RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive408

Would you consider people who are neurodivergent a "burden"?
Hoping to have an real conversation here because everywhere else I go there is a lot of emotion behind it. I say this as someone who is on the spectrum I thought of the idea of someone needing help just to be able to do what everyone else can do without it a little off. Speaking for myself I struggle a lot in life. My reasoning skills aren't great and I get easily overwhelmed mentally so I worry about what jobs I can get. Whenever I try to help out or take the initiative I make mistakes or make it worse, same when it comes to giving advice. I just feel so useless because no one around me has these issues with just day to day and I'm dependent on the kindness of strangers. But I also notice that when I step away people end up being better off for it, which just shows that I am getting in the way. It makes me worry about my future because I have gotten help and accommodations but they never made any difference in my performance. In a sense, I am a burden because I require more than the average person and don't really function that much better to justify it. I worry I'll never be able to care for myself. There's so much I don't know and so much I can't understand, how am I gonna make it?

Eugenics tends to come up when I bring this up, I don't think that killing all present people like this is right but I can't really deny that there are plenty of examples of people who suffer for it (parents, children, or both). I think if there was I choice no one would willingly be this way, I know I wouldn't. Why would I want to live a life where my mental abilities are lesser than those around me, or to just not be able to get something no matter how much I hear it, or to have to "stim", or to have no idea of what people are talking about or how to react. And that's just me, I hear stories about parents who have sacrificed their happiness to care for a child who will never be independent or even understand what they are doing for them. I just have a hard time thinking that every case like this has worth, even myself. I mean if I can't perform then what good am I?

The response is that being alive is enough or some variation of humans having intrinsic worth, which they don't. No one has intrinsic worth and I don't think anyone "deserves to live". To exist is something that is earned in a sense, you aren't owed it nor do you deserve it. Without modern society people like me would perish, I don't see that as a good thing.

But I just don't get how people can see it in such a rosy way or justify people like me existing. I don't know what other word to call it but a burden.Machina (talk) 23:48, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This conversation is making me really uncomfortable. 00:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * What conversation? It was just one point. -Andrew5 mobile (talk) 00:35, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * And "Betteridge's law of headlines" applies, so the answer is "no". There are plenty of people "on the spectrum" and/or who struggle with depression who have contributed a lot to society. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 01:07, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * And there are plenty of neurotypical people that have been demonstrated to be negatives for society. 01:31, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This is one of many conversations started by Machina. It differs somewhat from the previous ones in that it's not specifically about existential angst, so I'm not going to collapse it. It shares some general similarity though in that Machina really should seek professional help to become a better-functioning person. We can't do that. Machina needs a professional. As far as I'm aware there is no general measurement for degree of neurodivergence (there are for specific types though like Asperger's/autism), so this is again a question without an answer. Bongolian (talk) 02:01, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This seems like a clear cut case for a collapse. Machina, we would all like to be able to support you with your ongoing mental health issues and existential crises, but as multiple users and admins have told you, we are not the appropriate forum to deal with mental health issues nor are we remotely qualified to do so. It does not matter whether the appeals for help are direct (like clear expression of suicidal thoughts) or disguised like via questions about "neurodivergent burdens", I and others don't believe the saloon is an appropriate place for this and personally I don't even believe the internet is an appropriate place for one to deal (at least directly) with such serious mental health issues. While again, I know most users sympathise and wish we could engage more and help you with these issues, I do not believe it serves any of us (including you) best by engaging in such frequent conversations here. If a similar post happens again I will propose some sort of solution on ATIM. Shabi  DOO  02:03, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Yet another case of people just evading the question as usual.Machina (talk) 04:00, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That's bullshit. You got an answer, several in fact. Just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean it didn't address your question. 04:09, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Everything is a burden. Nothing matters. After all we are just a chemical process on a small rock next to a normal star in gazillions of stars in the universe. Xxx (talk) 05:26, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I'll bite. Machina, there are a few layers to this, and your current depressive state probably makes you an overly negative judge of your own capabilities, but let's talk about the worth of the neurodivergent. I have two brothers who are on the autism spectrum (I will refer to them as Michael and Thomas). Thomas, my older brother, has aspergers strongly enough that he has a persistent stuttering problem that makes it difficult for him to speak. He managed to get an engineering degree and has a stable job, but still needs assistance which he is fully capable of paying for. In Thomas' case, he doesn't generate as much net profit as a hypothetical "normie" in his shoes would generate, but from the perspective of the economy he makes more money then he spends and pays taxes on it, making him, quite literally, not a financial burden. He isn't an emotional burden either, as evidenced by the fact that we love him and spend time with him of our own volition. He is also active on warframe gaming servers and gets satisfaction from that as well. Now let me tell you about Michael. Michael is my little brother, and I love him to death, but he is 25 and cant speak or hold a job. His autism is severe enough that he will probably never be able to hold a job or start a family of his own. We will have to support him our entire lives, and when my parents pass away it will fall on me or my sister to support Michael until we die. Despite all this we still love Michael, and willingly pitch in to support him. Why do we do this? As cheesy as it sounds, it is because we love him. This might be a weird example, but as illustration for just how much satisfaction and fulfillment humans get for taking care of those in need, we voluntarily take in animals and feed, shelter, and provide medical care for them for their entire lives for no fiscal benefit (pets). (I'm not saying Neurodivergent people are or should be treated like pets, I'm just using it as an example of how people are actually really loving and desperate to show it to someone). And if you want to go from a purely utilitarian standpoint, many actions do not provide fiscal benefit but fill us with satisfaction, take hobbies such as painting landscapes. 95% of painters will never sell their paintings and make money on them, but they do it because they love it and that is what they wish to do with their money. If someone wishes to help you, to support and care for you, why should anyone care that that is how they wish to spend their money? But that is besides the point. I've seen and worked with neurodivergent people who can never support themselves without help, and I don't think you are it. I'm running out of time to type (I have work in like 10 minutes), but I just want to make a point here about you Machina. I've lurked here for years and watch you consistently have deep concerns and thoughts about the world and philosophy. As much as people here give you shit for it, it is endearing and shows you care deeply about things, but as time has gone on I have watched you get more jaded and depressed. I was in those shoes once. In college I almost killed myself because I thought my life had no meaning and that everything was pointless, but those around me pushed me to seek professional counseling and medication, and it did wonders. More importantly though, I got hobbies where I could make consistent progress and be proud of myself. Because I'll let you in on a little secret. All this soul searching and looking for a purpose to existence? There isn't one yet. There isn't some reason for existing that is just floating out there for you to discover, you have to forge your own. "But doesn't that make it arbitrary? Doesnt that mean it doesn't really mean anything?" Yeah it does. But looking for meaning in every act is a sucker's game that ends with sadness and regret, and seizing your own destiny means you don't need to wallow in misery and can start enjoying life; but we cant make it alone. You need friends and people who can help you through this. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 11:45, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "There's so much I don't know and so much I can't understand, how am I gonna make it?" Try to get a good understanding of where the limits of your competencies lie, and try to manage what you can for yourself. Try to minimize your dependence on things outside your areas of competency, and where that isn't feasible, try to impose minimally on those willing to help you (and be sure to thank them when they do help). Try to maintain relationships with such people and develop new ones as you find yourself in new circumstances. "Normal" interpersonal bonding may or may not be appropriate depending on the people involved and your abilities in that regard, but keep in mind that standards of politeness are social lubricants, and that honesy and gratitude can go a long way. As for "making it", from the description, many career options are not suitable, but that doesn't mean that none are. Try to find something simple in scope with little risk of needing to deal with novel situations. With careful attention and practice, most people can acquire skills that let them perform well in such tasks. Such jobs may not be very lucrative, but they may pay well above minimum wage. Even if you require assistance in other aspects of caring for yourself, being able to pay your own way (or much of it) helps a lot.


 * "Why would I want to live a life where my mental abilities are lesser than those around me" There is always someone better, though we all experience this to different degrees. Compare yourself to the person you were yesterday instead. Perhaps you won't see much intellectual improvement (unlikely if you're an adult), but there are all sorts of little ways that people can improve their lives, which you can get started on right now. Do you have any vices or bad habits? Most people find satisfaqction in life by taking on responsibilities within their competence and then fulfilling them. Your abilities may be limited, but there is probably something you could do for someone.


 * "No one has intrinsic worth" Quite. "Worth" is an extrinsic concept, so "intrinsic worth" is a contradiction in terms. Most people don't think too deeply about such things, which has its costs and benefits. Accepting cultural practices such as that can lead to inflexibility and dogma, but most people are not equipped to build their own ethical systems if those are done away with. And having an ethical system is important. People may not have intrinsic worth, but societies with cultures that regard people as having intrinsic worth, and which organize themselves with that in mind, tend to be nicer places to live than other societies. Similarly, psychologically divergent people can impose costs on the people around them and the society they live in, particularly those that require care from others. In many cases, it wouldn't be difficult to construct a utilitarian calculus that favors euthanasia. But treating human life as something to be economized rather than something held sacred has its own costs, and historical attempts at organizing things with human life valued at anything close to the actual economic value of human life tend to turn out badly. Deontological ethics has its drawbacks, but it has utility in situations with vague long-term consequences that are difficult to predict precisely.


 * As for being a burden, everyone is a burden to others at some point. We were all helpless infants, but someone decided that the expenditure of effort and resources to raise us was worth it. As social animals, taking care of group members in need generally helps the group overall, and most people are psychologically inclined to give people in genuine need some leeway. This is less about a strict cost-benefit analysis and more an instinctual promotion of the interdependence that human societies are based on. If there is something you can do to meaningfully help those who help you, even if it doesn't settle the balance sheet in an accounting sense, you'll probably be able to find a place for yourself. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 13:00, 14 February 2022 (UTC)


 * So, Machina, as you can see, your posts are actually disturbing people enough that they want you to stop making them. When I suffer from a period of depression, the best thing I have found is taking the view that the effects are short term, that I will recover, and from experience I know that they will not persist indefinitely. You however, are finding the world is at fault. Too many neuro-divergent people are being produced. But it isn't so. We are all properly here for the duration of our lives. And here's an actual fact: we are all burdens to someone eventually. If your turn to be a burden has come early so what? In Goethe's Faust it was Mephistopheles who claimed to be "the spirit that denies." Do not deny human value to those who are most forlorn. Ariel31459 (talk) 04:22, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Machina I posted a message response in the collapse. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 11:46, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Guys, lets stop discussing. It was collapsed for a reason, we should just leave it. Plus in 5 days it can be archived. Andrew5 (talk) 22:03, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * So if someone is going through a depressive mental health crisis we are just supposed to ignore them? MirrorIrorriM (talk) 13:50, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No, but we are not the apppropriate forum to deal with it, please read comments opposing this thread in the collapse. Andrew5 (talk) 13:16, 16 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Elon Musk is neurodivergent. As is Bill Gates.  And Jeff Bezos.  Depending on your view of mega-billionaires, the answer will change...  14:37, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

A lot of this concern about the quality of life for people who are neurodivergent has nothing to do with the reported quality of life of neurodivergents. When you think of having your own abilities impeded, through mutilation or from brain damage, any form of stunting typically evokes body horror fears in people, no-one wants to go through the mental degradations of dementia and it commonly terrifies them. Though that can lead people to project a bit when it comes to people who are already living with their mental disabilities, aspergers, autism, ADHD etc. It can be hard to get good self-reports of happiness from these groups and interpreting them as being solely from their condition risks missing out important cultural factors similar to how you may not be unhappy for being black, gay, transgender, or a woman because those things in themselves are negatives. But because of the stigmas around all of them and how the world treats you. BumblingBuffoon (talk) 15:08, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

The dumbest "joke" that insults Trans people and Non-Binary (if you consider Non-Binary as different from Trans) goes to
"I identify as an attack helicopter"

Not only is it based in bigotry, it is just damn stupid. Even if a joke is offensive, at least make it sound funny. I can tolerate some LGBT+ jokes but some are just straight up stupid. As a Non-Binary person myself, I can attest to the stupidity of it. --Non-Binary EAS Creator (talk) 00:14, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Now, I'm not saying you shouldn't take offence to insensitive buffoonery, but as an amateur humorist I have always preferred sardonic responses. For instance, you say "I identify as an attack helicopter." I might say, "Then why don't you take off?" or, " is this before or after the attack?" or "I hope your mechanic is available because you look awful." Ariel31459 (talk) 01:49, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That honor actually goes to "I indentify as a trans-RationalWiki moderator". A user attempted it and got permabanned for it. Andrew5 (talk) 02:17, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Not bad Andrew. Don't get cocky kid...UncleKrampus (talk) 02:35, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It doesn't sound funny because when people say "I identify as an attack helicopter" they're not making a joke they're referencing the original joke which was a copypasta. In a copypasta an absurd situation is created and then it just keeps building on its insane premise which is where the comedy comes from. Here's the full thing on the Know Your Meme page https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/i-sexually-identify-as-an-attack-helicopter VerminWiki (talk) 04:12, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It is just absolutely frustrating to me. --Non-Binary EAS Creator (talk) 00:11, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The best response is telling such pricks to go chug kerosene. Revenant Raven (talk) 00:49, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * In the wild it is hard to do anything about it when it happens. A lot of community moderators aren't really aware of the problem or trans/non-cis issues, so they'll think "oh this is harmless" and ignore complaints. But even if you explain to them that the joke can't really be interpreted as anything but mocking contempt towards someone based on their gender identity, and is the literal definition of discrimination, the mods dig their heels in like they don't like you doing the job they're supposed to. I've had to deal with mods not giving a shit all over the internet to a degree they're a problem themselves on these issues. BumblingBuffoon (talk) 10:50, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

The term "Hapa"
I've always used the term Hapa to describe my race, but recently I heard a friend say that they had never heard the word, and thought it sounded weird. Have any of you heard the term, know what it means, or used it in conversation (if it ever comes up)? I feel like I'm going crazy over here. armed_roomba(she/her)What am I doing wrong this time? 04:09, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I've seen it and used it myself though I'm not sure if I should continue appropriating it as I'm not descended from the mixed race Hawaiians. 05:33, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The word is common in Hawaii, where it originated from The word comes from the English 'half', and it refers to people of mixed ancestry. Bongolian (talk) 06:42, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I use it commonly, and I have some family from the islands so it makes sense that I use it. I don't have any Hawaiian heritage though, so LGM's comments are making me rethink my usage of it... armed_roomba(she/her)What am I doing wrong this time? 21:10, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I am mostly Spanish but no Hawaiian. In second place is Irish with some Czech, Slovakian, Hungarian and various other ethnic groups. I am also from the midwestern US and completely unfamiliar with the term (I somehow suspect that it is a slur of sorts) --Non-Binary EAS Creator (talk) 00:39, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It's generally not considered a slur. Bongolian (talk) 07:51, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Any users here follow French politics?
I ask, because I was thinking of starting a draft about Éric Zemmour...but as a notably not French person I might be lacking some background.-Flandres (talk)
 * Politico EU has a good article on French right-wing politics and Éric Zemmour. How France pivoted to the right: Far-right views have gone mainstream as France gears up for next year’s presidential election. Who would have predicted that a third of the French electorate says they are planning to vote for a far-right candidate? Since 2015, the right has picked up more momentum. Knueven (talk) 08:13, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

wordle
i have a 100% record on wordle (not bragging - its not that hard) yet my winning streak is 1 (highest 6). thats bullshit right there. i just dont do the thing everyday. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:10, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

SCOTUS allows racist Alabama redistricting because "its too close to an election to change"
Seriously.

The 5 reich-wingers on the court argued that they can't change it now because the election that's still 10 months away is too close and "there wouldn't be time to redo it".5.151.22.140 (talk) 23:20, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey look, it's the same reason they even have 5 conservative justices. 23:28, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * To be fair, the 6-1 map, while an unfairgerrymander that should’ve been shot down, was in place for the last ten years. Unlike Tennessee, which probably will be shot down as they made it 8-1. (I was so dumb when I said it was 10-1 - damn I can’t count.) Andrew5 mobile (talk) 01:03, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Andrew, have you ever thought about not kneejerk defending the GOP? Seriously, you look like a garbage excuse for a human being here. "Well it's bad, but it's been there for a long time" is a pretty pathetic defense. 01:58, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Andrew, you are now clearly diluting your criticism with "yeah but" because it is Republicans doing it. I am with you on those who try to diminish how vile it is when Democrats are creating unfair electoral maps. Both parties do it (though democracts less...and less in the last few decades but that is not important), but it is ALL awful, for whatever reason regardless of the circumstances. If you are categorically against unfair election maps, then call out this vile map rigging for what it is. Shabi  DOO  02:04, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This map is bad. But it actually isn't that vile, compared to some other egregious gerrymanders put forth by Republicans. First of all, making the more fair 5-2 map would involve ousting a Republican incumbent. Likely Carl and Moore. To be honest, what I would support most is a map where you have 5 Republican seats, 1 Democratic seat and a tossup. Tossups are critical because that's where the people have a say (though not sure how that would work in Alabama, as there are very few swing counties.) I can think of many more egregious Republican gerrymanders. For instance, Tennessee, where they are forcing Jim Cooper out by cracking Nashville. In Tennessee, a state where Trump got 60.7% of the vote and Biden got 37.5%, will, unless shot down, be in a position where Republicans have 89% of the seats to Democrat's 11%, as it isn't even a tossup. Utah's is also very vile, as it makes all 4 seats very safe, not even making a single one marginally competitve. So no Democratic seats for Utah, even in a state where Biden got 37.6% of the vote to Trump's 58.1%. (This is due to cracking Salt Lake City four ways.) Alabama's, by that metric, is 86% Republican and 14% Democrat, in a state where Trump got 62% and Biden got 36.6% - what is a moderate, but not totally egregious, gerrymander. One of the biggest issues with gerrymandering is it is ousting incumbents, and I don't like to see it. It makes me upset period, but in a situation where it's like what happened to someone like Gardner, at least the people voted him out. But it's deeply upsetting in this case, because now the government is forcing you out. I wouldn't care as much about the NY gerrymander had Nicole Matallotkis not been forced out. The worst thing about this isn't that the map is upheld - it's actually that Section 2 can be declared unconstitutional (possibly the thing as a whole). In this case it's not the one seat that matters, it's actually the deeper meaning. --Andrew5 (talk) 02:25, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll save everyone the bother of reading Andrew's explanation "When you think about it, what the GOP did isn't that bad, so really, my defending it isn't that egregious..." 02:38, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, we can't forget the obligatory "and here's some bad stuff I think the Dems did..." 02:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, and here's what Andrew should have written, because I actually am as smart and insightful as I think I am. "What the Republican Party in Alabama did is a blatant threat to the democratic process, and the fact that the SCOTUS upheld it is nothing short of a partisan farce. Both institutions should be subject to an independent investigation, and possible disciplinary action may need to be taken." 02:43, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * (EC) So, to summarize, your (Andrew's) argument is that the racial gerrymander "isn't that vile" because (1) a fair map would require ousting a Republican incumbent, and (2) other Republican gerrymanders are worse by a criterion involving the comparison of the proportion of votes for Trump and Biden in 2020 to the proportion of seats expected to go to each party. Now, given that the 5-2 map would be fairer, and that you acknowledge that the 5-2 map would be fairer, why should (1) be considered a mitigating factor that makes the racial gerrymander less vile?  If the incumbent would be ousted in a fairly organized election, why should we place positive value on their maintaining their position?  Also, why should the fact that other maps are worse lead us to mitigate our evaluation of this map's vileness?  That is, why shouldn't we say that this map is extremely vile, while the others are obscenely vile, for instance?  Furthermore, why should we consider the single-factor evaluation criterion you use in (2) to be a legitimate gauge of how bad a gerrymander is?  Should the fact that this is a racial gerrymander play no role in our evaluation, and if so, why? 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒   talk  02:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Andrew5: the Democrats attempts to gerrymander in their quest to stop the GOP seeing how unfairly are vile!

Also Andrew5: the GOP gerrymandering Alabama for racist reasons isn't that bad.

Also also Andrew5: Why does everyone here think I am a racist republican🤔?5.151.22.144 (talk) 09:43, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The discussion seems to regard "fairness" as whether or not the outcome meets some desired goal, rather than a methodology that doesn't inherently favor one party over another. And surely the redistricting in question is "partisan" rather than "racist", no? It's the plaintiffs that explicitly want to draw district boundaries based on their racial makeup. Consider the quote, "The panel, made up of a judge appointed by Bill Clinton and two appointed by Donald Trump, said Black voters had less opportunity to elect the candidates of their choice to Congress." At 12.4% of the Alabama population, they're a rather small minority. That's generally how it works in a democracy. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 12:20, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It's extremely possible for the gerrmander to be both racist and partisan, and given that the average black American votes Democrat, it's very likely so. 16:56, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure, it's possible. People can do things for all sorts of reasons, and we generally can't read their minds to check. But what indicates that it actually is? That black Americans skew extremely Democratic means that an utterly non-racist attempt at partisan gerrymandering would produce a map that uses that difference to tip the partisan balance where there are enough black Americans to significantly influence population voting trends. What do you mean by "racist" such that it would be implied merely by a difference in outcome between populations? Is it "racist" that black Americans skew heavily Democratic in the first place? 192․168․1․42 (talk) 17:47, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "People can do things for all sorts of reasons, and we generally can't read their minds to check." Why would we need to read their minds? "Is it "racist" that black Americans skew heavily Democratic in the first place?" This doesn't follow, elaborate. 15:55, 9 February 2022 (UTC)


 * "Why would we need to read their minds?" Because in that case, the difference between something being racist and not being racist is motivation, not observable action. If a partisan motivation produces the same voting districts as a racist motivation, calling racism implies knowledge of the motivations behind it. The onus is generally on the party making the positive claim (i.e. that the speaker knows the motivation of certain people). So, what indicates the presence of racism here? Keep in mind that districting by race beyond the degree of the partisan breakdown would be counterproductive to the goal of optimizing partisan advantage.


 * "elaborate" It doesn't follow according to older definitions of racism along the lines of "the use of a person's race as the basis of differential judgement or treatment", but it's become popular to apply the word to things that one wishes people to regard as bad without having to make a new argument about why something is bad. It's become popular in some circles to regard humans as fundamentally identical, with demographic membership being arbitrary identifiers, and so any differences in outcome between arbitrary demographic groups would necessarily be from differences in outside treatment based on those demographic details. That is, racism, sexism, ableism, etc. And so I asked if you thought that the extreme partisan skew among black Americans was itself racist, since it is a difference of outcome along racial lines. Because if it's not racist, and that partisan skew is used as the basis of partisan redistricting, it doesn't imply that the redistrictor is racist. If I gave you some geographic voting data (no racial data involved) and told you to gerrymander the region to advantage one party, would you expect your districting proposal to track along racial lines, or not? Would that racial tracking itself be racism despite the methodology that produced it not involving any racial data? 192․168․1․42 (talk) 12:39, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understand what racism is from a categorical, systemic critique. Their intentions don't matter, since we can't "know" what those are, only their practical effects on the world. In this sense, "racism" is less a moral failing and more a set of behaviors, norms, ideas, etc. 15:21, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand that there are a lot of different definitions, such that merely calling something "racism" these days says very little about what the speaker means.
 * "Their intentions don't matter" They do for some definitions of racism. For example, treating people differently because of their race, when there are all sorts of non-racial reasons to treat people differently. Employment discrimination laws rely on motivation, as do "hate crime" laws.
 * "In this sense, "racism" is less a moral failing and more a set of behaviors, norms, ideas, etc." ...Based on race somehow. That generally has to be part of it, even if in an abstract sense removed from individual motivation or action. But to repeat, what do you mean by "racist" such that it would be implied merely by a difference in outcome between populations? As with the allegedly racist redistricting proposal. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 19:48, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You're not really addressing what I said. 21:34, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "what racism is from a categorical, systemic critique" "less a moral failing and more a set of behaviors, norms, ideas, etc." What you said does not constitute a definition of racism such that a situation can be examined to check whether racism is involved or not. Anyway, let's try this from a different angle. Do you think that the districting proposal characterized as racist in the topic headline is indeed racist? If so, what do you mean by that, such that it is possible to check whether or not it really is racist? How about the counter-proposal by the plaintiffs that want to establish districts based on racial distribution in order to affect representaiton based on race? 192․168․1․42 (talk) 12:43, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Forgive me for answering a question with a question, but I need to demonstrate my premise in order for you to understand it. So, which that out of the way, is "nigger" racist or is it an expression of racism? 13:48, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "Nigger" is a word. I'm not aware of a definition of racism by which words themselves can be racist. Rather, words are used to express ideas, which may or may not be racist according to various definitions. For example, our discussion here doesn't advocate the use of race as the basis of differential judgement or treatment, so it's not racist according to that definition. In contrast, Uncle Ruckus's use expresses the idea that the Freemans (who just moved to the neighborhood) are untrustworthy due to their race, and is therefore racist (in-universe). 192․168․1․42 (talk) 14:17, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You aren't really engaging with the question. Is the word "nigger" racist, or is it an expression of racism? 15:49, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Anyone else own firearms here?
I've been wondering (lurker for a bit before making this account) if anyone here is interested in and/or owns firearm(s) on this site. It would be a bit interesting to see how common "my kind" is here too.

Ignore my nonsensical edits, just a test of my word salad ability. Mr. Richard Pump (talk) 05:22, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * As an engineer I find weapons interesting from a technical standpoint, but small arms have been technologically pretty stagnant since the days of Browning. Because of this I tend to find medieval weapons more interesting, since they come from an era where the struggle between weapons and armor tipped towards the armor side.  With larger caliber weapons you get more interesting warhead types (such as HESH), but civilian small arms are basically all hollow points and fmjs.  🥱 I do not personally own any firearms.  Ive shot them at ranges before but mostly just from a game dev stand point of trying to make item stats realistic. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 12:39, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I've been collecting for pretty long although that's been handicapped by not having very good financial resources... Currently have a Taurus G2C, Anderson AM-15 (5.56 although I've had to feed .223 through it lately), Grandpa's .22 and a Chinese Type 56 SKS clone (Bought it before old Soviet and Chinese vintage Mosins and SKS' got incredibly expensive, been hard to find cheap gun food for it since Ruski ammo got banned.) I'm just interested in knowing if anyone else here is interested in the matter. Mr. Richard Pump (talk) 13:16, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I once knew a collector who had an M1 Garand, he claimed it was a WWII original but I don't know for sure. It was interesting feeling the weight distribution and mentally picturing the act of quickly aiming over the top of a trench with it.  Something about knowing that hundreds of thousands of my forefathers countrymen had to do that very act with this weapon gave me pause for contemplation.  So I would definitely say that the history of firearms is interesting to me.  What would you say you feel from collecting firearms?  MirrorIrorriM (talk) 14:11, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I used to shoot pretty often until imported Russian ammunition got banned, and then it got prohibitively expensive to fire any of them with the current ammo prices for the former 3 and having to use more expensive American ammunition for the latter. I also live in an area where meth cookers, weed growers and general addicts/crazy people all operate. And it takes 15-20 minutes for a deputy or state police officer to arrive if it's not raining or snowing. I've also hunted a bit before because of a deer issue but refer to above. Mr. Richard Pump (talk) 14:59, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm going to make a real leap in the dark and guess you guys are Americans. (or citizens of the USA).Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:08, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the United States is the only country where I could own a lot of this (especially the AM-15 and Taurus G2C) so yes. Mr. Richard Pump (talk) 15:38, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I am an American- and in an area that’s mostly conservative and pro-gun. I do not own a gun and my wife and I do not want guns in the house. I can’t wrap my head around how something meant to kill people or things are so fascinating to people but have no problems with someone who wants one for hunting or plinking. Probliknaut (talk) 17:23, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I cannot have firearms at all. The state would not give me a license due to having mental illness. Now if I could have one, I would like a classic rifle. --Non-Binary EAS Creator (talk) 23:53, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Firearms are a big no no for me, just because the risks of having one doesn't outweigh benefits. If I were forced at gunpoint to own a firearm, I might go for sniper tho. 00:03, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Mainly owning because of a couple reasons.

- Criminals that are not only active, but incredibly dangerous. You do not want to be on the bad side of a meth cooker or organized weed growers (most of the stoners around me are pretty chill, but the organized enterprise growers can, and will, murder you.)

- Related to the last point, very slow response times from all emergency services. It's already a pain running code through mountain roads, add snow or rain and you can't go very fast without losing control and crashing. If I get attacked in any way, I need to be capable of defending myself because if they mean me harm, the cops would only be capable of calling the ambulance or coroner.

- Hunting. Deer are a gigantic issue around this area because they are far larger than in the southern United States and they like to total cars. Tagging a couple bucks every year is my way of preventing fatal traffic accidents and chronic wasting disease.

I'm sure not many people on this site live in a situation similar to me (mountains, pro-gun red county, fair amount of violent crime and incredibly slow police response times). Mr. Richard Pump (talk) 06:21, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I assume you’re in Montana or something. Question for you, Richard, and please don’t take it facetiously, its a genuine question: To your point about criminals, do you mean to say you’re lugging around a long gun in your car on the off chance you get jumped? Probliknaut (talk) 16:06, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I conceal. Might be a bit smarter to get something a bit larger (not because of people mainly but because of the wildlife.) Correct on Montana. Ever seen what the wildlife up here is capable of? Worse than Australia. Whenever I'm allowed to and it's a place where nobody is around with a wildlife threat (grizzly bears say hi), I open carry a rifle. You do not want to be caught with nothing or a 9x19mm handgun against a grizzly bear. You do not want to be caught with anything else except a semi automatic against a pack of wolves. Other than that, I'm not keeping long arms in my vehicle unless they're securely locked up and hidden as well as possible. Mr. Richard Pump (talk) 18:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Ahh I knew it. Brushfires here in AZ can be pretty bad, yeah. I assume you mean critters are displaced due to your wildfires? Do you mind if I ask if you have personally been attacked by critters? Out here we have coyotes, who I have personally run into and they do not want to harm you at all- they run. Was escorted out of an area by one before but that was more of a “hey please get out of my space, I’m scared” kind of thing, I think. Never run into a bear nor a wolf. Probliknaut (talk) 18:53, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, I don't mind any questions. There are already all sorts of wildlife up here but I would guess that significant fires would drive some critters up to where I live. I've never been attacked but I've had some incredibly uncomfortable encounters with all sorts of very dangerous animals so I need to take some precautions. We do have a lot of grizzlies, wolves and mountain lions up here and some more harmless/less aggressive stuff like black bears, coyotes and wild dogs. Mr. Richard Pump (talk) 19:10, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * living in the uk there is no dangerous wildlife, the most scary animals (other human beings, amirite?) are pet dogs. i was once mugged by squirrels in ruskin park though. true story. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:50, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * How did ya'll react to Australia when you landed in NSW in whatever year you did? Mr. Richard Pump (talk) 21:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * who are you asking there? My understanding of australian fauna is that it is not so much the big beasts that are scary but all the venomous snakes and spiders and the like. that said salt water crocs are pretty terrifying and smart too. if they see you at waterhole one day, they will wait for you the next at the same time. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:07, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Arizona is kind of the Australia of America regarding animals. Poison lizards and dangerous scorpions. Probliknaut (talk) 22:14, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I kind of envy Australians when it comes to that, although it might come from ignorance. They don't have to deal with wolf packs, wolverines, mountain lions, bears (both grizzly and black) and coyotes. Among other things. We also have to deal with dogs (both badly trained/aggressive domesticated and wild, possibly rabid, dogs) and wild cats but I understand that those exist in Australia too. Mr. Richard Pump (talk) 22:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * dunno about that. you have firearms and all in the us, and you actually have to go out into the wilderness to bump to into grizzlies and the like. there is stuff you can do to keep them at bay generally in your day to day life. no amount fire power is going to stop a redback spider biting you on your cock when you are taking a shit. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:27, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I live in the wilderness. Whenever I go outside, there's a decent chance that one of those things listed above sees a vulnerable snack. Mr. Richard Pump (talk) 01:46, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I am personally not against firearm ownership. However, there should be strict regulations nationwide. In New Hampshire, they have the lowest amount of gun deaths due to strict regulations. Obviously it does not stop people from buying black market guns but it heavily curbs the amount of guns that land into the wrong hands i.e. political and religious extremists, Neo-Nazis and so on. --Non-Binary EAS Creator (talk) 19:24, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you believe in restrictions on the type of firearm owned? Apologies for bothering you. Mr. Richard Pump (talk) 20:16, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * My viewpoint: Living in a city suburb, I have never felt the need for a firearm. I also see them as more problem then they are worth in any urban environment. The only time I might get a gun is if I ever decided to go backpacking in back country for a long period of time (I've hiked, but only day hikes), particularly in northern areas where a few of the animals (bears, sure, but don't forget the moose, they can be nasty) are large. Even this is something I would have to think about. Most animals are more afraid of you than you should be of them (rightly so) so the best deterrence is letting them know you are there by being talkative. Most small guns just won't be big enough to deter a big creature like a bear or a moose. Most big guns capable of deterring a bear or moose are pretty bulky. Bear spray is easier to carry and deploy, I imagine, in the relatively rare event that you encounter a problem animal.
 * I certainly would acknowledge that actually living in the woods requires a different mindset, and guns may be quite a useful tool there. But the American free-for-all approach is not necessary. Canada has plenty of woods, and a more reasonable (IMHO) approach to gun regulation. Guns are certainly fine in Canada, but registration, licensing, and training is required, things I personally have no issues with at all. Until recently, the prohibited device category has been fairly narrow (eg high magazines, full autos). In wake of the it may be getting stricter soon (semi-auto bans, which I personally tend to be "meh" about, but haven't looked into the details on this). So we'll see if the bullshit politics of the NRA start creeping up that direction if stricter bans overstep the paradigm of the more "American conservative" provinces there like Alberta. From my point of view though, even if living in the woods, my "initial take" is that a semi-automatic isn't even necessary there (with shotguns, for instance, initial scan would suggest that pump action is cheaper and easier to maintain, and probably "does the job" just as well), so I'm not sure I'd care much. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 20:32, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Semi auto tends to be pretty useful in all honesty. If a grizzly wants to murder you, you do not want a shotgun unless it has slugs and you're at a distance and/or you have nerves of steel. Having a death machine weight at least almost half a ton charging at you with intent to rip you limb to limb, eviscerate you on the spot and then eat you makes you shake a bit, and you can fail to entirely pump it out of panic or miss quite a bit. With a semi auto, none of the messing around with a slide that I have to rack after every shot. Also, I wouldn't want to be caught with a pump action against a pack of wolves unless I had a wide spread choke on it with buck/birdshot. That only works in one situation, by the way, so if I need it for anything else? I'm fucked. Mr. Richard Pump (talk) 20:52, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

In terms of firearm ownership, a civilian does not need military grade weaponry. A hunting rifle or a general pistol should be enough. Now if you work in private security, having a stronger firearm would be fine (especially if you are guarding something of high value). Hunting or home defense does not bug me. If someone is a collector of classic and antique firearms, it does not bug me. In terms of regulations- a person should keep a gun insured and registered, have very deep mental health and background checks and take rigorous gun safety classes. --Non-Binary EAS Creator (talk) 00:02, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by military grade? What do you mean by hunting rifle? These are such vague terms that I could reasonably describe a Mosin-Nagant as a military grade rifle due to it's use in several armed conflicts including two world wars by several nations and the Anderson AM-15 (a variant upon the AR-15) as a hunting rifle as I use it for hunting. Mr. Richard Pump (talk) 04:50, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Pehaps "military grade" is a reference to the higher power of cartridges typically used by hunting rifles. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 12:45, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Found a link to a crowdsourced activity map of movements in Ukraine, in case you want to know what stuff happened there recently
https://maphub.net/Cen4infoRes/russian-ukraine-monitor Sourced from; https://mobile.twitter.com/Cen4infoRes/status/1491431544946249730 BumblingBuffoon (talk) 15:10, 20 February 2022 (UTC)


 * With nationalism on the rise, it would be stupid for Russia to try to conquer Ukraine as it would be another Afghanistan type affair for Russia. It would be like swallowing a porcupine and be a pyric victory at best for Russia. Putin probably knows this so at the most, he will try to wreck Ukraine rather than conquer it. The USA has the Monroe Doctrine. Russia does not want a NATO country on its borders. After the Cold War was ended, the USA promised Russia not to expand NATO. The USA broke its promise to Russia and now we have a pointless and avoidable conflict about Ukraine. The Ukraine and Russia both have very corrupt governments. So if Russia conquers Ukraine we will have one corrupt government conquering another corrupt government. Gretmeisen (talk) 15:53, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 'After the Cold War was ended, the USA promised Russia not to expand NATO.' bullshit


 * also the ukrainian public had no interest in joining nato. off the top of my head (i'd have dig up exact figures) about 20% were in favour of joinung nato. 2014, that jumped to around 80%. what could have happened there do you think?


 * take putins balls out your mouth AMassiveGay (talk) 16:20, 20 February 2022 (UTC)


 * support for ukraine membership of nato May 2014 for 37% against 42%. jan 2022 for 64% against 17% AMassiveGay (talk) 16:24, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * honestly read putin's own words on the matter, his ukraine essay. russian designs on ukraine are pure imperialism. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:33, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * While Gretmeisen's post certainly cries out for some "citation needed" tags, it brings us back to the question: what's in if for Russia?
 * They will need to spend some blood and cash to bring it off, and they will then need to put up with Western sanctions for, possibly, years. It is possible that internal resistance in the country will continue for some time.  And countries on the Border will be more likely to consider joining NATO, not less.
 * Of course he gains Ukraine. But I would have thought it wasn't worth it.
 * Unfortunately Putin seems to have somewhat shaky grasp on reality so he may do it anyway.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:59, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I recall an eminent university history professor saying that NATO and/or the USA promised not to expand after the Cold War was over, but perhaps I am not recalling the right source of information. Regardless, the Op-ed piece Op-Ed: Russia’s got a point: The U.S. broke a NATO promise from the Los Angeles Times says the same thing and it claims there are "hundreds of memos, meeting minutes and transcripts from U.S. archives". In terms of realpolitik, Russia is unfortunately going to wreck or invade Ukraine if it looks like it will join NATO. And China will probably invade Taiwan in the next 10 years. At the present time, there are primarily 4 great powers: the USA, China, Russia and the European Union. And there are signs that each of these great powers is headed for a period of decline. But in the meantime, they are not bears that you want to mess with or you will get mauled. Even the most tame of these bears, the EU, recently mauled Google with a $2.8 billion USD anti-trust fine. Gretmeisen (talk) 17:15, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Sounds like it was discussed, but not put in writing.
 * On the other hand Russia did guarantee the the security of Ukraine. In a Security Council Declaration Russia Guaranteed, among other things: The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defence or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations;Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:36, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps gretmaisen should read the link I posted above. It debunks the very claims made in the article posted. Namely the scope of said 'promise' is clearly and solely concerns east Germany. Bonus points if you the read the comments section which has links to the actual transcripts where no can seem to find any guarantees. If they were made they weren't written down. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:44, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

NATO is not just the US, which I swear that a lot of people believe. The US has influence in NATO but does not own it. Might as well say that the UK, France, Ireland or some other NATO country owns NATO. People who act like the US is the sole evil in the world need to get their heads out their asses. I know the US has done unethical stuff but that is not an excuse for Russia to attack other countries. --Non-Binary EAS Creator (talk) 17:58, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This whole business is not down to the us or two NATO. It's entirely down to Putin. Honestly, read his essay. Then read Ben Wallace's take down of said essay. The whole NATO broke their promise bullshit is pushed entirely by Russia and by partisan republican hacks AMassiveGay (talk) 18:04, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * My memory was a little off. Professor of political science and international relations John J. Mearsheimer at the University of Chicago: "As the Cold War came to a close, Soviet leaders preferred that U.S forces remain in Europe and NATO stay intact, an arrangement they thought would keep a reunifed Germany pacified. But they and their Russian successors did not want NATO to grow any larger and assumed that Western diplomats understood their concerns. The Clinton administration evidently thought otherwise, and in the mid-1990s, it began pushing for NATO to expand." If memory serves,  Mearsheimer also said that NATO/USA promised not to expand after the Cold War, but perhaps it was some other scholar who said this.


 * But the issue of whether NATO/USA did or did not promise to expand NATO is a moot point because great powers don't have a history of being tolerant of threats on their borders. JFK did not allow the Soviet Union to arm Cuba with nuclear weapons.  China is very hostile to Taiwan. And Russia is very hostile to the notion of Ukraine being a NATO country on its borders.  Declining powers are dangerous and Russia is a declining power. Leaders of declining powers are tempted to distract the public from internal problems with sabre rattling and foreign conflicts. Russia has made overtures to have better relations with the USA, but they have been ignored or rebuffed. Long term, China poses more of a threat to the USA so the USA may choose to become closer to Russia.  The whole thing is complicated. The USA/China are "frenemies" who do a lot of trade together, but there is a trade imbalance with China selling more to the USA.  Gretmeisen (talk) 18:12, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That's the "official narrative" that Putin is pushing, at least through his propaganda outlets. If he believes this, he's seriously stupider than I thought. (I personally think this is mere propaganda and Putin has other stupid reasons he is doing this.) In part due to the Angry Baby being all nativist and pouty towards allies, NATO was being downplayed in recent years. Macron even declared NATO brain dead in 2019. That is no longer the case. The case for NATO has been affirmed. I would not be surprised to see an expanded NATO emerge from this (depending on what Sweden or Finland take away from these shenanigans.) Not exactly what Putin would have wanted, I imagine, but play stupid games, win stupid prizes. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 18:27, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not a moot point when it's the sole justification for war. It's not about security dither when Russia gave it's blessing to Baltic States joining NATO. It's about Putin and his seeing ukraine as rightfully russian. It's about Putin staring down NATO so it can then turn it's attention to other disputed border regions knowing that NATO and the EU won't do shit about it and Putin gets his own russian leibensraum (I know that ain't spelled right but I'm on my mobile here) AMassiveGay (talk) 18:23, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

There is a famous quote attributed to various persons that says "A man always has two reasons for a thing: one is his real reason, the other is the reason that he gives." The Indonesians likewise say "If you want to beat a dog, you can always find a stick." So whatever excuse Russia gives, the fact remains that great powers throughout history do not tolerate threats on their borders. And Putin knows that the USA/Germany/Europe want Russia's oil and natural gas right now so they will not be willing to go to war with Russia. And Russia now has a closer alliance with China now so he can better stomach Western sanctions. Gretmeisen (talk) 18:43, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I am reminded of the quote 'when a man has his head stuck up his arse, he cant see shit' sun Tzu AMassiveGay (talk) 18:51, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Clearly Sun Tzu didn't own a headlamp. Vomitorium (talk) 19:04, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * What is most likely a sock puppet account from frequenting far right trolls or a paid Russian troll thinks it is okay to invade other countries just because of what a completely different country does. Violating another country's sovereignty for political gain is wrong. --Non-Binary EAS Creator (talk) 22:18, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that's the critical issue, EAS. Putin thinks NATO is the American Empire, similar to the Soviet Empire / Warsaw Pact. That's why he's belittled and insulted Euros when they'd tried to talk. They don't want the monkeys with delusions of grandeur, just the organ-grinder in Washington (a part of me wonders how the Russians explain away the fact at the start it was the UK leading the charge, not the USA).


 * And there's nothing we in the West can do or say to persuade Putin otherwise. There's an element of psychological projection in this; Moscow does not believe our words about it being a 'defensive alliance' and so on because it assumes, like them we are a bunch of mass liars playing the cynical long game against poor Mother Russia. KarmaPolice (talk) 11:34, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I think Putin is doing what all dictators do: trying to hold on to all the power he can. Germany is still pretty dependant on Russian gas, in particular, but otherwise they are in steep decline economically. He's tried to take the military grandeur left by the Soviets and keep it moving on a GDP the size of Italy, with more than double the population, and a huuuuge border and land area to deal with. His military stance is unsustainable without an actual war, and he may be trying to take some strategic advantages from Ukraine, much like he did already with Crimea and Georgia, that could help his position if successful. He may be using NATO as a distraction for internal politics, since popular discontent has been growing, see: Alexei Navalny. He's seen an opening and weakness in NATO, since Trump started badmouthing it, and he's taking full advantage. All this is to say, he's left himself not much choice due to internal corruption, and he might not be able to manage an actual military occupation, but that's a bluff he's certainly willing to try. 104.159.112.162 (talk) 17:09, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Sadly at this point, war is unavoidable. It will happen. Maybe I am sounding like a war hawk but if Putin is not stopped now, he will continue to take other nation's territory. Maybe Alaska, portions of Finland or possibly Bulgaria due to it bordering the Black Sea. I might be paranoid but lets look back at the rise of Nazi occupation, Hitler was biding his time and slowly building up military presence. Then when things came to a boil, Poland suffered an invasion as did other countries. --Non-Binary EAS Creator (talk) 17:48, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Firstly, no it is not unavoidable. I couldn't even say at this point it is even probable.


 * Secondly, comparisons to Hitler only go so far. Only Russia's immediate neighbours, ones with significant russian ethnic populations should be worried... At presentAMassiveGay (talk) 17:58, 21 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Here's a link that shows air traffic control. https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?icao=43c041 If you click on the "U" on the right top, it shows only military aircraft, mostly surveillance and transport. Dutchbag (talk) 18:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It shows me all the planes, but given the shear volume it’s really hard to discern. Also completely unrelated but since I’m at a museum that specifically points out, thought I’d n mention the ISS is at 48.6°S 9.5°W, over the south Atlantic. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 19:17, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Military have the the option to have their ADSB signals turned off for public view - mostly they do. Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 21:09, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Some of you may be interested in this. Edited so AMG isn't confused anymore :-)
A UK journo has been doing a deep dive into the origins of Q-Anon and broadcasting it each week in 30 minutes episodes. It's a (imo anyway) highly interesting dissection of how Q came to be so all pervasive in US politics and how its spreading further. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/series/m001324r Oldusgitus (talk) 15:54, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I read that as QI and was confused. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:57, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Question for trans women and non-binary demi-girls here
Okay, I have been looking up feminine clothing for trans people online. I found a few things I want but one thing I am looking for is a nightgown. Does anybody know of good online stores to buy one? --Non-Binary EAS Creator (talk) 00:31, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Why would transpeople need different clothing?  15:24, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Have you tried fitting your cock into some dainty panties?AMassiveGay (talk) 15:54, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

it is a self-image thing. Hard to explain. --Non-Binary EAS Creator (talk) 17:51, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 *  Must... ignore... all the ways to make a yo mama joke with that '
 * Men's panties are a thing, and I'm quite sure those will fit a transwoman. If the problem is that the box says they are for "men" instead of "bepenised persons", I think I'll open up a "Pro-Transwoman" line of clothing that's just re-named Men's clothing, but made with shoddier material and twice the price and claim it's because I actually want to give you the authentic Female shopping experience. 21:42, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * the stuff marketed to men rather than trans is generally fetish wear AMassiveGay (talk) 21:58, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * So... business opportunity. And remember, it's not a lower quality product for a higher price, it's the authentic female experience!  22:17, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Every bit of clothing ought to make you pretty You can cut the clothing, gray is such a pity I should wear the clothing of Mr. Walter Mitty See my tailor, he's called Simon, I know it's going to fit ian drury AMassiveGay (talk) 11:55, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Not good for Germany
Germany enters recession due to COVID-19. Was going to post this at the what’s going on in the world page, but easier to do in the Saloon on mobile. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 14:55, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "Due to “very good” demand, the economy should rebound strongly in the spring as long as supply-chain pressures ease further and the pandemic continues to recede, according to the Bundesbank report."
 * (shrug) PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 15:02, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The recovery may be rapid, however. (emphasis mine) The economy is likely to recover, but that isn’t a guarantee. Stranger things have happened. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 15:23, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * And even if Germany’s economy recovers, some economic damage will linger. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 15:24, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hasn't everywhere's economy taken a hit from covid? AMassiveGay (talk) 15:59, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That’s true. However that’s like dismissing Germany’s severe 1930s depression saying eveeywhere had one. It’s still important to discuss IMO. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 16:23, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Nice bit of Godwin's there. Also, it's bullshitAMassiveGay (talk) 16:56, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * We're entering a global inflationary squeeze on SoL, surging energy prices (which makes up a huge amount of the German import bill), other supply shortages (the lack of semiconductors shall continue to hamstring many a German business) and the rocky bit between the tail-end of Covid support and what shall be the new normal economically. What's more, different countries shall react to this in different ways due to their economic makeup, debt levels, the type/level of old Covid supports and so on. If 22/23 promises to be a stagflationary time (which I think it shall) it shall hit Germany somewhat harder than most due to the fact her export industries are heavily towards mid/high level consumer goods and capital equipment.


 * Anyway, it's dangerous to read too much into things such like 'recession' and so on. All it means is that it fills a load of indicators as such; not that the economic fundimentals are good or bad. A good case in point; the UK, 2010-2019. The headline tags looked decent, but only the economists for hire said UK.plc was in a good economic shape. But forecasts are really screwy at the moment because orthodox economists are still proclaiming that a) all those job vacancies shall be filled with no structural change to the labour market and b) inflation is merely a blip. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:04, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that we are in very unfamiliar economic territory everywhere. Demand growing after Covid, supply chain issues, price of energy very high, some central banks putting up interest rates while others are still on quantitate easing, inflation rates at multi-year highs in some countries, impact of Brexit in the UK and Europe, the very hard to quantify impact of Russian activities. It's pretty complicated at the moment.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 09:36, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The fact we're in unfamiliar territory matters less than you'd think; orthodox economists have now had ~40 years of getting things fundimentally wrong, causing a 'unexpected' (no, you simply didn't listen) crisis about once every 5-10 years. One thing which is now completely buried under the Covid stuff is that all the economic indicators in '19 were all pointing firmly to a global recession in '20/'21. The pandemic, as a whole didn't burn this collected 'dead wood' which accumulated as the predictable byproducts of the capitalist economic cycle.
 * But Germany in fact is going to be better placed to recover quicker than most due to two main reasons; she enjoys an export bonus due to the artificially weak Euro and that she is traditionally pretty strong in using tech and skill to overcome shortages (for example, more likely to use wider automation to counter labour shortages, not simply to cry and stamp feet at govt to find more cheap labour). KarmaPolice (talk) 11:51, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

categories
why do we have so many categories that are complete wank? AMassiveGay (talk) 10:11, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Such as? And do I smell another massive clean-up project brewing? Spud (talk) 11:02, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * right-wing boogeymen springs to mind. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:11, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * i think maybe not so much the categories are wank (though many are), but the usage of them has no quality control and are inappropriately applied. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:17, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Unpopular opinion: despite their entertainment value, the many wingnut/moonbat categories are pretty much pointless. Or, to quote Cosmik, they are "superfluous, opinionated, and subject to abuse by random internet slobs who just like to push their political opinions on the wiki." GeeJayK (talk) 11:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * there is little entertainment value to be had either imho AMassiveGay (talk) 13:19, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I think the moonbat/wingnut categories also tend to make categorization excessively verbose (since many things fit into several of those categories). For something more clear and streamlined, maybe it's best to separate categorization of political orientation from categorization of nuttinesses. I think may have ideas on new political categories.

On the example of right-wing boogeymen, I think it could be interesting to have at least one category for conspiracist boogeymen, but keep it away from being a category for wider (largely American) right-wing politics. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 14:12, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * For better or for worse, this site is framed heavily through American politics. Rename "right wing boogeymen" to the awkward (but more accurate) phrase of "Fox News demonization propaganda targets" and that particular category as it stands will make much more sense. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 14:36, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * If we look at Special:Categories there are quite a lot. One might question the utility of some. On the other hand - are they a problem?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:39, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * There's no coherent split between the likes of racism vs racists, and it's not even split into two across those -isms. Same for like homophobes vs homophobia. 15:44, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * At least for the homophobes and transphobes categories, there's been only partially finished efforts to recategorize pages from the homophobia and transphobia categories. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 16:22, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Some trollish person keeps returning as various BoNs to add the right-wing boogeymen category to any person or topic that has ever offended a conservative. It makes the category kind of pointless. Bongolian (talk) 19:23, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * thr same can be said of all categories that label someone as racist or homophobic, or what have you. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * OK. Does anyone realistically use such categories to search for information?  I guess that is (supposed to be) their function. But, in reality, I suspect that they may be used to just add an extra insult.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 20:59, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * it would seem to me far better to not have categories at all as the extra insult is all they seem to be, often not supported by the very article they are attached to AMassiveGay (talk) 21:02, 11 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Some of the "issue" seems to be more the subjective nature of some of the categories. David Duke for instance is labeled as "racist", and I don't think anyone short of a Klansman would deny that category. For someone like Boris Johnson, well, "your mileage may vary". To me he's only been "a little bit racist" in a few select incidents, not as an overall arc. (My guess is that some editor probably attached the label to the row over his past use of the word of "", which is, er, kinda a little bit racist, and more recently he apparently caused controversy when he said it was "okay to boo" England football players that took the knee to highlight racial inequality. However, he has had no problem in other incidents, for instance he readily condemned racist Hungarian football fans). There are online articles that disagree with me on being as nuanced as I think, of course.
 * In the mean time, personally, I have no problem with the "government incompetence" category applied to Johnson, more because of his constant scandals and chaos than anything else (not to mention his shit handling of Brexit and initial bungling of COVID-19, though he's turned that around). As much as I think she is a piece of shit, though, I would not label Margaret Thatcher as "government incompetence" as she currently is labeled now. (Someone obviously disagreed, but why?)
 * I don't see it as a big deal, personally, though, it's all "mobocracy consensus" as usual. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 21:28, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * the categories are completely without context or nuance and they are often making big claims. they are there just to snidely and weaselly make accusations that the people adding them cannot be bothered or are not able to make within the articles they attach them to. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:35, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd probably support a purge. GeeJayK (talk) 21:43, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd support removal of the more subjective categories. I think these may be more likely subject to drive-by editing. Category labels need to be clearly substantiated (statement and citation) on the pages to which they are applied.
 * Another possible issue with categories is when to remove them when someone changes political direction. AMassiveGay stated that Johnson is no longer libertarian, so that category should be removed. I'm not versed enough in BoJonianism to comment on this specifically, but as an example I think the Putin] page does deserve both Category:Commies and the Category:Fascists, and the text does justify it. Bongolian (talk) 22:10, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * My main targets for deletion if we are talking about categories are the various "fill-in-the-blank moonbat/wingnut" ones. They are subjective edit war bait, and they become hopelessly awkward in a nuanced case where somebody holds views popularly associated with the extreme right or extreme left.-Flandres (talk) 22:15, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Apart from those, a distinction can be made between -ism and -phobia categorization for things important to a general topic, and more subjective -ists and -phobes cataloging of people. For example, if we were to drop the "racists" category, then David Duke would still be worth having in the main "racism" category instead, but people who are simply "known" (widely or otherwise) as being a little bit racist would not. In that way, I think there is a simple and consistent way that things could be done instead, with a more principled and limited use of main -ism, -phobia, etc., categories than earlier so they aren't used like substitutes for the removed -ists, -phobes, etc.
 * I'd also support removing the more subjective categories. (As for just one of them, the right-wing boogeymen category mentioned earlier, Rockford made a new category for conspiracy theorist scapegoats, filling that gap.) --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 22:34, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * conspiracy theorist scapegoats - thats literally everyone in the world ever. itsz just as useless, maybe more so AMassiveGay (talk) 22:47, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it can end up nice for browsing if it's reserved for more prominent themes, the ones that conspiracists keep going for again and again, which isn't a terribly long list. But it would become pointless if everything demonized by any conspiracist was added to it. Time will tell. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 23:04, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * (EC) Categories are important because they can be used to divide things into groups and highlight real connections that exist between these groupings. For example, someone might not know that the people who fall under the category of humanism might also fall under the category of empiricism. The issues, which we are discussing, seem to be caused by people using categories to highlight connections that don't exist, and thereby consigning things into false groupings.
 * I suggest (echoing what others have said) that we purge those categories that are false or use subjective, relativistic language. Categories should express objective information that can be verified. Leucippus Salva veritate 22:55, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't use the term "objective", not when dog-whistle politics exist. I don't think the application of categories is overall problematic; most people in the racists category are racists, imo, ranging from overt racism to "we need voter ids" and "muh illegals" to "ban crt" sort of weasely dogwhistles. If there are serious objections to the insertion of the racist category, it should be done on a case-by-case basis. I don't agree purging categories, and I don't think criteria based on being "objective" is very useful when it's not practical at all how to define what's "objective" or not. 02:55, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I don’t have any issues with the racist category; the problem is only with certain categories, such as the other ones discussed in this thread. I do agree, though, with your point about using a “case by case basis”—when practical—to assess whether or not a particular category’s application is appropriate. With this in mind, let’s test whether the following category—represented by the sentence ‘government incompetence’—is objective by examining whether it applies to Margaret Thatcher. In order for it to be objective it should satisfy the following criteria:
 * Is independent of speaker: whether Margret Thatcher is an example of ‘government incompetence’ is true relative to one person and false relative to another person e.g. is true relative to Jeremy Corbyn and false relative to Jacob Rees Mogg.
 * Is independent of context: the sentence ‘government incompetence’ can be understood in a variety of ways, all of which are dependent on values, since ‘incompetence’ is a negative evaluation. Moreover, how we choose to define it may be quite arbitrary i.e. if we choose to define government incompetence as ‘privatising nationalised commodities’ then ‘Margaret Thatcher is incompetent ’ follows as a trueism.
 * Is independent of place: n/a. ‘Darjeeling is far away’ is an example of this.
 * Is independent of time: the sentence ‘government incompetence’ is relative to a particular time-frame. Margaret Thatcher may have been incompetent (if indeed the word ‘incompetent’ can be made sense of in clear and precise terms) from May 4 1979 - Oct 8 1979, but it is unlikely that she was incompetent consistently throughout her premiership.
 * Is independent of intensional idioms: independent of possibility; independent from propositional attitudes: beliefs, desires, wishes, etc.
 * A category is objective if it expresses a fact e.g. ‘is an element of the periodic table’ or ‘Margaret Thatcher is the prime minister of the UK from 1979-1990’, etc, both of these sentences are either true or false, period! They do not vary based on a subject’s pov, or any of the other criteria which I’ve highlighted that cause the truth value of a sentence to vary.
 * In sum: categories set up categorial distinctions: sharp boundaries between entities. Thus categories should aim to be grounded in factual, unambiguous predicates e.g. ‘is an element of the periodic table’—predicates that reflect genuine distinctions in the world. Leucippus Salva veritate 17:59, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Excellent points.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:50, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * i agree AMassiveGay (talk) 22:31, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't think a super-sized change in categorization towards more objective is realistic in the short term, but smaller changes are possible. And the above by Leucippus makes clearer a realistic (long-term) ideal for categories. But it would be less realistic to expect everyone to apply even the best of categories objectively (that will probably be a niggling issue for very long, perhaps the lifetime of the wiki).

Over the years, sometimes there's been voting on and deleting of too-subjective categories, such as "extreme moonbattery/wingnuttery" (2017), and "left/right of reason" (2021). Tastes and community culture changes (I think it looks like a maturation) over time. And going by the above discussion, maybe Category:Right-wing Boogeymen can be one of the next categories. Or maybe even a vote on the whole of the Category:Political insanity hierarchy (a fairly big change). There are categories for e.g. commies, fascists, and para-fascists, which mostly fill the functional gap if all "moonbat/wingnut" categories go away, and more could be made if needed. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 16:16, 18 February 2022 (UTC) anything actionable here? AMassiveGay (talk) 11:23, 20 February 2022 (UTC) Seriously, some action on really is necessary AMassiveGay (talk) 22:50, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Could you clarify what you mean by “action”? Leucippus Salva veritate 22:55, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Good news
Russia pulling back troops from Ukraine. Andrew5 (talk) 14:43, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Uhh that's Russian state media propaganda my dude. Some of the troops moving in Crimea are actually moving closer to the Ukranian border. 138.207.198.74 (talk) 18:16, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That's assuming Crimeia is Ukranian. Honestly I'm leaning towards Russia as the Crimeans want to be a part of Russia. Andrew5 (talk) 18:58, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * As for the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, I find the referendum they had back in 2014 to be very dubious at best. At worst, it was done at gunpoint. I won't deny that the population is mostly Russian and I am even willing to say that the referendum might have been legit. However, Russian special forces soldiers and Pro-Russian separatists were already threatening people at that point. If there were a legit referendum, there would have been no Russian soldiers or Separatists at the voting centers. Russian soldiers also occupied the Crimean parliament building and they were heavily armed. With Kosovo, their referendum was not held at gunpoint. --Non-Binary EAS Creator (talk) 19:16, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * the status of crimea is irrelevant to whether or not troops are moving closer to the ukranian border. also Russia still building forces on Ukraine border, says top Nato official AMassiveGay (talk) 19:18, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I was just pointing out to Andrew5 that the referendum was dubious at best. As for Russia, trust them as much as North Korea, People's Republic of China or Belarus. --Non-Binary EAS Creator (talk) 19:26, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I trust the United States only barely more then I trust Russia. Not saying I trust Russia, however. I don’t trust the United States. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 19:30, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The referendum was carried out by an occupying force with no neutral oversight and no option to remain part of Ukraine per the pre-invasion status - it wasn't "dubious" - it was positively unfair and rigged. Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 20:38, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, a pretty dubious referendum. The other question is whether Putin is worthy of trust - not Russia.  It's pretty obvious that he's one of the most vicious, untrustworthy and duplicitous leaders in the world today.  He's a dictator in all but name.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 20:55, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Andrew5, you're interpreting current Russian actions in a relatively history-free vacuum. You should educate yourself before spouting off and claiming both sides are bad. Putin's aggression causing the former Eastern bloc countries to unite against him speaks volumes. Bongolian (talk) 21:04, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming the US is bad per the fact that the last time we had a decent president was 2001, which is how long Putin was in office. As for was it legit? Probably not. But didn't Crimeia attempt to secede from Ukraine? That's kinda like arguing America should be a part of Britain, or at least should've been in the 1770s, 1780s, etc. Andrew5 (talk) 21:14, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Reading Andrew's moronic trolling makes me want to jam an ice pick into one of my eyes. 21:16, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Supporting Crimeia being a part of Ukraine isn't trolling, and it was not done with a deliberate attempt to piss of RW. Andrew5 (talk) 21:19, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Bullshit. You're a troll. Everything you do is designed to make yourself the center of attention and fill the void where your personality should be. 21:22, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * How is making myself the center of attention trolling? Andrew5 (talk) 21:26, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Laugh my frickin ass off. Everyone, just read Andrew5's question out loud three times:
 * How is making myself the center of attention trolling?
 * How is making myself the center of attention trolling?
 * How is making myself the center of attention trolling?
 * This is my all time new favourite Andrew5 moment. Shabi  DOO  22:27, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not just doing this to make myself the center of attention but also spewing out my political views. Andrew5 (talk) 22:40, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * He admits he's a troll. Literally everything he says is suspect. Is he really underage? does he really support centrism? Who knows. 22:48, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Uh... Andrew5 (talk) 22:52, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

As for Russian troop build up, removing some troops means nothing. The amount already on the border and the nation of Belarus pointing guns at Ukraine is enough for a catastrophic attack. To me, Russia removing a small amount of troops is a mere ploy. --Non-Binary EAS Creator (talk) 00:44, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * GC, I don't know how you got the idea that Andrew5 supports centrism. He said, "I’m politically similar to Nixon." Then he had to be informed that Nixon was a raging antisemite, to which he replied, "Oh, wow." (User talk:Andrew5) It's either trolling or being grossly ill-informed. Bongolian (talk) 01:12, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * He claimed such, but I now have my doubts. To put it bluntly, I suspect Andrew of being a troll, and every word he has thus uttered or will utter to be extremely suspect. 01:21, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Richard Nixon was a political moderate. Yes, I know it's hard to believe with Watergate, but he could work with a Democratic Congress (you don't see that these days), and took on some modern day Democratic initiatives. Moderate = centrism. P.S. A lot of Democrats are anti-semetic as well. Andrew5 (talk) 01:28, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Your first link doesn't say Nixon was a moderate. What it says is, "in your own words, (1) Tell me whether you think Nixon was a liberal, conservative, or moderate.  Back this assertion up with your own thoughts (and feel free to do some additional research and site it in your comment), (2) Explain how this complexity makes Nixon seem more of a real person as opposed to a stereotype or two-dimensional figure.  400 words minimum total for both answers.   Due Wednesday, Nov. 29 by class."  It's clear that you're either deliberately trolling, or putting in very little effort trying to find sources that agree with your position rather than ones that say true things, because you'd rather be right than know the truth, which is blatant intellectual dishonesty. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒   talk  01:33, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Also "moderate" does not equal centrism, as the term itself refers to a relative position on a two dimensional political spectrum. For example, I'm arguably a moderate to some degree, but I'm anything but a centrist. 01:37, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Of course I didn’t notice it 🤦‍♂️Andrew5 mobile (talk) 02:02, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Troll or otherwise, he's pushing russian state media propaganda in your saloon. Just sayin. 138.207.198.74 (talk) 02:08, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * NATO says Russia is increasing troops in Ukraine. It's who you trust more I guess. Andrew5 (talk) 02:12, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

As far as the Nixon stuff goes, is this a better source? Andrew5 (talk) 02:24, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No. I refuse to believe Andrew isn't a troll. Using a special interest group which has a vested interest in cleaning up Nixon's legacy as a source on Nixon? Jesus fucking Christ.... 03:19, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should shift this nonsense to Andrew's talk page?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 07:33, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This is another source I could find, from the Baltimore Sun. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 12:22, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

...Russia has pulled another false flag, the puppet states are evacuating civilians... KarmaPolice (talk) 22:34, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I am finding the rise of pro-Russian trolls both entertaining and disturbing at the same time. On a related note, I find it funny that they say the dubious Crimea referendum and the dubious Donbass region referendums were the "will of the people" yet when Kosovo declared independence, these same people claim that Kosovo is a Pro-US puppet while citing Kosovo at the same time. Doublethink at its finest. The real puppet states go to the "Republic of Crimea", "Donetsk People's Republic", "Luhansk People's Republic", " Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic", "Republic of Artsakh", "Republic of South Ossetia – the State of Alania" and the "Republic of Abkhazia". --Non-Binary EAS Creator (talk) 22:26, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * See, here’s the thing - Kosovo isn’t widely recognized enough to be a country, at least in my opinion. First of all, I googled it and was surprised to see 117 countries, last time I checked it was 97 and it’s gonna take some time to shift my view. It can’t even be an observer of the UN, and there is a point - Serbia didn’t let Kosovo go away, so it still needs them to sign off on it (which is also why Bounganville might fail). Kosovo is interesting though - unlike Taiwan, RationalWiki never discussed if it was a country or not, so it would be an interesting debate. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 14:50, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Kosovo and Serbia have complicated histories. Explaining it here would take mountains of time (although relevant). However, in terms of what can be considered a country, Kosovo pretty much is. It has fulfilled every criteria of the Montevideo Convention (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montevideo_Convention). It has defined territory, control over its territory, permanent population, a constitution, a government and is capable of entering into diplomatic relations with other nations. --Non-Binary EAS Creator (talk) 00:43, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * True, although I don’t abide by the Montevideo Convention. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 00:49, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * i'll go tell the un. the world must know this shocking news of what an internet rando does not abide AMassiveGay (talk) 09:19, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Taiwan is a 'special case' historically in the respect it's a remnant of a fully-recognised state which used to be much larger. The others - correct me if I'm wrong - are breakaways from existing nations, or in a couple of examples re-creations of formerly existing ones. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:12, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh no! A single RW user who does not follow international law! I better go tell the New York Times and CNN! This is major news! --Non-Binary EAS Creator (talk) 15:09, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I think countries should be decided by means of recognition. The Olympics has 204 nations (but some, like PR, clearly aren’t countries), and the UN has 193. I think there are 195. This includes Vatican City and Palestine. Palestine is a UN observer state. Taiwan I feel split on but ultimately the ROC wants to be China, not break away. There are a suprising amount of UN counters that aren’t recognized, as Turkey doesn’t recognize Cyprus, Pakistan doesn’t recognize Armenia, 15 countries recognize the ROC over PRC (and Bhutan doesn’t recognize either), 28 countries don’t recognize Israel, the koreas don’t recognize each other and France and Japan also don’t recognize North Korea. Countries are complicated. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 15:25, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Andrew5 changing it up with irrelevant sports news
It was actually Norway who won the Olympics. America placed 5th I believe? Andrew5 mobile (talk) 20:44, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you think that's unusual. Vomitorium (talk) 21:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * We need to burn a giant effigy of a Stanley cup on top of a giant pile of curling stones for angering the gods of sport ball. Otherwise our hut-huts will ring hollow.  MirrorIrorriM (talk) 21:30, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * MOAR steroids AMassiveGay (talk) 21:36, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I found it unusual because I typically hear the US winning, and they won Tokyo, and I believe Rio in 2016, but o must not have heard about Pyongchang in 2018. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 04:21, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 'I typically hear the US winning' - because you are an americsan, and a particularly shortsighted and blinkered one at that. also there is a difference between summer and winter olympics. AMassiveGay (talk) 09:11, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Jesus christ, THIS ISN'T A FUCKING NEWS BOARD, STOP POSTING EVERY LITTLE THING YOU FIND INTERESTING!

You've been unbanned less than 24 hours and already posted two news threads. Post them in WIGO:World if you're this fucking desperate for everyone to know your brainless take on world events.5.151.93.217 (talk) 09:26, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Isn’t that what the Saloon is meant to be though? It says that this is for “general chit chat that doesn’t belong elsewhere.” Besides, as AMG said in the ATIM, “being dumb isn’t a crime” and “the saloon is meant to be off topic.” It would probably go over worse at WIGO:World. P.S. if you really don’t like this, I would recommend commenting that at the ATIM. And if you’re set out to get me so much, try creating an account. This IP stuff is getting fishy…Andrew5 mobile (talk) 18:03, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Not that IP, but have read the mod noticeboard and the convos on your talk page. The problem seems to be that you treat the saloon like its a social media page for you. Every day (sometimes multiple times a day), you post something you find interesting along with your commentary on it (commentary which is, to be frank, often terribly thought-out or even insulting to the other users) and everyone around here seems to be sick of it. That kind of thing is what Facebook is for.


 * Most people find weather boring, and I imagine most of the people around here are much like myself in that they've following politics or even personally involved in politics since before you were born and have literally NO interest in hearing the take of some kid who barely understands the world around him.


 * I'm not trying to offend you with that last statement, but frankly your rhetoric is superficial at best, and downright morally repugnant at worst. Inmate XIII (talk) 22:43, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Developing above point, I'll highlight 'chit-chat'. In my book this means 'discussion'. Too many of the topics are announcements in nature, done in a manner which is hard to get a 'discussion' running off it even if you cared for said topic.


 * Even the most newbie of talk radio hosts know at least to develop a press release / announcement into something to 'talk about'. KarmaPolice (talk) 09:08, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Why nobody talk about Peak Oil?
Conventional oil production peaked in 2005, whereas BP confirms Peak Oil as a whole happened in 2018. Peak Coal and Peak Gas will happen as late as next decade. Why ICCP hasn't ruled out scenarios with raising (even maintaining) current GHG emissions?

BTW, 90% of primary energy comes from fossil fuels, and sectors such as heavy transportation, steel, concrete or ammonia production can't be decarbonised. "Renewables" are highly dependent on fossil fuels to their production and maintenance (don't forget peak minerals). Nuclear Energy is un peril as well (Peak Uranium), and only produce electricity. Nuclear fussion is a pipe dream, a scam.

And we can't maintain 8 billion people with pre-industrial technology. We are at dead end. Civilization will collapse in 10-20 years, as Rome Club predicted.

I don't know about you, but a Mad Maxian new world is not worth surviving (and I don't survive it anyway) Just hoping to find a painless way to pass away... 95.62.191.210 (talk) 08:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * we are already weaning ourselves off fossil fuels. petrol powered cars are already set to be phased out of the uk and europe by 2040. the idea of peak oil is wank. AMassiveGay (talk) 09:09, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * electric motorways, too much power AMassiveGay (talk) 09:17, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Meh. The Club of Rome's 1972 report was based on one main assumption; 'business as usual' right up to the crash-point. That quite literally, as society crumbled around us to a point it's bankruptcy was impossible to hide, our business/political leaders shall all be denying anything was wrong. Now, humanity can be thick, but we're not that thick. Personally, I think international capitalism shall crash up before the planet does. KarmaPolice (talk) 09:41, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * i think half the world will on fire and the other half under water via climate change before we get close to running out of oil. AMassiveGay (talk) 09:49, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This is one case where the goalposts will keep moving - partly because people do respond to information, both 'be careful in what you use/minimise waste of energy' etc and 'let us develop/make use of alternative technologies and/or exploit the punters who wish to get involved in such things.' And, almost by definition, 'peak usage' is normally determined after the decline in usage has happened. Anna Livia (talk) 10:26, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That's normally the #1 reason of 'oh but you were wrong about X' line - yes, I was 'proved' wrong because enough people listened to the warning to change the inputs (their actions) which made the result 'wrong'. Good example being the pandemic; folks complaining the worst-case predictions didn't come true - for it was one which assumed no mitigations and no behavior changes at all. #2 reason being; black swans, both good and bad. A bad one being energy-wise being Chernobyl; it crippled all nuclear development for a generation (and we are paying the price for the lack of new plants now).
 * Anyway, 'peak' merely means the cheapest sources becoming exhausted. Which is kind of QED, as any company shall harvest the low hanging fruit first. And every product has a myriad of different alternatives of varying utility. Two examples; 33% of world electricity generation is from oil and 70% of American oil usage is transportation. If we can get let's say 75% of each using other sources, that means the uses which are harder to substitute can consume the remaining oil. KarmaPolice (talk) 10:43, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Any sober-minded talk I've heard these days of "peak oil" merely concerns peak oil demand, as energy usage switches over to renewables or other non-fossil fuel sources. (10 years ago I was hearing "peak cheap oil" but I don't see many articles on that these days). I haven't heard the term "peak oil" in a while in terms of us running out of the stuff, fracking kind of downplayed that notion for a bit since it provided plenty of additional cheap oil. And now the notion of not heating up the planet more kind of dims that notion even more.
 * Human society hit peak whale oil in the 1850s. Nobody uses whale oil now (in the US I think it was officially banned in the 1970s, but usage was pretty low by then anyways). Society didn't collapse, and fortunately the whales weren't completely wiped out either. Some industries are carbon intensive now, of course. One can work on figuring out ways to reduce fossil fuel dependency etc. Or moan about civilization collapsing or something. The later's easier, but not terribly productive. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 12:57, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I would also like to point out that you can just synthesize more oil if you need it. It isn't cheap and you would be talking a price increase of about 5x to 10x, but as long as you have power production you can still create plastics from artificial petroleum.  The Nazi's in WW2 straight up ran out of oil towards the end of the war and just started making more (they used coal but today we could get away with raw biomass as input).  You can also run engines on ethanol and biomass, neither of which require petroleum as inputs.  You would have to build new engines and the number of people with personal cars would go down to only a few wealthy and shipping, but it is hardly a world ending scenario.  MirrorIrorriM (talk) 13:28, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You could. But if you had sufficient spare energy to do that (presumably electricity), then using that spare energy to produce artificial hydrocarbons which you would then burn to get that energy back would probably not be the most efficient way of using that energy.  You would have energy losses at every step.  Better to go for improved electricity distribution and battery technology.  You would still have losses but not of the same magnitude. Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:43, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh it definitely isn't a long term solution (except for plastics), although I would like to add that the efficiency losses at every step is also true of batteries and power storage in general. Batteries are of course more efficient, but some applications (such as large container ships and freight carrying aircraft) are not feasible to do using batteries on the near horizon, so those will require burning fuels for the foreseeable future.  Now, you can still do much better than gasoline/kerosene, such as using green Hydrogen (still lots of complications but at least the energy density makes it possible) which can be sourced through electrolysis.  Either way though, you are going to need large power stations to "foot the bill" when it comes to the energy.  If we didnt luck out and have craptons of free combustable hydrocarbons just given to us by history, we wouldn't be so appalled at the idea of actually having to make it ourselves.  Alternatively you just don't ship things by air except in emergencies, and shipping times go up by a couple days.  Boo hoo.  Without building some massive bridges, you ain't getting rid of container ships though.  MirrorIrorriM (talk) 16:59, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

As usual I see, just more wishful thinking of vaporware improvements or faulty solutions (do the maths, pls). Only KarmaPolice look more informed about the situation (although I don't understand that stance on World3 Limits of Growth Rome Club (please, be more concise and especific). I'm "glad" more and more people are realising near-term collapse... Nitrato de Chile (talk) 17:27, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * you haven't done anything but provide wistful thinking for your apocalypse fantasies. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:33, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * There are bottlenecks/limits we do need to worry about - I would cite rare earths, soil and helium - but oil, uranium and coal are not ones we really need to worry about.


 * Thing is, Chile - this isn't 'vapourware'. Many of the techs already exist. For example, we can already build thorium-based nuclear power stations to combat the gradual depletion of uranium, while there's been proposals for solar-powered airships for long-haul freight. The main problem - as a general point - is that as a species we have devoted too much of our productive capacity to current consumption and too little to investment for perhaps the last three, four decades. And it's showing. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:43, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * also Chile I am informed enough to know that no one of note gives a fuck about peak oil which tells me all I need to know. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:56, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Russia has officially invaded Ukraine, calling it "peacekeeping"
Things are heating up. 2001:8003:DDAA:5A00:B4FB:F033:8A3A:D3AE (talk) 09:18, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I fixed your headline for you, IP who has never posted before.Inmate XIII (talk) 09:52, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * we can only hope this is the limit of any invasion AMassiveGay (talk) 10:02, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Why do I keep on being proven right on the things I'd prefer not to be? Next prediction; UKGovt shall do everything to help Ukraine apart from dealing with the piles of dirty Russian cash in The City or turning away Oligarchs desiring to grace places like Oxbridge, Eton, Mayfair and the Conservative Party with their wallets. (The one thing we could do which would really hurt; tell those Oligarchs that it's either the delights of London *or* Daddy Putin, not both). At least the Germans are gonna cancel that gas pipeline, which shall hurt.
 * Also, I am curious to how Andrew et al shall explain *this* away. Were those forces that were 'retreating' all get lost in the same direction or something? KarmaPolice (talk) 11:38, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * invasion has been imminent for months in the press. lets not get ahead of ourselves now.


 * my new favourite website - looks like scenario 2 has come to pass AMassiveGay (talk) 11:42, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hardly getting ahead of self; I predicted that they'd 'invade' the bits of Ukraine already filled with Russian proxies, then present it with a 'what are you going to do about it, really? What's the point? Is it worth the bother?' to the West. For while it was a de jure invasion, it was not a de facto one as there was no physical resistance on the ground.


 * In this, the buildups etc can be seen as a variant of the 'Door-in-the-face technique' where the constant bombardment of threats of, well bombs falling on Kiev etc means when a 'solution' which does not involve this (the annexations of proxies) is presented, we accept it because we've been emotionally worn down by the spectre of war and desire an 'off ramp'. In this, it increases the chances of our 'response' being more lacklustre. KarmaPolice (talk) 12:20, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * *sighs*. Five Russian banks and three individuals. Only. London shall remain open to Russian tainted money... the important bit shall now be in Biden's hands - whether Russia gets frozen out of the world economic system or not. KarmaPolice (talk) 14:59, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Russia is likely trying to install a puppet government in Ukraine. Considering how nuts Putin is, he would be happy to take control of Ukraine despite the economic costs. That does not include the fact that anti-Putin people in Russia would launch massive protests which would further destabilize Russia. In the long run, an invasion is simply not worth it. Maybe Putin wants the Russian economy to collapse and send his country into chaos? --Non-Binary EAS Creator (talk) 15:06, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think Putin is nuts. A nuts person wouldn't have lasted this long, as ruler and/or without being 'outed' by the international community. However, it's quite possible his view of reality is warped (dictators often end up surrounded by spineless yes-men). If a full-scale *resisted* Ukrainian invasion happens, I am 95% sure it will be due to Putin believing that a) Ukraine is a paper tiger, b) the vast majority of Ukrainians shall welcome or at least accept the 'change' and/or c) there shall be little 'pushback'/'punishment' from the West. KarmaPolice (talk) 15:20, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Point B seems doubtful to me. There's been a few articles such as this one that kind of allude to the possibility of this conflict becoming another (No, not our expensive and ultimately fruitless long conflict there. Their expensive and ultimately fruitless long conflict there.) I can see that... while everyone is ruling out supporting Ukraine with troops for now, I have seen nothing ruling out providing weapons and other supplies, as well as intelligence. Which, should Putin try a full scale invasion, might prop up Ukrainians who fervently support a counter-insurgency to Russia's insurgency (and it seems like outside the separatist territories, not a whole lot of Ukrainians like Russia). This could make a prolonged conflict very expensive.
 * There's been a few articles that state things like Putin has a "bunker mentality" and/or is now surrounded by hardliner yes-men, so I think that point is pretty spot on. I don't see many upsides for Russia for this personally, but I guess Putin seems to see something. Reportedly his speech last night was pretty unhinged, I'll have to listen to it sometime later today... PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 15:59, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "Peacekeeping" is probably the most Orwellian phrase in existence, especially in this instance considering Putin is throwing out the Minsk Agreement, which actually called for a ceasefire and was the very thing he has been crowing about for the past month. Lying about genocide as well is a pretext for the long haul. The West needs to make Russia suffer.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 17:49, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Biden has officially installed sanctions, but was condemned for waiting so long by Tom Cotton. Jim Risch also supports the sanctions. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 18:00, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Gee, I wonder why Tom Cotton, a man who has built his brand on partisan hackery, might be attacking Joe Biden... A real mystery that... 18:27, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * However Tom Cotton has voted to confirm the 2020 elections. Actually, only Cruz, Lummins, Scott, Kennedy, Hawley, Tubberville, the Junior senator from Mississippi and that other one who voted to object. I’ll do a google search soon. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 18:35, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Early in year two of the Biden presidency, after the key early months, after denying the results.... Seriously, just try telling it like it is instead of this idiotic compulsion "both sides" and "balance" the matter. Just fucking tell the truth, if a halfwit troll like you even knows what truth is. 18:39, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Tom Cotton is a partisan hack in general (Trump election certification vote aside), so not exactly a wise take for him. There's an article in Raw Story about Cotton apparently getting chewed out on MSNBC by Lincoln Project advisor Tara Seymater, precisely he tried to push a "Biden weak" narrative that Putin would've never invaded Ukraine under Trump. Which is a laughable take, everyone knows Trump is a Putin ass-kisser. (Plus, remember, one of the issues with the first Trump impeachment concerned Trump withholding military aid for Ukraine over petty political bullshit... what looked bad then looks worse now).
 * A lot of the more neo-con Reps have pushed for a harder response than Biden has given over the last few weeks (and TBH I actually "gut feel" agree with the neo-cons this time around, though as an "armchair quarterback" there's probably a lot I don't know). But if you ignore the Tucker Carlson worshiping reps (that part of the universe is still babbling about Canada trucks), generally it's been relatively bi-partisan on this issue. (Well, more than usual, at least.) PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 18:48, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Germany declared that Nord Stream 2 is now on hold. A rather unusual show of defiance came from within the Kremlin from the spy chief Sergei Naryshkin, head of the NVR regarding recognition of the breakaway republics. Bongolian (talk) 18:44, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * With everyone "peacekeeping", it's a wonder we still have wars. Vomitorium (talk) 19:00, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * how tough are sanctions going to actually be? i read on the beeb the likely more effective sanctions will be almost as painful to west as to russia. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:19, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

As an aside, I find it strange that when the US tries to install a Democracy, it's "Imperialism", but when China annexes Tibet/HK/Taiwan or Russia annexes chunks of Georgia/Crimea/Ukraine in forms of actual imperialism, those complaining about the US are not particularly vocal. That isn't to say the Iraq War was a good thing, but I opposed that war because I believed that the entire country would turn into another Yugoslavia with genocide upon genocide over which ethnic/religious groups gets to control the richer parts of the country. Note that this is my default view on dictatorships; even if a country had the power to do so, I think that would be the end result of a "liberation" of China or Russia. 20:13, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Could you give a specific example of the people you are talking about?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 20:17, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Glenn Greenwald (unsurprisingly) came up when feeding a few Google queries in this direction. His Twitter feed is full of moans about so-called "American war and imperialism", including this tweet complaining about David Frum and a really shit take about "excesses of woke ideology" being a "costume for neoliberal evil". (??) Greenwald's Twitter is also fawning over Putin ("Putin always has the US right where he wants them. Putin is always winning. Putin is always 10 steps ahead. Putin plays 10-D chess.") To me his schtick is especially strange considering that Greenwald is gay, and his marriage would be flat out illegal in Putin's Russia. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 21:00, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Prior to Iraq, some of the largest protests ever recorded were held against that war. What mass protests exist regarding Ukraine or Hong Kong?  21:16, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It's hard to say whether Greenwald is a Russian asset or simply a useful idiot. What does it take for any western journalist to own up to the fact that for all the faults the west can lay claim to, the torture and murder of journalists is not one of them. I have to believe Greenwald is on the payroll of Russian FSB. By controlling media in Russia, the general population has no idea what the casualty numbers have been in eastern Ukraine. A full invasion will end that asymmetry. The Russian people will become aware they are bleeding. Ariel31459 (talk) 21:23, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * EC what would be the point of mass protests here? the ones against the iraq war were, by and large, protests against peoples own governments involvement in iraq. what would be the point of demonstrations in trafalagar square against putin? or against the regime in china? there would be no point, and there were protests when xi jinping visited uk. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:35, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Tankies, man. Tankies and/or fascists. Inmate XIII (talk) 23:06, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

It’s true that the way people voted for overturning the elections doesn’t truly correlate to who they are as a politician. I’m just saying he isn’t as trumpy as he could’ve been.Andrew5 mobile (talk) 21:42, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Good gravy, are you still here? Zontar (talk) 02:54, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I am actually taking a vacation to Washington today, so I was busy driving down to portland, but I was at a rest stop so I could reply. But now I will depart. 👋 Andrew5 mobile (talk) 03:20, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * As a person who is left-wing enough to come into frequent contact with said tankies, I don't get the doublethink in regards to Putin, who is a clear *fascist*. I get the feeling this is a topic which shall piss me off until I've worked it out.


 * But as to the point of Greenwald's BS; Putin was winning all the chess games because *we did not realise they were games*. I am actually quite confident that as long as NATO/EU holds together and we accept - like after the Berlin Airlift in '48 - that we are in a prolonged period of 'rivalry' in every sphere against Russia we can actually *win* the championship - in almost every way, the Russian hand of 2022 is a lot weaker than the Soviet one of 1948. KarmaPolice (talk) 06:18, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Life lesson for you. Most of the time when you see an argument, logic or reasoning, the person made up their mind before and then searched for whatever logic would justify their belief after the fact.  These people didn't look at the facts and then say "US Bad, USSR Good", they already decided they were smarter than everyone else, and as a smarter person they knew all their flag-waving neighbors were idiots, and to prove their own intellectual superiority over everyone else they latched onto this 'communism' thing.  Then they squished together whatever smart-sounding logic they could, suppressed the thought of any possible contradiction, and viola, Tankies.  16:36, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This is honestly how you should see things: Norway bad (not remotely as good as it could easily be), USA badder, China much badder, USSR seriously very bad, North Korea yikes, Somalia WTF?, nowhere good. If you think anywhere in the world is good...you have set the bar very very very very low. Shabi  DOO  16:43, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm also going to point out that Norway bans abortion-on-demand (AoD) after 12 weeks, abortion with board approval up to 18 weeks, and has a complete ban on abortion after 21 weeks even if the mother's life is in danger, whereas the minimum limit for abortion-on-demand in the US is 24ish weeks and some states don't even have a limit on AoD. In fact, virtually all countries in Europe are 12-18 weeks for AoD, with the lone except of Holland which is the first 20 weeks and has a 5 day waiting period for abortion.  So if the US wanted to be more like Norway...  17:21, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Problem is that the whole Tankie thing kinda makes sense... right up to 1991. Not with the likes of Putin. This is something that I, a self-confessed Marxist socialist find both confusing and annoying in equal measure. Hate to say it, but it looks like I'm going to have to start reading the Russia pieces on in the Morning Star to try some form of reverse-engineer their rationale. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:47, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah CU, Norway has much less violence and police violence, extremely generous social programs for almost everyone, world class education, free healthcare for all, super high democratic health, strong fiscal management and environmental protection, highly progressive policies (with varied success), upkept infrastructure, humane criminal system, sophisticated and nuanced regulations, low corporate interference in politics, low curruption, high media freedom, high life expectancy, high level of happiness, top 10 in nearly every ranking etc etc etc. but you have to put more effort into getting abortions after X number of weeks. Pffft. So much for Scandinavia! Shabi  DOO  20:24, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Way to miss my point. The world is a lot more complicated than "Norway >> US".
 * Also I'm going to point out that the US and Canada are pretty much the only countries on Earth with a decent handling of "multiculturalism". While this doesn't adjust for average age or anything, I do find it interesting that in Norway, economically, no ethnic group does better than Norwegians, often much less.  Compare to the US, which also has similar problems (although most differences are the result of age), but quite a few "non-White" groups do better than the average.
 * Also also, going to point out that Norway produces about 150 barrels of oil per person. They aren't as environmentally friendly as you imply, even if they keep their own land relatively clean.  22:16, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * LOL you entirely missed my point and you are just getting pissy that your country is ranked in some way lower than another and going "oh yeah well..." all the meanwhile missing my point. I got your point, it is a silly one. Try to make your country as good as others and get my original point: that good vs. bad is a silly argument when no countries are "good"...some are just less bad...your country can be even less bad...help make it less bad by admitting it can emulate the many highly desirable aspects of other countries...some of which in many aspects absolutely are models of "less badness". Shabi  DOO  01:38, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not pissy at all. Just rather amused at the comparison.  I'd love for the US and the rest of the world to copy Norway's prison system, but, well, this comic sums it all up.  02:01, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Biggest Trash Fire of a Human Being Alive (BTFoaHBA) Nominations
Rules are simple, name a person and sentence about why they suck. Make your nominations! Mine's for Vladimir Putin, cause he's a jingoistic expansionary jizzwaffle. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 23:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Donald Trump, a traitor to the USA that is a fascist, racist, chicken hawk, ableist, sexist, science denialist, terrorism supporter, fraud and con artist. --Non-Binary EAS Creator (talk) 23:19, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That’s a hard one. Arguably anyone alive under the Dictator category. Probliknaut (talk) 23:24, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I call dibs on Steve Bannon. Sneaky, slimy, lying traitor. Zontar (talk) 02:48, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Xi Jinping, is very high in the dangerous fascist category.UncleKrampus (talk) 02:55, 23 February 2022 (UTC)


 * If you can include dead people, it’s John F. Kennedy. Almost tried to start nuclear war at multiple points in his presidency, and it was really the Soviets who stopped the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. If not, then probably El Chapo. Very dangerous drug lord in Guatemala, Mexico and the United States. Honeslty people give these politicians so much shit, but in reality a lot of non politicians are way more evil. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 03:54, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "...and it was really the Soviets who stopped the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis." Are you mentally retarded? 05:07, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Y’know GC, you aren’t really living up to your name. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 05:25, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 2600:387:9:5:0:0:0:B1 (talk) 12:19, 23 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Ok, so I read a "trash fire" as being (literally) a hot mess, and an especially public one at that, not necessarily the most evil/damaging/unsuccessful person out there. So I vote for Pillow Guy. He could have lived a happy pillow life staying in his pillow lane, he could have even lived a happy overtly politically conservative pillow life, staying in his God-fearing pillow lane with all the MAGA discounts and Fox News coupons he wanted. But now he spends all his time and money on pillow-based geopolitics and a "social media" site no one uses. My runner-up is Kanye. Buck (talk) 04:56, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Rush Limbaugh: if your achievement is "be a milestone of American conservative dialogue" and being one of the "premier conservative voices" you're pretty damn rancid. However, he did die a day before my birthday a year ago. Just pointing that out, not celebrating a death, no. 05:02, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * BTW if you want to dispute something Andrew5 said, do it on his talk page. Thanks. 05:16, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't think I was, beyond responding to the thread as a whole. I was just throwing in my nomination. Andrew added the outdent linking the two posts...Buck (talk) 05:21, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, no, you're not, I was directing advice at GC. 05:26, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, that was so terminally stupid that it merited a very blunt response. As an aside, once again my thesis that Andrew is functionally a troll has been vindicated. 14:05, 23 February 2022 (UTC)


 * we have the likes of putin and xi jingping, we have dozens of tin pot dictators around the globe. none of whom, if we have heard of them, i doubt anyone would disagree are grossly unpleasant. it seems redundant to re-state their unpleasantness here. in that case, i'd go for for anyone of the hundreds of professional opinion havers, many of whom seem to blur into one by a dearth of original thought (or dearth of any thought at all), whose sole contribution to public discourse is dogshit hot takes. AMassiveGay (talk) 09:36, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * If we are talking exclusively about YouTube talking heads, who would you pick? Jontron maybe? MirrorIrorriM (talk) 13:20, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * it's about time Nigel farage to just fuck offAMassiveGay (talk) 14:15, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't pay much attention to YouTube talking heads. Nor the Twitter variety, but my flatmate keeps informing of some bullshit some gobshite just tweeted. Honestly, they are all the same. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:19, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Who knows, anyone that got rich because their family was privileged. I’ll chose Musk. 2600:387:9:5:0:0:0:B1 (talk) 12:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

The xxth century saw, among others: These are all people that, unlike, Ivan The Terrible, Vlad the Impaler, Timur, Basil II or Countess Bathory, we can judge to a certain extent with modern moral standards. Mentioning JFK might be pretty stupid, but Trump and Rush Limbaugh are also appaling choices. GeeJayK (talk) 13:37, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Lenin
 * Stalin
 * Hitler
 * Himmler
 * Mao
 * Id Amin
 * Pol Pot
 * Perhaps, but that wasn't what I felt merited a response. 14:07, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * IMO the problem with Andrew choosing JFK is that it wasn't probably a sincere one, I think he was just attention whoring. Even LBJ would probably be a better answer (although still a stupid one). GeeJayK (talk) 14:18, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * none of those people are currently aliveAMassiveGay (talk) 14:29, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, my mistake. I read the JFK stuff before reading the headline. But even then, can you compare Trump with Putin, Kim Jong Un, Xi Jinping or the Taliban leaders? I don't think so. Also Rush is dead. GeeJayK (talk) 14:40, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I mean, you can compare them. Whether or not that comparison is merited or valuable is a matter of debate. Personally, if we're going to be honest, I'd argue that Trump, from a practical standpoint, is worse than any of the others on that list. And for one very simple reason. He is and was incompetent. 14:57, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Of course GC yet again removed my posts without explaination. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 15:01, 23 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't think there's a real good answer for "biggest trash fire of a human" type questions. Inevitably, the answer will drift towards political figures, particularly authoritarians who have been murderous shits. The problem is, in most cases, the murderous shit of an authoritarian is surrounded by an ecosystem of often equally nasty people.
 * Donald Trump (not the most atrocious leader alive by any means) is a great example, because the American political system is so well documented. Because, Donald Trump is just the accumulation of several decades of GOP, surrounded by a wide ecosystem of noxious people. You can't mention Trump without mentioning leading figures that enabled, coddled, and supported him, some of which have already been mentioned (Steve Bannon, Rush Limbaugh, etc.) But you can't mention the GOP ecosystem without also mentioning that it's depressingly popular among a large amount of American voters. Some are ignorant, some don't necessarily like Trump but enable him for other reasons, and some are just as big of a shithead as he is.
 * It's the thing people always forget. Boo Hitler, he was history's greatest monster. And history's greatest monster was fervently supported by a significant part of Germans. Certainly there were many Germans who did *not* support Hitler, and many more that were politically naive to not know what was going on. But there was also an ecosystem of shitty people who knew what was going on and wholeheartedly approved. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 14:55, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It should also be considered that in this day and age authoritarians do not exist in a vacuum. After all, who is worse: someone like Suharto, or the various western governments that enabled him? Plutocow (talk) 15:12, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Might be better if discussion was around just dumpster expulsions of human beings rather than who's the biggest one. I also would nominate fossil fuel execs. 15:58, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that Hitler fella is a mean ol' cunt but he's dead. As for presently alive... Xi Jinping and the rest of the CCP top will probably dominate that list for the simple fact that they committed/are comitting the uyghur genocide. -- Techpriest (talk) 17:37, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Outside of politics (well, no one's really apolitical but you know what I mean), I nominate Andrew Wakefield. Thanks a lot, asshole. Vomitorium (talk) 05:43, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * whistles that's a good one. It's really hard to overstate the harm he's unleashed here, just because he wanted some lawsuit and patent bux and also hurt kids along the way by taking blood samples off of them during a birthday party (eugh). 07:25, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Pedantic point of the day; taking blood samples don't hurt people by default, unless they were taken by duress and/or done in a real ham-fisted manner. I'll accept the ones taken in the case alluded to were done under false pretenses, mind. KarmaPolice (talk) 09:13, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * it's my understanding he took more than simply 'blood samples'. He 'ordered investigations "without the requisite paediatric qualifications" including colonoscopies, colon biopsies and lumbar punctures ("spinal taps") on his research subjects without the approval of his department's ethics board and contrary to the children's clinical interests.' WpAMassiveGay (talk) 10:12, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * maybe all not at a birthday party. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:13, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Good. I was starting to wonder what kind of parties you regulary attended. Or where... *smirks* KarmaPolice (talk) 14:05, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Twitter Down
Twitter not working. Unknown if related to Ukraine, but if it is related, then there's probably one good thing to come out of this invasion... 19:06, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Fine here. Queexchthonic murmurings 19:14, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Lol Twitter was already practically inaccessible if you don't have an account. People need to stop sharing content from this stupid site especially "news" that amounts to crappy little screencaps. 19:42, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It was down but back up now here. Scream!! (talk) 19:47, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Twitter is not down. I just checked. 19:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Ugh, it's back again. Had my hopes up :(.  20:39, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * “Had my hopes up”—we all did m’boy, we all did. As a bonus, if Elsevier were somehow made defunct I’d be even happier. Leucippus Salva veritate 20:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion to the mods here
You might want to make the Ukraine article a protected article in the event Pro-Russia trolls try to vandalize it. With the current situation, I would not be shocked if something like that happened. I did make some edits reflecting the current situation but nothing that would be vandalism. --Non-Binary EAS Creator (talk) 23:05, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * When I had sysop tools I tried to protect Israel but it was shot down. I don’t think here we protect articles preemptively, and vandals will likely just be IPs or new accounts. With that being said, you have sysop tools and can semi protect articles (in case you aren’t familiar with Wikipedia jargon that allows only autoconfirmed users to edit), mods do have moderator protection but the only time I saw it used was on War for an hour to prevent a sysop edit war. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 03:48, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Generally speaking, we're not pro-active on protecting pages because we want to be open to quality edits from non-established users. If there's an increase in vandalism on Ukraine, we'll respond. Bongolian (talk) 06:23, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * A more practical response would be to keep an eye on Russian RationalWiki. I don't think anybody here really knows what's going over there at any given time.  (Right now, Russian RationalWiki activity appears to consist solely of a lone IP editor?  Kind of a shame we don't have more Russian-speaking editors working on it.)   02:25, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Shoot, yeah, wish we can say hi to them. :( 02:36, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * We should at least use DeepL to translate people's contributions and check for vandalism. Learning a bit of Russian would help too; it doesn't take much time to get to a B level. LongStylus (talk) 02:45, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

No one cares about Andrew's opinions
It’s clear Putin won’t respond to sanctions and will just make the people suffer. Why hasn’t NATO gone to war yet? I understand the nuclear war concerns, however, and that might not be able to be avoided. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 15:08, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe they don't want a trilogy? 2600:387:9:5:0:0:0:AF (talk) 15:19, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Dear God, if you exist, why must you make me suffer? Cursing me with a terminally stupid troll whose blathers his dogshit opinions into the void every chance he gets isn't going to make me worship you or convince me you exist, it's just going to annoy me. 16:59, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * At least it's not the weather. Kencolt (talk) 17:01, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * GC, I think you’re reacting to these threads just because I post them, and not because of the content. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 17:02, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * “why hasn’t NATO gone to war” is absolutely asinine. What an armchair question. Human lives, economical tolls, political implications. Real life isn’t an RTS. Probliknaut (talk) 17:07, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No, I'm reacting to them because you're an idiot with zero basis for speaking on matters such as politics, war, international affairs, economics, philosophy, history, psychology, science, art, media, etc. TL;DR, you're too stupid and uninformed to speak on anything at all. Worse, you're too stupid to understand this simple fact. This is why you're a troll. This is why I loath you and long for this site to be rid of your disgustingly moronic vomit. 17:11, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Nobody cares which device he's using to direct his spew hither, either. Zontar (talk) 08:25, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I know it's tough. I feel dumber just reading most of his stuff. But I feel worse if I engage.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:24, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Armchair tactician here. NATO should leverage its complete stranglehold on Russian culture to destabilize the Russian government.  By banning the sale or display of Adidas sportswear on the internet, the entirety of Russian identity will be instantly destroyed.  MirrorIrorriM (talk) 17:20, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * NATO won't do shit. It'd spell out literal nuclear war. Andrew, I know your braincells are difficult to keep functional on a daily basis, but please understand that NATO's goal in the current scenario is to avoid a war at all costs since Russia and the US have nukes. Ukraine will become the next victim in a proxy war between the US and Russia (moreso than they are in a proxy war already). -- Techpriest (talk) 17:34, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh MirrorIrorriM you had me so worried about thoughts of Russian retaliation but have no fear, Russia isn’t the top exporter of vodka. Ban all the windbreakers and sneakers! Probliknaut (talk) 17:41, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Look, Andrew, as a Ukrainian myself, I feel like you aren't awarding the proper amount of, I don't know, weight or respect to the situation. This is my motherland, my mother's homeland, and you're wondering why NATO doesn't just counter-invade. You know why? Because NATO doesn't want to fuck up the place as much as Russia will if they go to war. It's people's lives, people's homes. NATO at least gives a shit. Jake Holmes ''yell at me 17:45, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * NATO nations selling weapons to Ukraine and sharing intel would be a better strategy. All out invasion is not necessary right now. It would be in the best interest of everyone is to limit the conflict. Now if Russia invaded the US, Canada, Bulgaria or Greece then full scale war would be on the table. --Non-Binary EAS Creator (talk) 18:23, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

can we all fucking stop reverting each others comments for fucks sake.AMassiveGay (talk) 18:52, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Andrew's comment was stupid, and his restoration of such interrupted the writing of the the section below. 19:08, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

(EC with GC)The initial question was so mind boggling that I couldn't bother to read the whole conversation, so apologies if someone addressed this. But I just hat to write in.

When's the last time NATO has "gone to war" anyway? Kosovo in 1999 maybe? Even Afghanistan wasn't a NATO operation.

Do you even realize what it would require for NATO to "go to war" Andrew? I don't, but I'd guess that unless Article 5 is invoked (which can't be done here as Ukraine is not...yet...a member state), each NATO country would have to agree on it. How do you expect to convince Erdogan and Orban to agree on it pray tell? I guess bunch of NATO countries could agree to a war like they did in Iraq, but that wouldn't be NATO going to war. And why would any number of NATO countries declare a full war against military superpower like russia anyway? Proxy war by heavily arming Ukraine while sanctioning Russia is all they can sanely do here, unless Russia for some mind boggling reason extends the war to, say, Baltic Countries. 19:20, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I think Russia will invade the Baltic states. They probably want to invade half of Eastern Europe and then party like it’s 1922. Andrew5 (talk) 19:36, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * If they do, Article 5 can be invoked, and at least in theory needs to be honored by other NATO countries. I guess the question is, would Putin dare to call Biden's bluff on that one. 'Cause full scale war against NATO would be suicidal for Russia as well.
 * But GC already mentioned how insane attacking a country with massive nuclear arsenal would be (and attacking Baltic Countries would in theory mean attacking US). I don't think even Putler would be crazy enough to do that. He's attacking Ukraine now, because he still can do it relatively safely. Even if I think many are underestimating Ukraines abilities to defend themselves (at least when supported by West materially). 19:47, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * He's attacking Ukraine because they're smaller and weaker than Russia. Let's not miss one of the main points of my screed here. 20:02, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Zum Weltkrieg
"We shall not enter into any of the abstruse definitions of War used by publicists. We shall keep to the element of the thing itself, to a duel. War is nothing but a duel on an extensive scale. If we would conceive as a unit the countless number of duels which make up a War, we shall do so best by supposing to ourselves two wrestlers. Each strives by physical force to compel the other to submit to his will: each endeavours to throw his adversary, and thus render him incapable of further resistance.

War therefore is an act of violence intended to compel our opponent to fulfil our will.

''Violence arms itself with the inventions of Art and Science in order to contend against violence. Self-imposed restrictions, almost imperceptible and hardly worth mentioning, termed usages of International Law, accompany it without essentially impairing its power. Violence, that is to say, physical force (for there is no moral force without the conception of States and Law), is therefore the means; the compulsory submission of the enemy to our will is the ultimate object. In order to attain this object fully, the enemy must be disarmed, and disarmament becomes therefore the immediate object of hostilities in theory. It takes the place of the final object, and puts it aside as something we can eliminate from our calculations.''" --- Carl von Clausewitz, Vom Kriege.

Currently, world politics is divided into five major spheres of influence. That of the United States of America, that of the European Union, that of the United Kingdom, that of the Russian Federation, and that of the People's Republic of China. Further, each of these spheres is connected by and bound to the global capitalist economic framework. This means what affects one affects all, even if minutely.

Thusly, each must act with caution, lest any gamble lead to great losses. To this end, the world powers have pursued the Cold War era doctrines of propaganda, bravado, diplomacy, proxy conflict, and economic leverage. The cessation of which would lead to the dissolution of the current balance of power and birth forth a third world war. Hence, I will give an overview of what that would entail.

First and foremost is the issue of nuclear weapons, as these are the most destructive and feared. These are unlikely to be used except as last resort, as such would be a dangerous precedent to set.

Next, we must consider what a world war entails. War is, quite simply, the entirety of the nation set to the purpose of subjugating its rivals. World war is, thusly, the ultimate expression of war as yet known. Thusly, cities may be leveled, factories burned, famines caused, leaders eliminated, populations culled, etc etc etc.

Therefore, it may be inferred that a war between four of the five spheres of global power (and possibly the fifth) would entail a complete end to the global supply chain. This in turn would cause famine, unrest, destabilization, and worst of all, weakness. It can not be stressed enough how much these powers wish to avoid such an outcome, as it would weaken all their current modes of power and control, which are themselves the basis for the aforementioned Powers' perpetuation.

In short, Andrew is a moron with an utterly bankrupt understanding of this topic, and should cease speaking on such. 19:05, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * At this point, a small scale war is happening but full scale war is not. Unless it is absolutely necessary, it is best to avoid large scale conflict. US and Russia directly entering into conflict with each other would spell disaster. The worst the US or other NATO countries close to Russia would do is a military blockade. Even then, my theory on the most NATO nations would do is unlikely. Andrew, you have no idea what you are talking about. --Non-Binary EAS Creator (talk) 01:19, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

RationalWiki Saloon Bar Drinking Game: Russo-Ukraine War edition
Note: This is meant to bring some laughs in light of an unnerving situation

Drinks Required


 * Russian Vodka
 * Desant Beer
 * Krambambulia
 * Kentucky Bourbon

Rules


 * Every time a Far Right and or Pro-Russian troll makes a post- take a drink of Russian Vodka
 * Every time misinformation is posted- take a drink of Desant Beer
 * Every time a RW user with no concept on war and international politics makes a post- drink some Krambambulia
 * Every time an argument on the issue begins- take a drink of Kentucky Bourbon

Okay, thought I would bring some humor knowing that the Saloon Bar has been nothing but doom and gloom recently. --Non-Binary EAS Creator (talk) 02:20, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I have uh none of those other drinks but do have 4 kinds of vodka so I will have to make that work. Straight, peppermint, peach and botanical; all potato all the time. Probliknaut (talk) 02:33, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm buying no damn Russian products for the forseeable... KarmaPolice (talk) 05:13, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * i dont drink. Can i just smoke t? AMassiveGay (talk) 07:10, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes you can smoke it. --Non-Binary EAS Creator (talk) 14:36, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Now, now, Rationalzombie. I don’t believe that “put that in your pipe and smoke it!” is sound advice for our teetotaller compatriot, when all of your tabacco substitutes are combustibles. Leucippus Salva veritate 00:59, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * not really asking permission. i gonna any wayAMassiveGay (talk)

It has begun (Ukraine)
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-02-24/vladimir-putin-launches-invasion-of-ukraine/100857650
 * There's a lot going on right now. I might be in favor of a timeline article or something similar to sort things out and collect sources. armed_roomba(she/her)What am I doing wrong this time? 04:55, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Well then, if it isn't history. Revenant Raven (talk) 05:10, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I guess it's tempting to do a timeline article, but similar to the ongoing Tigray conflict in Ethiopia, we'd probably have to see the inevitable red mist run its course. 05:39, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Worth watching: https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/syf76h/kenyas_speech_on_ukraine_today_at_unsc_02222022/ 138.207.198.74 (talk) 05:46, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Wasn't GC giving Andrew shit for thinking Putin would invade Ukraine? I don't really keep up with things aroud here. An Advocate (talk) 06:36, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * no anfrew was talking about a world war 3 and nuclear war AMassiveGay (talk) 07:13, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Air force of Ukraine is destroyed, according to RT. Unless there is outside intervention, I don't see this campaign lasting much longer. 2001:8003:DDAA:5A00:1148:1C93:F9D5:5551 (talk) 07:25, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It might be true. But of all the sources I wouldn't trust to supply reliable information, the Russian government's international propaganda arm would be at the top of that list.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 07:33, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * i dont think anyones been saying the ukraine military would be be able to stand up to the russian military, they barely have/had an airforce to speak to of, for one thing. but then, neither did afghanistan. resisitance is unlikely to be much in the way of big set piece battles. thats not the been case of modern assymetric warfare for decades. its yet to be seen how protracted or bloody this invasion will turn out beAMassiveGay (talk) 07:55, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * dunno about how widespread the sentiment is, but it appears the russian public is as shocked as everyone else. AMassiveGay (talk) 08:27, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there are a lot of cross-border ties, and there are about 2 million ethnic Ukrainians living in Russia. People's opinions/votes no longer matter in Russia as it's become a totalitarian state. According to US intelligenice, Putin has a list of Ukrainians to be killed or deported. Putin has called for 'de-Nazification' of Ukraine, which could presage show trials. Bongolian (talk) 08:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

You cannot win a war with air power alone. If you could, USA/UK would have won in Iraq and Afganistan. Putin's plan seems to cripple the means of 'resistance' - ie tanks, planes, ships, ammo dumps - hoping the Ukrainians then cave.

If modern history is anything to go by... I do not think it's gonna work.

Anyway, I think it might be a good project to document the biases in various news outlets during this phase of the New Cold War. For example, GB News has been a bit cagey but they're quite clearly not on Putin's side on this. Socialist Worker is anti-Putin but says ultimately it's NATO's fault and is mealy-mouthed in what side they're on. Too early for Morning Star.

It's this sort of thing which normally remains unrecorded. Plus, I'm curious to how 'patriotic' alties line up (and to a lesser extent, tankies). KarmaPolice (talk) 08:51, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I can't see any reason why Russia can't conquer Ukraine in every meaningful sense of the word.


 * Russia has the numbers and technology. Ukraine is mostly flat and without cover - there is little room for any sort of partisan war in a modern information age - there are forrests in the north - Chernobyl and the Pipyet Marshes, the Carpathian mountains in the west - other than that there are only cities....  and Putin won't be bothered by having to level them if he has to - think Grozny.  This isn't WW2 where it might take hours for information about a raid on an axis position to reach a HQ - the Russian army is networked for the 21st century.


 * They might stay away from the western borders perhaps - but probably not - I'd expect Rusian tanks to drive right up to the border of Poland and sit there...and whatchagonnadoaboutit? That is perhaps a bit better than 1939 except of course Western Ukraine is the territory the USSR took from Poland in 1939!!


 * If Putin is determined, and it does seem that he is, and no one intervenes, then Ukraine is gone - within a year it will be annexed through a plebescite by a puppet government, to be a province of the Russian Federation. Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 09:17, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not going to be that easy. Ukraine is a large state, with a large military and now with quite a lot of it's own 'metal'. 'Mud season' has come early too, hampering armour. And there's lots of urban areas which shall prove a headache for infantry assault. Want to get a tank commander sweating? Tell them their metal is to go into a built-up area and the enemy infantry have anti-tank missiles (one of the nice gifts UKGov has been sending of late).


 * But let me put it this way, Aloysius. If *your* country was militarily defeated and a puppet govt installed, with an equally fascistic, kleptocratic nature, with the occupier boots and guns always in the rear, propping it up - would *you* shrug, accept it and go on with life (as much as you can), obeying your new rulers, even when the rules are disgusting? Or would you resist? Even if most of the 'active' resistance is quelled, it's likely that the puppet state shall have little legitimacy and thus, will face a heavy level of passive resistance. KarmaPolice (talk) 11:40, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 'would you resist?' Thats a hypothetical impossible to answer until it's a 'real' option. Passive resistance means a long occupation and time is such a resistance's enemy AMassiveGay (talk) 12:09, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * the bombs have literally just started falling. Any kind of 'analysis' right now is guess work. Nothing more. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:19, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * i mean, this all supposes putin has any intention of staying in ukrsaine. whats to say his game is to crush the ukraine military, then with a suitably cowed ukraine government and a nato and the west shown to be toothless, he doesnt just pull back to the russian speaking separatist regions on the condition russia gets to keep them, the west recognise crimea as russian and end any sanctioins or threat there of.
 * the people in donbas wont complain. i read most there dont care if they are russian or ukraine -they just want the fighting done with.


 * as i said. we just dont know right now. it is all guess work. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:20, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I *would* resist. The depth and intensity of said resistance would be up for debate (as you point out), it might merely be a non-cooperation with the puppets and non-violent dissent activities where possible. But I know this much; if I was Ukrainian I would actively resist. For in at least two ways, I'd be quite high on the 'they came for...' list the Russians have prepared, so my options would be shit regardless.
 * Yes, passive resistance shall take many years (active partisan resistance shall too) but it's vital for Putin's new puppet from gaining actual legitimacy. Plus, whatever we choose, this is just another chapter of a long story. If we resist, the New Cold War truly starts. If we cave, we'll get a stiffer demand for sell-outs in a couple of years time. That is basically our choice.


 * One thing we need to remember is that this war is psychologically painful for both parties. Russia/Ukraine have many ties - the best way to put it is the like the ties Ireland had with the UK a century ago. There's millions of Russians with partal or full Ukrainian ancestory who have woken up to discover they're at war with the 'Old Country' and shall soon 'read between the lines' to realise their brothers/sisters over the border are throwing everything they've got at the nice Russian troops coming to save them from the CIA-funded Nazis who apparently have no public support. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:53, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * All my stocks are massively down this morning... except RTX (Raytheon). Gee, I wonder why that one is doing OK.  14:19, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It seems that first-world problems are never far away.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:37, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * My favourite first world problem is: Ufff...I need a vacation from my vacation. My second favourite is: "this news about war in another country is bumming me out". Shabi  DOO  14:39, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * If it makes you feel any better about the stark contrast about first world problems and the ongoing Ukraine/Russia conflict, media has hardly discussed about the ongoing Ethiopia civil war since 2020 with millions displaced, thousands of people at risk of starvation or succumbing to medical ailments (due to humanitarian aid being blocked), war crimes, crimes against humanity going on. Oh and isn't Uighur extermination still ongoing? But remember, even the Holocaust was like page 6 news on the New York Times at the time. 16:06, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * if its first world problems you want, its first world problems you will get. my flatmate just tried to cash in his just eat gift voucher for kfc. scraped of the thin foil layer to reveal the code to redeem it, anmd found he'd scraped of code too. the horror, the horror...AMassiveGay (talk) 16:43, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Nah, not really complaining, I actually find it mildly amusing. The stock market being down isn't always a "bad" thing, either, considering how insane the typical P/E ratio is these days.  Currently, market is down 2% yet I'm only down 1.6%, so it's actually a good day for me all things considered.  Honestly, any day that your home isn't being overrun by tanks is a pretty good day.  16:58, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * PS, love that market rally, I'm actually up 1.2% 1.5% 1.4% today.  Didn't buy the "right" stocks this morning, was deciding between three companies and I chose the ones that went up 6% and 3% in the hours since I bought but not the one that's up 11% since that time, oh well.  20:50, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you know who to thank for the strong rebound in the market. Thank (deity of your choice) Trump is not POTUS now. Ariel31459 (talk) 01:55, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You are assuming that Trump wouldn't've agreed that Ukraine would not join NATO without Russian approval or something. We don't know how things would've happened.  Also, the market would've been much higher under Trump; Trump would've opened the country and ended the lockdowns even if it meant a couple more dead seniors since, well, he survived COVID and thus he no longer had to worry.  He also would not have shut the pipeline, so gas would be cheaper even if the Earth warms that much faster.  It wouldn't necessarily be a good thing that the market would've been higher, but whoever it is that you choose to vote for, do so with your eyes open.  03:28, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Aside about economic crisis scheduled for 2050
How quickly do you think before we see the first oligarch empire margin call or even default, Corrupt? KarmaPolice (talk) 17:13, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That's actually a crisis brewing here in the US. The US doesn't have "banking crises", the US has lending crises.  Too much money was lent to people using stock as collateral in the 1920s.  Then a slight downturn forced a selloff which snowballed into the Great Depression.  The same thing happened using housing as collateral... in the 1970s, but the controls put in place made sure that this crisis remained relatively manageable.  Then those controls were lifted and in the early 2000s, well, banks lent too much to people using housing as collateral, and well, you know the rest.  What's happening now is investment banks are lending to people like Bill Gates using stock as collateral.  It's fairly obvious that the pattern is "every 40 years, massive crisis".  Why 40?  Because after that much time, anyone with any sense of "hey, this seems familiar" is no longer in charge, and everyone is watching everyone else get rich.  "FOMO".  So in the 2040's, the country will be run by Zoomers who didn't really experience the Great Recession or why it happened, and they will lend to people who don't actually have the ability to pay back.
 * Why does the richest man on Earth need to borrow money? To avoid taxes, duh.  If he sold his stocks, he'd have to pay capital gains tax on the earnings.  But if he borrows the money to spend, he doesn't owe any tax.  The interest on the debt does accrue, but if the stocks go up faster than interest rates he's still ahead so who cares.  Bezos, Musk, every rich person does this.  And it's not just stock; people are doing this using fuqqing cryptocurrency to back lending as well.  But with the supply of stocks (and crypto) artificially suppressed in this manner, the price is kept artificially high.  The more popular this becomes, the more a ticking time bomb is built.
 * Let's say that Bezos has $100B in Amazon stock and owes $25B in debt. No big deal, right?  Well, there's John Dumbass with $1B in Amazon stock and $500m in debt.  Now Amazon takes a hit, and the stock drops a bit, suddenly Johnny D now has $600m in stock.  So the lenders get nervous and demand their money back NOW.  So suddenly, Johnny D has to sell his stock AND pay the capital gains on top of it, so he's wiped out entirely.  But he sells off so much that the stock goes down a bit more, and the banks call in their debt on the next person, who sells and drives the price down further, which triggers the next person.  In the meantime, no one can buy up Amazon stock because nobody is dumb enough to lend to people to buy stock at this time.  Suddenly, not even Bezos can afford his own debt.  With trillions of dollars of debt unable to be paid, well, that finds its way to everyone else as 2007 proved to us all.  The solution is to nip this problem in the bud NOW.  Make it illegal to avoid capital gains tax through debt.  If you bought stock for $20 and it's worth $1000, you may only borrow $20 without "realizing" the capital gains somehow.  The same goes for houses.  You bought a house for $100k and it's worth $1m?  You can't borrow more than $100k for home refinancing.  If that means that lenders have to stick their money into bonds to lower the actual cost of business or services US debt, all the better.  17:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Making that change would require those in power to admit that neoliberalism doesn't work, and that's not going to happen. 2A01:388:3F5:161:0:0:1:6 (talk) 22:53, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * What? Is "nealiberalism" just some snarl word that means whatever the far left wants it to mean these days?  03:28, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * In February 1989 nobody could have predicted the world as it is today so we should hold on the 2050s. (Who said something along the lines of - 'it is difficult to make predictions, especially about the future'?) Anna Livia (talk) 10:42, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * To paraphrase Ray Bradbury, "I don't work to predict the future but to prevent it". I don't know what society will be like in 30 years, but I do know it will contain people, and people are the same everywhen.  15:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * As a prediction that will probably be largely true whenever - The newspaper equivalents will be filled with sport and gossip (with a minimum of news), with articles about 'politicians and other supposed leaders and trendsetters' having 'snouts in the trough, hands in the till and fingers in the fleshpots' and there will be sufficient material to keep RationalWiki or its equivalent at full strength. Anna Livia (talk) 22:26, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

The lens through which you must view all political decisions
All politicians (and those who help with their machinations) do everything for the following reasons under this order:

1. Getting in power 2. Staying in power 3. Doing things that will benefit you and those who keep you in power (highly related to 2) 4. Doing things you care about for your country

Let no one misunderstand, Putin has invaded Ukraine because he believes it will aid him in steps 1, 2 and 3 (mostly 2). Those are all the motives he needs. He is likely correct about this. As detrimental as it may be to the Russian people, they will either react in a way that keeps him in power or at least do nothing to get him out of power, ultimately either way this will help him stay in power and benefit him. While there may be a few strategic resources in Eastern Ukraine, the benefits of having them are heavily outweighed by the international disruption caused by the invasion meaning clearly 4 is of little relevance (despite the babble that this is about "security"). All of this is all about 1, 2 and 3 (mostly 2). You should view almost ALL political, organisational and management decisions through this lens (in both democracies and dictatorships). This includes Biden's response which some may view as weak, but honestly, no truly aggressive move on his part will benefit him or those who prop him up at all. This is how you should view almost all power structures. Most other analysis is babble. Shabi DOO  14:36, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Using your analysis it seems to me that Putin has personally gambled massively on getting all four right. And Because wars are very unpredictable things.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:41, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "Power" however can be a relative and complex thing. There are multiple factions everywhere in life. The viewpoints on "getting in power" / "staying in power" may be warped by the paradigms of your advisers. If, as reports indicate, over the last few years Putin has increasingly been surrounded by hardliner yes-men who increasingly have a militaristic point of view, Putin may be severely miscalculating the costs of war.
 * It's interesting that CorruptUser mentioned the stock market in this respect. The S&P 500 is down by 1.5% at this moment, eg "who cares". The MOEX (Russian stock index) in contrast is down by over 35%. Clearly the "merchant class" is expecting some serious economic pain ahead for Russia. Ultimately, will a probable crap economy for Russia in years to come matter for Putin? Well, the Soviet's botched invasion of Afghanistan, and its heavy economic impact, certainly played its part in killing the USSR empire, that's all I'll say for now... PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 15:37, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * My only addition to to this is that politicians generally only care about 4 insofar as it feeds into 1-3. Very rarely do you get politicians with actual civic pride. Other than that Shabi is 100% on point here.  14:43, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The Russian people will survive on less and less pay so long as they can still afford food and vodka. The problem is when it comes to buying materials/parts to maintain their ships, planes and tanks.  Eventually, entropy wins, and if Putin's finances are too terrible, well, they physically won't be able to invade anyone.  The first war they lose will be a disaster, because then EVERYONE upset with Russia (Georgia, Dagestan, Chechnya, Khazahkstan, etc) will see that as an opportunity to seize a chunk for themselves, and even on a good day Russia can't handle 5 wars all at once.  17:15, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The 'leading politicals' got rid of Khrushchev because he was a loose cannon (very simplified), another lot of politicals tried to oust Gorbachev because he was about to renegotiate the arrangements for the states of the USSR (biggest backfire in history), and Galtieri was removed from office for losing the Falklands/Malvinas war. What could happen in the Kremlin if the invasion fails? Anna Livia (talk) 18:54, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Just what I said above. Chechnya decides that it's now time to break away, Georgia recaptures its stolen provinces, maybe even China decides it wants a slice of Siberia and all those mineral goodies.  19:04, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Those are the externalities - we are talking about the Politburo-equivalent here. (I do know Galtieri is South American - but an appropriate modern example.) Anna Livia (talk) 20:47, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Going to avoid reading too much news about Ukraine
It is not good for me to read about too much real world doom and gloom. It has been depressing me. How do I stay updates on the situation without going too much into it? --Non-Binary EAS Creator (talk) 02:07, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I’ve been there. Honestly I think the best way of going about it is to avoid reading the news altogether other than on a schedule you permit yourself- once a week, maybe. Other than that, maybe searching for specific news you’re maybe interested in in the meantime. Sports or local or whatever. It’s an awful situation for everyone, sorry you’re not feeling great in that regard- I wish you the best. Probliknaut (talk) 02:36, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "The real reason for the whole thing was that it was too much effort not to have a war. You see, Baldrick, in order to prevent war in Europe, two superblocs developed: us, the French and the Russians on one side, and the Germans and Austro-Hungary on the other. The idea was to have two vast opposing armies, each acting as the other's deterrent. That way there could never be a war."
 * "But, this is a sort of a war, isn't it, sir?"
 * "Yes, that's right. You see, there was a tiny flaw in the plan."
 * "What was that, sir?"
 * "It was bollocks." 138.207.198.74 (talk) 02:45, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You can watch some relaxing videos in YouTube. In my recommends I have Mario plush videos, cockatiel videos, bird feeder/birdbath content that's always nice to see. 02:55, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I saw this one posted the other day on Hacker News; despite the clickbaity title, it's a good read: Five Things You Notice When You Quit the News. 1) You feel better —cosmikdebris talk stalk 03:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Honestly, the bulk of my news is from you guys discussing about it, here and in Discord. I don't have a Twitter, don't have a Facebook, don't have Reddit (though I browse it for stupid things conservatives say), don't have cable TV (don't watch TV either), am not subscribed to any newspapers, not subscribed to any magazines, don't browse news sites, and I don't watch news on YouTube, just know some news stories here and there. 03:07, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * How do you source your edits to the wiki? 138.207.198.74 (talk) 03:19, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Well people share news stories and whatnot sometimes; other times I just look up keywords, find articles, read the articles to see if they support my edits, and then I source them. What I don't do is follow the news though. My edits to the Ukraine page was based on stories shared to me about the situation. 03:31, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "read the articles to see if they support my edits" noted, thanks. 138.207.198.74 (talk) 03:36, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I mean, uh, I read the articles and then write stuff down, and then check to make sure what's being written is also what's written in the article. I read past headlines usually. You wouldn't believe how often the sources don't support assertions being made. 04:04, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't believe it huh? That people could make unsubstantiated assertions? Well I'm glad you are on the lookout for that. 138.207.198.74 (talk) 04:10, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it's irresponsible to completely avoid the news. I have a relative who does, and their views on stuff has increasingly warped off the norm over the last ~15 years. This came to a head over Covid because they kept on saying 'oh it's flu' ad nausiem and shrugged when told 'but look at the [redacted] news!'.
 * But the 24 news cycle is mentally unhealthy. My advice is this; don't quit the news, but ration it (like I do). For example, I shall get my daily round-up in the morning of the war from the BBC News website and listen to a few 2/5-min bulletin updates (say one at lunch, and then one in the evening) to see if any pressing news has happened in the meantime. KarmaPolice (talk) 04:23, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I check up regularly, but tend to look for specific topics, rather than the constant “breaking news” stuff. Specifically, I’ve tried to get an overview, or at least some more accurate sense, of where substantial Russian land forces have invaded Ukraine. I also tend to check up on the responses/countermeasures from the west in general and the those of my national political system in particular. ScepticWombat (talk) 07:17, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The world is changing as we watch. I've got the BBC radio on almost constantly.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 07:31, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * i mhave tendency to go on... binges. 2 or 3 days at a time. in those periods i tend not to see any news at all. when im done and i check tjhe headlines to see what ive missed, i feel incredibly disconnected from the world. AMassiveGay (talk) 08:50, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, if a situation is fast-moving that's somewhat different; I paid much more attention to the news during the recent storm wave, for example. I shall somewhat exempt situations where what you're consuming is 'different'; for example 'analysis' pieces or new angles. I'm more considering the 'news cycle' stuff where the same items is repeated again and again, sucking you into a cycle of despair. Plus, I don't ban 'specific topic searches'. KarmaPolice (talk) 10:34, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This is where the "old school" written word news formats thrive IMHO. Even the daily paper tends to be a little bit better than the bullshit on the 24 hour news channels (at least, in America, these channels are pretty terrible), but my main news source is a British weekly, which (sometimes) gives time for the news cycle to sober up a little and give meaningful analysis. Of course, all media has a bias and even "framings" you disagree with wholeheartedly (all humans have a bias, including you and I) so you have to keep that in mind. Social media sites (Fark and Reddit /all for me) tend to be mainly "useful" for bringing me the latest "news" on what bullshit cranks, talking heads, and other noxious figures are pooting forth. Not really news, but occasionally of relevance if only in a lesson of what to avoid. I don't think completely avoiding news is a good thing either. I've seen the bullshit ignorant people believe on Facebook after all. A lot of those noxious cranks after all exist primarily to reaffirm the beliefs of the ignorant, after all... PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 14:26, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * To quote a man far braver than me...
 * Russian warship, go fuck yourself. 16:17, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 138.207.198.74 (talk) 17:25, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Going to keep up with the news but I won't read too much to where I get depressed and end up in the psych ward (again). --Non-Binary EAS Creator (talk) 20:18, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Going to keep up with the news but I won't read too much to where I get depressed and end up in the psych ward (again). --Non-Binary EAS Creator (talk) 20:18, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Hey!
Can somebody add anarcho-syndicalism themed userbox? I need one. And sorry for bad english. Le Draken (talk) 21:34, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

categories again.
seriously, some action is necessary on this. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:52, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Could you clarify what you mean by “action”? Leucippus Salva veritate 22:57, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * the very least stop non sysops and bons doing anything with cats. then a purge. AMassiveGay (talk) 07:15, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * While I agree with AMG I think the Saloon might not be the best place for this discussion given how ephemeral most discussions here are. GeeJayK (talk) 13:59, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * What I thought of earlier, since people have done it before, is to start an AfD for any category you think is worth voting on. You could do that. From the earlier discussion, Category:Right-wing Boogeymen may have a good chance of deletion. And it may make sense to vote on the whole of Category:Political insanity at the same time instead of its subcategories separately. (Maybe discuss whether to include "Hard green" or not, I don't know about that one.) That's for the ones already named with some significant support for deletion. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 16:03, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * there is potentially too many cats for that to be feasible. and it wont stop people messing with existing cats or adding their own new ones. as of writing we now have a new 'holocaust denialist' category with its creator changing a the category number of articles from 'holocaust denial' to their new creation. is appropriate? i dont know. is it a pointless addition making our categories more of a mess? absolutely. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:39, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure, but I'm guessing the best fit for a place to discuss this (a new standard) may be RationalWiki talk:What is a RationalWiki article?. After all, categories go along with articles. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 18:18, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I think we should either discuss it on the RationalWiki talk:What is a RationalWiki article? talkpage (as AppoftGnegiol has suggested) or on the RationalWiki talk:Community Standards talkpage. I believe that the former option is more appropriate, since the things we are discussing are more concrete (i.e. our proposals would directly affect Namespace pages), and are more akin to legislative changes; whereas “community standards”, are more akin to guidelines. Thus I am in favour of moving this discussion, and perhaps also this thread and the original “categories” thread (for context), onto the RationalWiki talk:What is a RationalWiki article? talkpage. Leucippus Salva veritate 20:37, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Invading for peace.....
... is like fucking for virginity - a saying that I recall from the 70's!! (which I am fast approaching from the other direction! :O)

On a related note today somewhere I read an article about how various Russian politicians had been stating for a year or 2 that the plan was to make utrterly unacceptable demands on Ukraine and then blame them for the inevitable refusal as the causus belli.... there were links to various speeches and tweets..... damned if I can find it now - does that ring a bell with anyone??Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 04:08, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * “May you live in interesting times”. Leucippus Salva veritate 05:19, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks - but not the Guardian - pretty sure it was an American sensationalist style site - one of the othe articles was how Trump is having a hard time finding someone to stand against Moscow Mitch..... Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 05:53, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * But... fucking is the only way to make more virgins. 17:07, 24 February 2022 (UTC)


 * This hasn't aged well. Has it https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki:Saloon_bar/Archive402#How_likely_is_Russia_to_invade_Ukraine.3F Cardinal Chang (talk) 12:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It suffers from a common mistake people make about rational actor and theory. People aren't rational, and neither are leaders. BumblingBuffoon (talk) 19:15, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * As Tacitus said, two millennia ago, 'They create a wasteland and call it peace.' Anna Livia (talk) 11:14, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

De-Nazification
Putin has several times indicated that neo-nazis are in control of Ukraine, and is encouraging the citizenry to denazify Kyiv. Is this just insane ramblings or is there some neo-nazi thing they're trying to make bigger than it is?. I've noticed a few right-wing American commentators using this talking point as well. -RipCityLiberal (talk) 17:35, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This is propaganda. You might hear mention of the Azov brigade, which indeed was folded into the Ukrainian military in 2014 and has a large percentage of neo-nazi members. But please keep in mind that the number of neo-nazi's in the military and police in the United States, just for example, probably outnumbers the total number of members of entire Ukrainian military and police forces. Germany, France, Scandinavian countries, most of europe also has a problem with nazi's in their police and military. 138.207.198.74 (talk) 17:44, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * EC there are nazis in the ukraine, but the de-nazifasction of putin is dogshit. they've been playing up the nazi thing since they stole crimea. no one likes nazis so if your enemies are nazis then your war against them is righteous and not just a naked land grab or anti nato paranoia AMassiveGay (talk) 17:47, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @bon - even the russians have a serious problem with neo nazis AMassiveGay (talk) 17:48, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * russian nazisAMassiveGay (talk) 17:49, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * nazism is a form of nationalism. i guess its only natural that neo nazis would find their way to front line of a war in their own nation. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:53, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps there's something about militarism that fosters nazification? Nah, that couldn't be. 138.207.198.74 (talk) 17:56, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * There are worryingly powerful explicit neo-Nazis (as in "uses Nazi iconography and admire Axis collaborators from WWII") in Ukraine but calling Ukraine a Nazi state over it is a ridiculous exaggeration because they do not control the government. It would be like calling Germany a Nazi state in 1929 because the Nazi party existed within it. Putin is still starting a war over a lie, and given the ability of war to radicalize people, (especially to an ideology that glorifies bloodshed) his actions could make this problem much worse.-Flandres (talk) 18:34, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "Nazism" is a colorful term that harkens back to the extreme form of nationalism prevalent in the 1930s. There is nothing really generic about it. It doesn't exist by itself, as if it were a real thing in the world. It is one of the few "boogieman" words in our political dictionary. Calling someone a Nazi, when they are really disagreeable nationalists is often done to justify abusing them. Fuck Putin, by the way, one of the two most dangerous fascists on the planet.Ariel31459 (talk) 18:05, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Totally agree, to clarify, I was using it in the sense of disagreeable nationalists who use Nazi iconography and express nostalgia for the Third Reich. 138.207.198.74 (talk) 18:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * As with all propaganda, there's always a kernel of truth that gets distorted. The Euromaidan protests of 2013-2014 (that ousted the Russia-aligned government) did include members of the Ukrainian far right. They were part of a broad political, linguistic and religious coalition however. The current government is anything but fascist or neo-Nazi, being largely democratic and not at all irredentist. The irony of this is that Putin is definitionally a fascist (see Fascism). Bongolian (talk) 19:17, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The funny thing is, by certain measurements, Ukraine is actually the least anti-Semitic country in Eastern Europe. Plutocow (talk) 19:26, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The Kremlin has called anything they don't like Nazis. It's like the meme of "everyone I don't like is Hitler" but applied to the real world. -- Techpriest (talk) 20:31, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It's worth noting that it's done with a nod and a wink to its supporters - "We all know it's nonsense but we pretend we believe it as an in-group indicator" Queexchthonic murmurings 20:32, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Not going to apologize to Putin's actions here, and it isn't a whataboutism when I am mentioning it (it is however a clear whataboutism when it is said by Putin himself in this context). Russia declares war on Ukraine, everyone is super upset by this. America lies about weapons of mass destruction to give a false premise to an invasion of the middle-east? No-one does anything and they get away with it. That's a demoralizing reality. Why bring this up? Because it was brought up by Putin in his recent speech, and it goes to show that whilst he is right about the things the West has done, it demonstrates very clearly whataboutism at work. "“However, there is a special place for the invasion of Iraq, which was carried out also without any legal grounds. As a pretext, they put forward supposedly reliable information from the United States about the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. As proof of this, publicly, in front of the eyes of the whole world, the US secretary of state shook some kind of a test tube with white powder, assuring everyone that this is a chemical weapon being developed in Iraq. And then it turned out that all this was a hoax, a bluff: there were no chemical weapons in Iraq.”"

The problem is that Putin did not interpret these acts as unacceptable, but as a justification. If other people are being pieces of shit, that means I get a free pass too, life is fair is it not? The answer that gets ignored is don't do it! BumblingBuffoon (talk) 21:25, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the clarity, I was certain this was a massive exaggeration or an outright lie, but I wanted to be sure. Seems difficult to be run by Nazi's when the president is Jewish.
 * there are some issues with your statement, and despite your intention, you are attempting to equivocate two morally repugnant actions, but with deeply different circumstances. Firstly, assuming you are referring to Iraq specifically, the US never asserted that Iraq as a state didn't exist. The American public and our allies were very much misled, especially in regards to WMD, but the secondary goal of spreading democracy, while misguided at least had some sort of principle. Putin essentially is seeking not only to eliminate a burgeoning democracy, because it threatens his model as an authoritarian kleptocracy, but also to fundamentally alter the security structure of Europe to give Russia more influence. Additionally, no decision maker during the Iraqi invasion, ever seriously considered deploying nuclear weapons, whereas Putin is explicitly implying it.
 * There are legitimate criticism of the US foreign policy posture, especially with covert/military actions in South/Central America and South East Asia during the Cold War as well as in Afghanistan and Iraq. But Putin's actions are on another scale of real-politik and violence.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 22:40, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It was a war that everyone views as a stupid mistake that was founded and justified on the premises of lies. Patriots who are willing to put their lives in front of real bullets should not be told to do so with false premises. Whether that's the US, Russia, the UK, or anywhere else. Although they never said Iraq wasn't a state, that's totally irrelevant to the fact they weren't exactly respecting that state's autonomy by actively invading it. BumblingBuffoon (talk) 23:08, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * In most cases, the U.S. "spreading democracy" is just as much of a lie as Russia supposedly fighting Nazis in Ukraine. Keep in mind that a lot of dictators are propped up by the U.S. and that the U.S. has deposed democratically elected leaders that didn't align with their geopolitics. The main difference between the two is that the U.S. prefers to be covert, while Russia likes to try to make a show of power. Plutocow (talk) 23:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You don't know what you are talking about. Iraq actually did hold elections, and while the leaders were absolute crunderdunces, they were not US puppets.  That's actually why the US left; the US told the Iraqi leadership that either the US soldiers get indefinite immunity from civilian prosecution or the troops leave, the Iraqis said no, and so the troops left.  Then the Iraqi president looked to begin a purge of the Sunnis, because everyone getting along is not a universal value.
 * We did hold elections in Afghanistan of leaders that, again, weren't US puppets. Instead they were absolute fuqnuggets, because again, the cultures over there do not view egalitarianism as a goal.
 * Democracies do vote for genocide if the people want it. Remember, the US was a democracy during the various Indian Wars.  02:33, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Waaaay too many paragraphs for the truth. Which is this - 'Nazis' is a massively powerful/emotive term for Russians (most Europeans, to some extent). Nazis are genocidal, hugely aggressive and totally eeeevil. Americans, as a rule simply don't get this feeling. Plus, Putin has been upping the WW2 motifs for years; it's one of the few countries where VE-Day celebrations etc have been growing *larger*, not smaller over the decades. I mean, it's obsessive even by UK standards, and we're so fixated by 'the War' we elected a second-rate Churchill impersonator as PM.


 * It's actually rather likely that like 'Communist' in the USA, the average Russian has near-nil knowledge of what a 'Nazi' actually is or believes in. Apart from above. Putin has been claiming that Russians have been facing 'genocide' within Ukraine, so why they had to go in. However, the few vaguely reliable sources I've been hearing so far is that generally speaking, a lot of Russians are pretty skeptical of this narrative. KarmaPolice (talk) 12:51, 26 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Has Putin 'Done a Godwin'?
 * What happens if eg the Russian religious leaders express unsupportive views? Will they be Cardinal Mindszenty'd? Anna Livia (talk) 20:24, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * One of the patriarchs was given a jet fighter as a gift. I think it's fair to say that any cleric of influence is completely in the tank for the regime. I've been wondering, over the last couple of days, if it's been a mistake for the west to not to prepare to handle quasi-state actors. Russian oligarchs are uncomfortably close to the home-grown mega-rich (and uncomfortably involved in supporting the Tory party, for one), so presumably there's been a great reluctance on top of the usual "sure, they're rich, but free market blah blah blah" bafflegab to explain treating them with kid gloves. Assuming this is legit, the Norwegian police seized and boarded an oligarch's yacht that's clearly equipped for underwater operations - in particular it's been suggested that it might have been the vessel going around cutting undersea fibre cables in the Baltic. I guess religious figures are probably also acting on behalf of the government or keeping their heads down so they don't get ousted, or worse. Queexchthonic murmurings 20:49, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Russian propaganda
Why does everyone seem to think that it's aimed at us? Wouldn't it make more sense if you all assumed it was aimed at Russians? Similar to US propaganda during the Bush era... 20:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Because international opinion matters. How other nations see you can intimidate them, what appearances you put on to your guests on the world stage can fool them and mislead them about your real capabilities. Domestic propaganda and foreign propaganda are both important. If the world sees you as weak it will be more won't to take more severe stances against you, even if people have been conditioned to believe they're all disenfranchised and how they see these big boys with way more power than them. All people do have some power. I will give you an example of manipulating foreign opinions in a conflict, drone strikes.


 * Drone strikes are a very taboo subject that can destabilize American domestic politics and cause problems to the west, this is known by terrorists, who actively benefit from positioning themselves in areas which will maximize the chances that there will be civilian casualties. And when there are inevitably civilian casualties it causes problems for those leaders, it is a form of propaganda that makes the opponent look bad. At home, terrorist groups can also use this as an argument domestically, they'll point to the killings and frame them as an American atrocity to drum up support and recruitment. This is the same thing on a national scale. So, it does indeed matter what your enemy thinks, as public opinion in an enemy democracy can influence elections themselves, even if you as an American should never believe what Putin is saying, if he can make you think twice and cause some chaos for you at home when you get into discussions on that issue, he has succeeded. BumblingBuffoon (talk) 20:20, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It depends on what propaganda we're talking about. RT for example is clearly aimed at an international audience, since it's goal is to more or less destabilize western democracies and keep them infighting for long enough to let Russia accomplish it's goals. Putin's speech (the televised one) was not aimed at an international audience, it was aimed at his own population. -- Techpriest (talk) 20:32, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Because we can see an explicit statement from Putin directed at Ukraine itself. Is this the speech in question, (transcript) https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/2/24/putins-speech-declaring-war-on-ukraine-translated-excerpts
 * To quote "In this regard, I appeal to the citizens of Ukraine. In 2014, Russia was obliged to protect the residents of Crimea and Sevastopol from those whom you, yourself call “Nazis”." and following paragraph was an address to Ukrainian soldiers specifically, whilst you can interpret it as a puppet show with puppet enemy recipients, the speech can be seen by and interpreted by anyone in the world, so when a leader makes a speech that they know will be witnessed not just by someone at home but abroad, you should also assume they are well aware of the fact that others outside their home are listening too. Without any fact checking, this propaganda would be effective on any uninformed western listener who hadn't a clue about the context. BumblingBuffoon (talk) 20:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You all aren't really refuting the idea that Putin is putting on a show for the Russian people. It's perfectly possible to speak at someone without speaking to them. 03:04, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * There's millions of ethnic Ukrainians within Russia. Russian media is also heavily pushed over the old USSR so 'ethnic Russians' can also access it - this is a significant issue in places like the Baltics where the 'national' broadcasts are all in the national language, meaning that if you're a Russian-speaker you're left sucking at Putin's media tit.


 * This is how they managed to score Crimea and Donbass in the first place; areas most strongly Russian-speaking and so were long softened up before the invasion.


 * But the important thing is this: Putin no longer gives a crap what we *think* anymore. And he thinks we're soft, weak and scared. KarmaPolice (talk) 12:13, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It is not about being soft/weak/scared. It is about the incentives that Western countries have to engage. The benefits are completely outweighed by the consequences of engaging in direct war with Russia. Basically, every world leader (Putin included) is honestly doing the right thing politically (in terms of achieving their political and personal goals). Strength is relevant, but not as much as you think. Shabi  DOO  12:43, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah... all the evidence to date proves otherwise. So politely I shall say you're wrong. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:42, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

"Anti-mandate not anti-Vax"
So here in New Zealand we have an ongoing "anti-mandate" protest. A lot of people are saying "I'm not anti vaccine, I'm anti the mandate" - which here means there are some jobs you must be vaccinated to hold - police, teachers, early childcare workers, medical, border services and similar. Some people have gone so far as to refuse vaccine and lost 2 jobs despite saying they are not opposed to the vaccine at all - only "opposed to the mandate".

In addition one of the cries of oppression is "I shouldn't be forced to be vaccinated" - which is an easy one to refute of course - if you aren't vaccinated then you haven't been forced to be vaccinated, no-one is holding anyone down and vaccinating them against their will, all choices have consequences and the only freedom you ever have is to exercise your ability to choose between available options.

I'm pretty sure this is complete bullshit, but I've never been one to notice my own logical fallacies.....so it goes like this:


 * 1) the only people who are affected by the mandate are those who choose to not be vaccinated; and
 * 2) they are not vaccinated by their own choice (see also above about freedom to choose); therefore
 * 3) to be opposed to the mandate is to support all those who refuse to be vaccinated, thus anyone opposed to the mandate is supporting the anti-vaccination "movement"

I've decided I'm just going to call people who are "anti mandate not anti-vax" liars... both to themselves and to all the rest of us, and to do so to their faces if necessary.... but I'd kind of like some critical analysis of this position :)

Have at me! Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 23:40, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Honestly this is getting ridiculus on both sides. But more so (75%) on the anti-vaxxers. Andrew5 (talk) 23:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 23:43, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 'I've decided I'm just going to call people who are "anti mandate not anti-vax" liars' i just call them pricksAMassiveGay (talk) 23:45, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * What about anti-smallpox vaccination (in this context not a redundant repetition), which was more general - and what are these people's attitudes towards the diseases which certain countries wish you to be vaccinated against if you wish to visit them? Anna Livia (talk) 23:50, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Anti-mandaters are 95% of the time also anti-vax, but not 100%. I have a friend who is anti-mandate but is also fully vaccinated (though that discussion was in July so I'm not sure about the booster.) I guess it could be sympathy for the anti-vaxxers, which we shouldn't be doing but doesn't make you a liar. I'm neutral as far as the mandates go but I am fully vaccinated and boosted. Andrew5 (talk) 23:51, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes some of the anti-mandate people are vaxxed - but IMO they are still supporting the anti-vax movement by being anti mandate. When I started work in 1976 a smallpox vaccination (or maybe an inoculation??) was a requirement. Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 23:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * My understanding per the Google is the vaccine mandates are supported by a huge majority of Kiwis. So the noisy anti-vaxx idiots can be safely ignored. Public health is important.
 * The day the protest set up camp (9 Feb) - with maybe 2-4000 ppl nationwide protesting ..... (excel spreadsheet download) 56,000 ppl received their 3rd dose booster :) Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 00:20, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * (And I love that headline story associated with that article where it was major news in NZ that COVID cases were surging past 1000 cases a day. 1000, hah. In early January this year, Florida alone was recording 57,0000 cases a day at one point, and in the political climate of De Santis the chances are good IMHO that this is an under-count. Go us.) PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 00:04, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah but in January NZ was having 30-40 cases per day.... so for us 1000 is quite the increase! Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 00:20, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * its a weird thing when you hear of medical professionals 'refusing' to be vaccinated. you have to get vaccinated for a few things already if you want to be a nurse, as far as i know. but suddenly vaccinations against covid is a vaccine too far? fuck off with that shit. AMassiveGay (talk) 00:09, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You don't need (2). Something like (2') To oppose the mandate is to support those who are affected by it is implicit in the argument as it stands.  Strictly, (1) seems dubious.  Somebody who gets vaccinated, who would not have done so without the mandate, seems to be affected by the mandate despite getting vaccinated.  Whether or not this constitutes coercion depends at least partly on the consequences of not getting vaccinated in light of the mandate, and while I don't know many details about New Zealand, I doubt the situation is coercive.  In (3), support is doing a lot of work.  It's plausible that you could consistently oppose mandating vaccines for those who do not want them and think that most (or all) of those who do not want to get vaccinated should get vaccinated ("you should get vaccinated, but you should not be legally required to get vaccinated," or "you are morally obligated to get vaccinated, but should not be legally obligated to get vaccinated," or "you are morally obligated to get vaccinated, but morally obligated to oppose mandating this," etc).  In that case, you would seemingly not support the anti-vaccination movement (in some sense of 'support') while also opposing the mandate.  But you might also argue that opposing the mandate offers de facto support to them (in some sense of 'support', not necessarily the same one), which also seems plausible.  So one person opposing the mandate might simultaneously oppose the anti-vaxxers in the sense of thinking that they are factually, ethically, etc. in the wrong, but support them in the sense of enabling their behavior (and presumably in thinking they are legally in the right).  Whether anybody actually holds these views, I don't know, and personally I think strong objections could be made against such a position. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒   talk  02:12, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Not to dispute your main point, but I'd argue that A) vaccine mandates are coercive but also crucially, B) they are not unduly coercive. What I mean by this is that all laws are, in practice, coercive in nature, but this is not considered an issue because society benefits from that coercion. It's a minor point but one I felt merited explanation. 02:35, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * All I can say is, had COVID twice, not fun, get vaccinated. Mr. Richard Pump (talk) 02:43, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It is very similar to laws in respect of wearing seatbelts and crash helmets. Sometimes it is necessary to mandate things for peoples' own good.
 * I remember people making civil liberties complaints during their introduction too.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 09:27, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I second your point about all laws to some degree being coercive. I would also add that one could counter these “anti-mandates” from a more or less Kantian perspective, that is, by arguing that to be part of a society and to reap the benefits of being part of said society, one has to fulfil certain moral obligations—obligations that include following the facts of our best science. N.b. That I’m aware that what I’ve provided is a sketch of an argument and that as it stands it’s probably sophistical, but I do believe it’s plausible enough to warrant being fleshed out further, that is, If a I can be bothered. Leucippus Salva veritate 21:37, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I support the vaccine but I’m not sure about the mandate. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 11:34, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Something that's been on my mind for some time is that after the pandemic, a new group of disabled people will come into focus, those with "long covid" which often amounts to brain damage from harmed blood vessels. Vaccination greatly reduces the risk, and making such damage the fate of smaller numbers is good enough motivation for mandates, as I see it. (I also think the divide between anti-vaxxers and alternative health people and the rest of society may harden as a result of said problem, when their responsibility for such damage comes into focus.) --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 13:04, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The is also the issue that vaccines seem to help people who are already suffering from long Covid. Which would put a vaccine-denier in a somewhat difficult position if they had long covid.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:01, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Screw the pro-plague rats. One of my coworker's immunocompromised cousins has to have a heart transplant because of covid damage.  Force em to wear masks and get vaccinated.  If they try to resist, fine em 1% of their net worth for every infraction until they wise the fuck up.  MirrorIrorriM (talk) 20:07, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Force the masks and vaccines. Can’t wait until everyone in my city realizes that they are narcissists. FundiesOnTheBandwagon (talk) 20:16, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Aloysius the Gaul, regarding those who are vaxxed but are anti-mandates, in my experience most of them are also anti-vax. I'd wager at least 5% of our population would have refused the vaccine if not for the mandates. Kauri0.o (talk) 00:05, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The concept that one can disagree with someone while believing that that person should have the liberty to do so seems to be rare in modern discourse. The opening post seems to deny that such a concept can exist. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 12:47, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Could you elaborate on that? 14:17, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, I don't think health measures are an appropriate base to preach about agreeing to disagree liberty free™ discourse. 00:49, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You may have heard the quote, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." It's from Evelyn Beatrice Hall relaying Voltaire's thoughts regarding an incident where a controversial philosophy book (which he personally disapproved of) was condemned by the French parliament and burned (with Voltaire learning about this after the event). Conceptually, it's obvious that personal regard for something and the desire to bring institutional power to bear to enforce public complience with one's favored position are different things.
 * Regarding Aloysius's reasoning:
 * "the only people who are affected by the mandate are those who choose to not be vaccinated" A vaccine mandate affects everyone by establishing a precedent that the government has more say about what medical procedures people are to get than the people themselves. It's a rollback of the right of bodily integrity for everyone, even those who chose to be vaccinated before the mandates. And the precedent is in place for medical procedures that they may not want to get in the future. Keep in mind that vaccine mandates are not the extent of where this reasoning leads, and that the mRNA treatments are not technically vaccines.
 * "they are not vaccinated by their own choice (see also above about freedom to choose)" You're conflating metaphysical freedom (free will) with legal/institutional freedom (the absence of coercive policies). The controversial vaccine policies (e.g. not the ones involving free donuts) are obviously coercive. The question is whether such coercion is appropriate.
 * "to be opposed to the mandate is to support all those who refuse to be vaccinated, thus anyone opposed to the mandate is supporting the anti-vaccination "movement" This is silly reasoning. It's a "with us or against us" assertion with added definitional sloppiness. If Person A tells Person B that Person C needs to be vaccinated on pain of firing, Person B can oppose that policy without reference to what Person C or Movement D are doing. It's unclear how Person C or Movement D are even supposed to know Person B's stance on the issue per se. And Person B can in principle oppose the policy for all sorts of reasons. Perhaps Person B is a libertarian who thinks that one's medical information and decisions are not the business of one's employer, whatever those may be. Perhaps Person B thinks that they ARE the business of one's employer, and that vaccine mandates are fine in principle, but that the cost-benefit of this particular vaccine is insufficient for such a mandate. Perhaps Person B distrusts the motives of the vaccine manufacturers or distributors. Perhaps Person B normally trusts those organizations, but finds it suspicious that normal testing and product liability standards were not applied in this case. Perhaps Person B notes the existence of controversy and believes that controversial issues should not be subject to mandates.


 * "On the other hand, I don't think health measures are an appropriate base to preach about agreeing to disagree liberty free™ discourse." Are you suggesting that government policies that claim to be for the sake of public health should be unquestionable? 192․168․1․42 (talk) 13:30, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Shared Memory from ancient times
I was looking at a video game wiki made by a guy who reads religious texts for leisure and came across this. The guy himself just makes art for games that are a soup of folklore, mythology and religion but some religious groups don't like him because "demons". Probably not the demons they're thinking of though, Japan thinks western stuff is cool like weebs look at them sometimes. Basically, "So many cultures draw on the same motifs, creation, flood, hero's journey all that jazz. There must be a shared Memory. It was modified across the world to fit the culture and geography over time, but I concluded that the Old Testament is the basis for it all and that means God is the basis for all the Gods people believe in.". Do we have an article about this? I heard this claim in church when I was younger but never looked into it.--Back2theroots34 (talk) 04:02, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Can’t think of one but I am reminded of Giorgio A. Tsoukalos/Crazy Hair Alien Guy’s rationale of “ancient people must have all seen aliens, because all cultures have angels/demons/gods/whatever!” Because, you know, creativity and art couldn’t exist without aliens. Probliknaut (talk) 14:43, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The Genetic Memory article comes to mind, actually. Not the same exact idea but. Probliknaut (talk) 14:48, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * TBible borrows from Gilgamesh etc etc. And other faiths have various gods (and also goddesses).
 * Also - 'human nature tends to be the same the world over' (including a desire to make life as easy and also as interesting as possible), and will face a selection from the same actual events (floods, solar eclipses, visiting peddlers telling of new technology etc), therefore the same memes and archetypes will occur in diverse places.
 * Quatermass and the Pit makes reference to species memories (of the Martian 'locusts'). Anna Livia (talk) 19:58, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * A more modern equivalent might be EvoPsych blather. Generations ago we picked berries, therefore gender-based colour preferences. Queexchthonic murmurings 20:01, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

You know, there's pretty much no evidence that Trump has ties to Russia, except for the...
You know, there's pretty much no evidence that Trump has ties to Russia, except for the... [Flynn Thing](http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-flynn-comey-russia-timeline-2017-htmlstory.html) [Manafort Thing](http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/342509-new-book-devils-bargain-details-trump-lashing-out-at-manafort-days) [Tillerson Thing](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/07/07/tillerson-says-trump-pressed-putin-on-russian-hacking-but-the-evidence-suggests-not-so-much/?utm_term=.e0ac214bd9bc) [Sessions Thing](http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/did-trump-kushner-sessions-have-undisclosed-meeting-russian-n767096) [Kushner Thing](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jul/09/trump-russia-new-meeting-revealed-involving-donald-jr-kushner-and-manafort) [Wray Thing](http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-wray-russia-20170712-story.html) [Morgan, Lewis, & Bockius "Russian Law Firm of the Year" Thing](http://nypost.com/2017/05/12/trump-used-russia-law-firm-of-the-year-to-draft-letter-about-his-finances/) [Carter Page Thing](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-has-questioned-trump-campaign-adviser-carter-page-at-length-in-russia-probe/2017/06/26/1a271dcc-5aa5-11e7-a9f6-7c3296387341_story.html?utm_term=.24d0b138db83) [Roger Stone Thing](http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/14/roger-stone-house-testimony-postponed-240568) [Felix Sater Thing](http://www.newsweek.com/trump-russia-felix-sater-real-estate-632690) [Boris Epshteyn Thing](http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/white-house-press-officer-boris-epshteyn-investigation-russia/story?id=47731166) [Rosneft Thing](https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/06/08/trump-new-fbi-director-chris-wray-russian-ties-rosneft-gazprom-column/102603214/) [Gazprom Thing (see above)](http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/30/trumps-energy-adviser-is-personally-invested-in-gazprom/) [Sergey Gorkov banker Thing](http://www.newsweek.com/sergey-gorkov-grad-russian-banker-kushner-617422) [Azerbaijan Thing](http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/senators-ask-for-an-investigation-into-trump-dealings-in-azerbaijan) You know, there's pretty much no evidence that Trump has ties to Russia, except for the... ["I Love Putin" Thing]( http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2017/03/politics/trump-putin-russia-timeline/) [Lavrov Thing]( https://www.vox.com/world/2017/6/27/15875434/sergey-kislyak-trump-russia-return-moscow) [Sergey Kislyak Thing]( https://www.vox.com/world/2017/6/27/15875434/sergey-kislyak-trump-russia-return-moscow) [Oval Office Thing]( https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/inside-the-oval-office-with-trump-and-the-russians-broad-smiles-and-loose-lips/2017/05/16/2e8b0d14-3a66-11e7-8854-21f359183e8c_story.html) [Gingrich Kislyak Phone Calls Thing]( http://www.palmerreport.com/politics/newt-gingrich-trump-russia-meetings/3504/) [Russian Business Interest Thing]( https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/05/trump-lawyers-up-conflicts-of-interest/526185/) [Emoluments Clause Thing]( https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/dc-and-marylands-lawsuit-trump-flagrantly-violating-emoluments-clause/2017/06/12/8a9806a8-4f9b-11e7-be25-3a519335381c_story.html) [Alex Schnaider Thing]( http://theweek.com/speedreads/699538/russian-bank-directly-linked-putin-helped-finance-trump-hotel) [Hack of the DNC Thing]( http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jul/5/dnc-email-server-most-wanted-evidence-for-russia-i/) [Guccifer 2.0 Thing]( https://theintercept.com/2017/07/14/just-six-days-after-trump-jr-s-meeting-guccifer-2-0-emailed-me-but-there-was-one-key-difference/) [Mike Pence "I don't know anything" Thing](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/05/18/mike-pence-insists-he-didnt-know-flynn-under-investigation-turkey-lobbying/101831354/) [Russians Mysteriously Dying Thing](http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2017/03/31/eight-prominent-russians-dead-since-us-elections-labott-dnt-erin.cnn) [Trump's public request to Russia to hack Hillary's email Thing](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/28/us/politics/donald-trump-russia-clinton-emails.html) You know, there's pretty much no evidence that Trump has ties to Russia, except for the... [The Trump email server that regularly communicated with a IP address from Russian Alfa Bank thing](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/10/15/was-there-a-connection-between-a-russian-bank-and-the-trump-campaign) [Trump house sale for $100 million at the bottom of the housing bust to the Russian fertilizer king Thing](http://www.miamiherald.com/news/business/article135187364.html) [Russian fertilizer king's plane showing up in Concord, NC during Trump rally campaign Thing](http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article137881768.html) [Nunes sudden flight to the White House in the night Thing](http://www.businessinsider.com/nunes-white-house-grounds-trump-surveillance-2017-3) [Nunes personal investments in the Russian winery Thing](http://www.business2community.com/government-politics/devin-nunes-invested-california-wine-company-business-ties-russia-fact-check-01809651#ilwFvHKSgDxcmIOQ.97) [The create a joint cyber defense agreement with Russia Thing](https://techcrunch.com/2018/07/16/trump-putin-joint-cybersecurity-group/) [Cyprus bank Thing](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/mar/23/wilbur-ross-russian-deal-bank-of-cyprus-donald-trump-commerce-secretary) [Trump not Releasing his Tax Returns Thing](http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/18/politics/trump-taxes-tax-returns/index.html) [The Republican Party's rejection of an amendment to require Trump to show his taxes thing]( http://thehill.com/policy/finance/326220-republicans-vote-to-block-resolutions-on-trumps-tax-returns) [Election Hacking Thing]( http://time.com/4828306/russian-hacking-election-widespread-private-data/) [GOP platform change to the Ukraine Thing](http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/jd-gordon-change-story-gop-platform-ukraine-amendment) [Steele Dossier Thing](http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jul/16/donald-trump-jrs-meeting-with-russians-undermines-/) [Sally Yates Can't Testify Thing](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-administration-sought-to-block-sally-yates-from-testifying-to-congress-on-russia/2017/03/28/82b73e18-13b4-11e7-9e4f-09aa75d3ec57_story.html) [Intelligence Community's Investigative Reports Thing](http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/01/read-us-intelligence-report-russian-hacking-2016-campaign/) You know, there's pretty much no evidence that Trump has ties to Russia, except for the... [Trump reassurance that the Russian connection is all "fake news" Thing](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/7/11/15953640/donald-trump-twitter-mocked-russia-collusion) [Chaffetz not willing to start an Investigation Thing](http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/04/why-is-jason-chaffetz-resigning) [Chaffetz suddenly deciding to go back to private life in the middle of an investigation Thing](http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/04/why-is-jason-chaffetz-resigning) [Appointment of Pam Bondi who was bribed by Trump in the Trump University scandal appointed to head the investigation Thing](http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/report-florida-ethics-panel-clears-pam-bondi-over-trump-contribution/article/2620970) [The White House going into cover-up mode, refusing to turn over the documents related to the hiring and firing of Flynn Thing](http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/330410-white-house-rejects-oversight-request-for-flynn-documents) [Chaffetz and White House blaming the poor vetting of Flynn on Obama Thing](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/05/trump-flynn/525816/) [Poland and British intelligence gave information regarding the hacking back in 2015 to Paul Ryan and he didn't do anything Thing](http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/intelligence/328718-uk-spies-first-saw-trump-russia-ties-report) [Agent M16 following the money thing](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/richard-dearlove-mi6-trump-russia-money-2008-financial-crisis-us-election-a7684341.html) [Trump team KNEW about Flynn's involvement but hired him anyway Thing](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/05/17/report-trump-team-knew-flynn-being-investigated/101816334/) [Let's Fire Comey Thing](http://www.npr.org/2017/05/10/527744909/suspicious-timing-and-convenient-reasoning-for-trumps-firing-of-comey) [Election night Russian trademark gifts Things](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/18/us/politics/russia-trump-trademarks.html) [Russian diplomatic compound electronic equipment destruction Thing](http://www.cbsnews.com/news/russians-destroyed-and-removed-material-from-shuttered-compounds-officials-say/) You know, there's pretty much no evidence that Trump has ties to Russia, except for the... Cardinal Chang (talk) 17:41, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * PART 1**
 * PART 2**
 * PART 3**
 * PART 4**
 * You see, that's all mainstream media sources. Only one Daily Caller link? GIT OUTTA HERE. seriously don't use daily caller 00:34, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * There's a Washington Times link in there, too. Vomitorium (talk) 15:56, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Heh, two FAR-RIGHT links. At least THIS guy KNOWS how to NOT be part of the LAMESTREAM MEDIA. 19:06, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * that's great, "lamestream media" very good. Sorry, busy weekend, meant to add context to this list. Basically Trump saying misguided shite like this https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-calls-putin-genius-ukraine-invasion-1311025/, and his wailing banshee like acolytes who think he could do no wrong and that Trump wouldn't have allowed Putin to invade the Ukraine, even though Trump dismantled any support for the Ukraine thus enabling Putin to encroach and eventually invade, a tactic Russia used in the middle east, needed putting into context. That context being, that Trump was clearly either helping Russia or enthralled with Putin. And when you also look at his tacit approval during his term for, quite frankly murdering bastards suffering from small man syndrome, well there should be no pride in supporting such a crook. Cardinal Chang (talk) 14:58, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Then again, there is now the narrative on certain 'news channels, ahem' that Putin's invasion of the Ukraine is a distraction for the benefit of Biden, you think that maybe thermo-nuclear war isn't such a bad alternative. Cardinal Chang (talk) 14:58, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Mod Elections
Questions: Is this a democratic website? If so then how do the elections take place? When do the elections take place? What special powers does a moderator have? Who is the current mod? Are there any other special positions that exist? &mdash; Unsigned, by: Interstellar / talk / contribs
 * I was under the impression this was a goat-driven theocracy. Probliknaut (talk) 17:12, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Nonsense! This is a fascist communist liberal feminist satanist goat-driven theocracy! 17:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Well then, I hail the Supreme leader of this cult. Now can someone answer the other questions? &mdash; Unsigned, by: Interstellar / talk / contribs
 * Hersey! The supreme leader is the almighty Goat. 18:19, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * We're more of an irrational authoritarian dictatorship than Conservapedia, Encyclopedia Dramatica, and Metapedia combined. 19:04, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "I thought we were an autonomous collective." Queexchthonic murmurings 20:01, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You're all fooling yourselves. It's the sheep that really run everything. I fully susbscribe to the EWO (Ewe World Order) theory. Kencolt (talk) 23:53, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I thought we were part of the New World Order planning to make everyone gay. --Non-Binary EAS Creator (talk) 22:49, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Welcome! Ignore the above. I'm actually the king round these parts. My word is law here, so snap to. If you see people not listening to me, pay it no mind. It's just part of a long-term practical joke that's being played on me. Buck (talk) 05:34, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

So basically this site has been founded by Osho. Because the people are re......
 * Hey now, I am not an ellipses. If anything I am an Oxford comma; superfluous. In all seriousness, here’s a tidbit: About Mods. I’ve not been around long enough to have paid much attention to it, but mods are elected and there was an election last year. Probliknaut (talk) 16:14, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Is there a name for this fallacy? Party A demonizes Party B by hypocritically accusing THEM of being the "bad guy"
Was reading a news story about the ongoing Ukraine situation, describing Russia's disinformation and propaganda efforts. This story stated that Russian media was labeling the original Ukrainian government as a "dictatorship" to justify the invasion.

This might be similar to a common criticism of the Falun Gong I've heard: "They're basically a terrorist group! Shut 'em down!" Johnny Shiz (talk) 23:48, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I would call it an example of a big lie propaganda tactic (a form of argument by assertion, as the RW article notes). PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 00:07, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It is a lie, probably most like projection in psychology.Ariel31459 (talk) 01:16, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This is not a fallacy, per se. It's a combination of demonization and psychological projection. Bongolian (talk) 07:55, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * sounds like a question of perspective to me. why would party a be hypocritical accusing party b of being the bad guy? do they have a goatee and have a villainous laugh?


 * and presumably in the real world there would be generally evidence of varying worth in support of any accusation. hitler staged a polish attack to justify invading poland. russia accusing ukraine of bad things is justification for invading ukraine. its not a fallacy its a mask of legitimacy. it gives an excuse to other nations to not go to war, everyone can pretend naked lands grabs a really defensive and so no need to honour any promises of coming to the defence of invaded allies - they were clearly asking for it. it also helps to keep your own public onside, even when there is no trace of democracy to have to worry about public opinion and your troops probably will sleep better if they believe the orphanage they just shelled was a necessary evil for the greater good and not because your boss is involved in a pissing contest with nato.


 * it makes little difference if the accusation is 'hypocritical' any way, particularly if a country is accusing another of being a dictatorship. every country on earth is a democracy - just ask north korea. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:15, 1 March 2022 (UTC)