, or at least has reached a ceiling (for now) is at least a somewhat hopeful development. ScepticWombat (talk) 06:43, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm back bitches
well im back after a long hiatus. i have a question tho. how do you change your username cuz im no longer a hindu lol. RationalHindu (talk) 23:05, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I can do it for you, just post on RationalWiki:Requests to change username. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 23:18, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * thx Jacklyn N Stuff (talk) 18:56, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Man, Fuck Putin So Hard
Rich of that asshole to say Poland is only a country because of Russia. Stalin in 1937 was literally executing the Polish nationality and killed over a hundred thousand. Russia is only a country because Poland beat back the Swedish Empire in the Battle of Prague in 1648. The weakened Swedish Empire was then defeated by Russia in Poltova only because the Poles held out against incredible odds. Fuck that shit-lord fascist squinty-eyed cock-sucker Putin. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 13:48, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Putin just destroyed a UNESCO-recognized cathedral in Odesa. B-but I thought he was the guardian of the traditional values that were degenerated by the evil liberal west? I wonder if Nobs will blame Zelensky for this too. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 14:38, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Putin also doesn't care about allies: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-07-21/chinese-consulate-odesa-damaged-in-russia-strike/102628680 given China have been one of the few countries not to call Putin out you'd think he'd at least try to avoid the Chinese consolate. Lavalizard101 (talk) 15:01, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, Stalin and the Soviets worked with Hitler and the Nazis to conquer Poland until the Nazis turned on them, so there's that. Rational Dude (talk) 17:24, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * If they can blame Ukraine for the war they can blame them for anything happening as a result of the war. Chillpilled (talk) 21:57, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Putin is 70 years old, he's not going to be alive forever. I'm terrified of what replaces him...  19:19, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Whoever replaces Putin might be a lot worse. That is a disturbing thought. --Trans Fem Agenda 20:42, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Odd Video featuring the black sun that was posted and promptly deleted by the Ron DeSantis campaign.
https://twitter.com/PopulismUpdates/status/1683157829224632321 I have a reasonably good idea where they got the idea to use the black sun from. A somebody. (talk) 16:59, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Can the guy go any more mask off? Carthage (talk) 17:19, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Also https://twitter.com/richardbspencer/status/1683169582406864897 lol, imao.
 * When courting fascists, one shouldn't be surprised that one ends up with Nazis. The Sonnenrad (black sun) superposed with DeSantis and storm troopers is at 1:02 in the video for anyone who doesn't want to parse through all the other alt-right mimetics. Bongolian (talk) 18:08, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * A friend of mine made a, uh, a "joke" of a DeSantis rally just filled exclusively with guys donning Swastika tattoos shouting "SIEG HEIL" while DeSantis cringes for a second and wonders "what the fuck have I done that this is the sum of my political career?" Carthage (talk) 18:12, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Do we know that the Twitter account that posted this (supposedly |"Ron DeSantis Fan Cams") is actually affiliated with the campaign? For instance, the "DeSantis War Room" account (infamously now known for posting that weird bit of manosphere media a bit back) was reportedly launched by the DeSantis team in August 2022, so anything coming from that Twitter account can be credited to DeSantis (or at least "endorsed by the DeSantis campaign"). I see no such articles about this account.
 * According to the source of this retweet "at least one campaign staffer RT'd it", though no further information on which one.
 * (Not that this changes much about DeSantis's authoritarianism and how he's fascist enough for the Nazi pond scum to make Nazi videos about him... but, also, never by default trust anything on Twitter, especially the Twitter of the Elon Musk era.) BobJohnson (talk) 18:43, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks like Team DeSantis retweeted a video without watching until the end. Seems like basic stupidity. 19:21, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Given that the entirely of Team DeSantis is made up of HITLERCUNNY88 and HEINRICHLOLI14 I don't think it's 'stupidity' A somebody. (talk) 20:42, 23 July 2023 (UTC)


 * How could this happen? Chillpilled (talk) 22:33, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It's basically fallout from a controversy from Florida's recent social studies standards which gave the media a field day with the following "benchmark clarification" on page 6 of their African American history studies:
 * Clarification 1: Instruction includes how slaves developed skills which, in some instances, could be applied for their personal benefit.
 * Hey ho, Florida will now teach that slavery will give you valuable life skills! :p
 * Beyond quote mining, I'll say this. These standards have plenty of stuff that definitely belong, it's not all crap. But there's definitely some quotable nuggets that are frankly terrible (this quote and the balance fallacy on page 17 regarding "race riots" -- "acts of violence perpetrated against and by African Americans" -- got the most media attention). "I am not a historian", but overall also, the standards suffer from what I would call "glaring omissions" with a tinge of Lost Cause of the South too-positive whitewashing. It's not as bad as some Lost Cause claptrap I've seen by any means, but it definitely seems to have some "smoothing" applied where some "negative incidents" are either omitted or balance fallacy-ed away.
 * For instance, basically, the Jim Crow era seems to be glossed over to quite a degree. From what I see in the document, for instance, the is not mentioned, despite the widely shown news clips of Birmingham police using high pressure water hoses and attack dogs to attack peaceful protesters having a huge impact on the civil rights movements of the 1960s. The Tuskegee syphilis experiment is not mentioned. Martin Luther King's assassination isn't even a bullet point, what the fuck, why? Even the whole f'n Civil War seems to be glossed over -- no mention that I see of the Confederacy, their Constitution, and noteworthy events like the  that showed exactly where they stood. There's a heavy emphasis on African-American accomplishments without instruction to discuss the challenges the artists and inventors profiled faced, seemingly. (And even here, some weird omissions. For instance, no mention of certain notable sports "color line" crossings like Jackie Robinson? At least Jesse Owens gets a mention...)
 * Race issues from 1980 onward seemed to be bypassed completely (Incarceration discrepancies? Crack vs. cocaine? Police brutality, including notable events such as Rodney King? All not there. Certainly not Black Lives Matter!) There's a weird bit that seems to promote "by the stats" shallow analysis for this era ("Instruction includes the use of statistical census data between 1960 to present, comparing African American participation in higher education, voting, poverty rates, income, family structure, incarceration rates and number of public servants." - page 21).
 * To be fair, given DeSantis' inclinations, things could have been far worse, but it still has the type of "whitewash" you'd expect from his administration. Now, so far I haven't seen too much in depth commentary from historians, unfortunately, so I'd love to hear more from their viewpoint. Honestly, my guess is that they will find a fair bit more than I am seeing... BobJohnson (talk) 00:43, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Regarding the link to the "DeSantis says Black people benefited from slavery by learning skills like 'being a blacksmith'" story. That shows ignorance, wilful or otherwise by DeSantis. Evidence of African metallurgy dates to 3000-2500 BCE, including in the area from which many slaves were later taken, Western Africa . DeSantis' ancestors were harvesting their grains with sticks and rocks back then. Bongolian (talk) 01:47, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hah. Those slaves were taught those skills so their masters could exploit them better. In this case, the slave-owners were similar to colonialists who improved the colony by putting in plantations and railways - ie nothing more than an 'enlightened stationary bandit'. Let's not forget either that a skilled slave was worth a lot more than an unskilled one; in capitalist terms the owner had 'improved' their asset which could be released by selling them [I've never seen any mention of them, but surely a few people made their living from 'slave training'; from skilled trades to house 'servants']. The fact that said skills might allow the slave to do some outside work to save up to buy themselves was more 'bug, not feature' of the system of slavery that prevailed in the Old South. Which shows [apparently] in Florida law of the time which made slaves doing this illegal. KarmaPolice (talk) 10:03, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Psychological trauma after a zombie apocalypse is almost never addressed
There is one piece of zombie fiction where the psychological aspects of a zombie apocalypse are explored: School Live

In the anime School Live, a group of highschool girls live inside a school after a zombie plague decimated the population of Japan and possibly the world. The main character Yuki Takeya is the main character who acts as if that everything is normal and wrapped herself up in a delusion that matches her mindset in response to intense psychological trauma. The other characters Miki, Yuri and Kurumi face the reality of the zombie apocalypse but are shown to be impacted by Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

Why is it that a lot of zombie fiction doesn't show the psychological aspects of a zombie apocalypse? --Trans Fem Agenda 22:01, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * World War Z (the novel) does a pretty good job of addressing it, I think. 22:06, 24 July 2023 (UTC)