Information icon.svg Nominations and Campaigning for the 2022 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now closed.

The election booth is now open!

RationalWiki:Saloon bar

From RationalWiki
(Redirected from BAR)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Saloon bar
WIGO Bar colour.png

Welcome, BoN
This is a place for general chit-chat about virtually anything that doesn't fit anywhere else.
Guinnesssmiley.gif For previous conversations, see the automagic barchives.Laughing.gif Puke.gif

What is going on?

(talk) (talk) (talk) (talk) (hic)

Pointless poll

"This is a lie." Is this a lie?

Yes

0

Vote

No

11

Vote

Is this how you honor the Sixth House and the Tribe Unmourned?

Yes

0

Vote

No

1

Vote

To this place where destiny is made, why have you come unprepared?

16

Vote

Are we the baddies?

Yes

12

Vote

No

6

Vote

Shut up

19

Vote

Is this argument logically valid? All Asteroids are flying through space. Some things flying through space are hot. Therefore, some asteroids are hot.

It's valid, duh.

7

Vote

It's invalid, duh.

34

Vote

Logically valid or invalid? All Reindeers have Hooves. All Reindeers have no Hooves. There exists Reindeers. Therefore, Pigs can Fly

It's valid, duh

14

Vote

It's invalid, duh

26

Vote

Is this argument logically valid? All those who deserve the fair are brave. Some braggarts are not brave. Therefore, some braggarts do not deserve the fair

It's valid, duh.

49

Vote

It's invalid, duh.

11

Vote

What are your thoughts on space colonization?

We should colonize anything we wish, even planets that have intelligent life.

11

Vote

We should colonize anything we wish, but not planets that have intelligent life.

29

Vote

We should only colonize places that do not have any pre-existing life.

41

Vote

No colonization at all. We are born on Earth, we live on Earth, and we die on Earth.

9

Vote

Other

7

Vote

To do list

On Chinese Communist Party supporters, Russia supporters, "Anti-imperialists", self-described "Tankies"...[edit]

I have interacted with these people in the past, and from my experience, anybody who supports the ideology, actions, and policy of the "Communist" Party of China (that is, its state-capitalist police state and effective imperialism in poorer countries), the "special military operation" by the Russian Federation in Ukraine, and thinks that the unrest and otherwise economic problems in, for instance, Iran or Hong Kong are just "Western state-department propaganda" and "color revolutions", but still calls themselves a Marxist are nothing but total liars who know nothing about Marxism.

I understand most of you are not Marxists, nor even socialists, but I must still insist that these people, these "Anti-imperialists" (that is, people who support Russian and Chinese imperialism but think it's "Anti-imperialist" simply because it goes against the United States) are in no way representative of what Marxism, or for that matter even socialism, even are. "Anti-imperialist" and pro-Chinese Communist Party propaganda outlets such as the Greyzone, Friends of Socialist China, Multipolarista, etc. are not Marxists nor socialists, they are, at the most, social democrats, and otherwise just pro-capitalist Chinese nationalists and chauvinists who are perfectly willing to have Chinese and Russian billionaires brutally exploit less developed countries so long as it's not an American or European billionaire doing it.

China is a capitalist state, anybody who claims to a Marxist but says otherwise is almost certainly not a Marxist, or is greatly misinformed. Real Marxists wish to create a free, equal, and non-exploitative society, however, pro-CPP "Marxists" have no care for socialism, they have no care for the liberation of humanity, or for the removal of exploitation. Rather, they seek to destroy Marxism entirely in order to validate their fanatical devotion to the capitalist and nearly-fascist policies of the "People's" Republic of China.

If you seek to educate yourself on what Marxists believe, do not follow the words of "Dengists" (pro-CPP "Communists"), these people will do nothing but promote Chinese state-capitalism and chauvinism under the banner of "Marxist education". Wisconcom (talk) 05:55, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Weird, you just made a post I completely agree with. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 07:51, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
" Real Marxists wish to create a free, equal, and non-exploitative society" the one tenet that is repeatedly overlooked. I love Alexei Sayle's line, "Marxists want to create a peaceful utopia, full of love and will kill you to get it." Cardinal Chang (talk) 10:50, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
I've got to say that I'm impressed that you guys understood what he was going on about - or who, on this wiki - he is arguing against.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 13:54, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Call it a quirk of the youth. We're a lot more political (in all aspects) than our parents were. Vee (talk) 14:01, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
I'm guessing the "we" you refer to is some group you identify with in the US? If so, that's good. Improving the US's historically poor voting participation record can only be good for everyone.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:36, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
If you knew my alleged parents, that's not hard... also depends how old your parents are. But it cannot be denied; we are in an acutely political age. The 'twilight of the Boomer era' is upon us, and like those heavy credenzas, encyclopaedia sets and 'keepsakes' by the metric tonne they try to fob us off with, there's a huge amount of junk we wish to take to the dustbin of history. Naturally, we need to have a discussion about that. KarmaPolice (talk) 15:01, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Meh, I only agree with the first 2 paragraphs. China isn't Capitalist, but it also isn't not-Capitalist. As for Marxism, every large-scale Marxist experiment has failed horrifically, it's time to admit Marxism is not workable, even if some sort of Socialism-Lite would be superior to current systems. Corona (covfefe) 17:09, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Heavily disagree. A nation with billionaires, corporations, and wage labor is by definition capitalist. Vee (talk) 17:10, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
As I said, it is and it isn't. It's closer to Fascism than anything else, considering that Fascist countries also had those things. Corona (covfefe) 17:15, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
I know you'd prolly disagree with this but I'm reminded of the old maxim that "fascism is capitalism in crisis" with this post of yours. Vee (talk) 17:24, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
(EC) I personally see China as a capitalistic country, with both the good and bad parts of it. Of course, it still has a huge public sector, but I don't think it is as preponderant as it used to be. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 17:16, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
"Capitalism" is also not a binary. In the sense that "more private ownership" = "more capitalistic", well, if you live in a society where the government can seize your property without due process or fair recompse you dont own said property in the first place. Likewise, the more control the government has in how you run your business, and the higher percentage of the profits they take, the less you actual own it. CorSock (talk) 18:41, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Hence the term "state capitalism." Vee (talk) 18:58, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
"State capitalism" is a vague concept, and again, also not a binary. It could have a useful meaning if it was pinned down, e.g., where the government is manufacturing Private Goods that you would otherwise buy in a market. Egypt would probably be the best example, considering that their "military" manufactures refrigerators and televisions. KSA's government effectively owns the oil fields, but to a lesser extent, Alaska does too. Most states have a lotto, which is gambling but by the state. PA in particular has state-owned liquor stores. Etc.Corona (covfefe) 20:06, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Considering that some definitions of "state capitalism" include Marxist-Leninist states, I concede the point. I still think China is capitalist (corporatist?). Vee (talk) 20:34, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@Vee Corporatist is a correct way to describe the Chinese economy. Most major economic sectors are under the control of maga-corporations, and workers are organized into these corporate groupings, with little workplace democracy, and not even any real unions or other representative bodies. Further, any attempt at the large-scale building of movements to represent the interests of the workers is often suppressed by the Chinese government, with the excuse of "needing to build the productive forces" or "working towards national revival of the Chinese nation".Wisconcom (talk) 03:41, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
I think China is too large of a country to be described with simple labels. There are international mega-corps that have taken advantage of the unending masses of unskilled labor, so it is very much akin to the late 19th century industrialization of the West and is "capitalist" in that sense. China has gleefully catered to the corps because 1) it brings in a bit of money for the overlords to spend, 2) it keeps the lessers too busy to revolt while also providing them more wealth than the state could provide, 3) it gives China more leverage in international affairs, 4) it enables the country to support a growing skilled labor class to perform more complex tasks, and circling back to what I said earlier, 5) the international mega-corps can pretend to own those factories, but the moment that China goes to war with the US the only trade deficits those factories will be contributing to is the bullet-trade. Corona (covfefe) 21:15, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Is Cory violating the law of non-contradiction and the law of the excluded middle again? - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 23:02, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
there's a y in the day. So of course he is. Cardinal Chang (talk) 23:47, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
New evidence on how inequality in China is skyrocketing. I'd say that the most compelling argument that China is a socialist nation is the fact that the government does a lot of stuff there, which is... not a very good argument at all IMHO. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 18:35, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
Self-described Tankie and vague enjoyer of the CCP here. There was a time when I'd describe China as "not socialist", and using certain definitions I think that is still true, but I'm not sure how useful some of those definitions are. The Chinese government very much recognises the role of the bourgeois as a productive class - it's represented by one of the stars on its flag. The crucial thing, as others have noted, is that although corporations have been invited in to share technology, upskill workers etc, they have been directed and controlled in a way that many thought was de facto impossible. I have huge moral problems with the death penalty as a punitive sentence but the fact that the Chinese government can and will execute a billionaire who embezzles money and bribes officials tells you a lot about who runs the show.
Finally I must remark on OP urging people not to listen, read or consider the views of Dengists on Marxism. This comes across to me not as arrogant but more... insecure.
Get ready, it's... (talk) 20:22, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Tikitime The bourgeoisie is not a "productive class"; there is no sound reason, particularly from somebody such as yourself who claims to be a Marxist, why the bourgeoisie should exist. Dengists use extremely vague wording rather than directing their views on facts, saying billionaires are "controlled" without any further context.

I must confess that I find discourse with Dengists to be unproductive and even at times obnoxious, therefore, I suggest you read this excellent article by an Anti-revisionist collective known as Red Spectre which refutes Dengist arguments. Thank you. Wisconcom (talk) 23:21, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

The key problem being, naturally being the very definition of 'bourgeoisie'. Marx himself used two subdivisions – the 'functional' and 'rentier' – the former being the ones which actively ran their concerns and the latter being the 'idle rich' type. The first type fills a role any economically advanced nation needs doing – that of directing the allocations of output and input. Therefore, it could be argued that the 'bourgeoisie are necessary'. This is why later thinkers (Marxist or not) have come up with new definitions ('the New Class', the professional/managerial stratum' etc) to highlight the situation of persons performing classically 'bourgeoisie' tasks without actually owning the things they manage (an issue more important than ever, due to the fact that most capital is now controlled by institutions, not individuals).
Which leads to the 'Chinese capitalists are controlled' point. Here, I'll argue that the Chinese model is simply a logical progression of the Soviet model which showed that the question of ownership of 'the means of production' was relatively trivial compared to the question of the control of it. This system is an interesting development of capitalism. In fact, I'd call it 'neo-feudalism'.
One of the major planks of the 'bourgeois revolution' was to codify the holding of private property as sacrosanct. Basically; if you owned it, you could to what the hell you liked with it. Now, Western capitalism accepted there were situations where said 'rights' had to be violated, but even then they would write rules (eminent domain etc) regarding what, when and how it was done.
Not so in China. Private property is not sacrosanct; it can and is re-assigned in the name of the Red Emperor in a similar manner medieval European kings confiscated lands off rebellious nobles, stripped or granted titles at whim or ordered merchant guilds to perform tasks 'for the glory of King and Country'. Capitalists (foreign and domestic) may enjoy the fruits of ownership, but it's not absolute – it's more akin to having them merely having leaseholds on it. Terms of which may be changed or simply revoked by the Emperor if and when they see fit.
KarmaPolice (talk) 17:56, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Latest pointless poll[edit]

This new poll kind of ignores the fact that global politics is nuanced and not a zero-sum game. Look at Iraq. The removal of Saddam from power led to a domino effect that destabilized the region and led to the rise of DAESH and the deaths of hundreds of thousands. The world does not need a policeman, it needs an EMT. Vee (talk) 19:40, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm more concerned that whoever created the Pres Election poll didn't include the 1960 election between Kennedy and Nixon. Illinois did NOT go to Kennedy, though ultimately it wouldn't have mattered as Kennedy would still have squeaked by thanks to Texas being rigged as well... Corona (covfefe) 19:45, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
If we are actually consistent about this idea we would support the invasion of places like Canada, Israel, France, the US, Australia, etc. I would argue that immigration detainment camps, residential schools, cultural genocide of native populations, ethnic displacement, etc. All constitute examples of crimes against humanity. But lets be honest here who ever wrote that question carried the implicature of when brown people do it given recent defenses of the invasion of Iraq in some of the threads above. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 01:35, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
I disagree flat out with the idea that the US has an obligation to intervene militarily to stop human rights abuses. We should do sanctions, but we don't owe anyone military intervention. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 02:58, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
The situation in Afghanistan is getting worse with all manner of human rights abuses. Clearly the west needs to re-invade - seeing as that worked out so well last time.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 09:34, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
I feel like there's a world of difference between an immigrant detention camp and a detention camp for your own citizens. Corona (covfefe) 15:45, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
The implication here being that some people are "lesser" because of their status on a slip of paper. I disagree, caging people up in camps because they're from "over there" is just as despicable as caging people up in camps because they're some other kind of arbitrary "lesser". Dehumanization and all that entails still applies equally in both cases. Vee (talk) 15:55, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
The idea of a country being invaded for detaining illegal immigrants is absurd, even under the worst conditions the US has to offer. War is a horrible thing and people need to stop talking about starting them like it’s some kind of game. Besides, the US has a right to police it’s own border. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 20:36, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
I'm honestly not sure if the people voting in favour of military interventions is ironic or by trolls. I find it difficult to beleve that we have so many users in favour of killing people they disagree with.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:13, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
People have short memories. They’ll retroactively oppose past intervention, be agnostic about the idea in abstract, and support intervention as it happens. It seems we couldn’t even manage the agnosticism.
I wonder how people’s opinions on Ukraine will change in the coming years. Christopher (talk) 18:49, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
Whether or not it's the moral decision, every country has the right to deny people entry. Corona (covfefe) 20:00, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
I object to the idea that a country has an obligation to sacrifice the lives of its citizens to invade another country to stop human rights violations. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 20:32, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
Well, it's not just allied soldiers. In point of fact, far more of the civilians who "we" are attempting to protect are likely to end up dead than either western soldiers or whoever the enemy might be. Check out the figures for Afghanistan. It's madness.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 20:50, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

The international community has an obligation to intervene in cases of genocide and crimes against humanity under international law. Whether we agree with it is neither here nor there. The question was not asking our opinion. Iraq is a bad example, since it was not carried out by the international community and was not a direct response to crimes against humanity. Libya is a better example.2001:4530:2:201:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFC2 (talk) 20:57, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

@2001:4530:2:201:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFC2So China currenty has one million Uighurs in detention and reeducation camps. You say the international community "has an obligation to intervene". I'm not sure who you mean by the "International community". Do you really mean the whole world? Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Afghanistan, The Solomon Islands and everyone else? Or do you just mean western democracies? And what do you mean by "obligation"? There is certainly no law which says that France (or whoever) needs to act in such a case. Or do you mean "moral obligation". But that would mean a moral obligation to kill masses of Chinese civilians in whatever attack was carried out. Which would hardly make sense. You really need to think through your position.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 07:25, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
Yeah we should’ve stayed out of Libya too. We didn’t owe them a damn thing. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 21:32, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
Libya is still a mess, afaik. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 09:28, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

@CorruptUserBeing a citizen of a nation state isn’t a morally relevant distinction. Many indigenous people of the americas who were slaughtered weren’t members of the nation states the settlers who slaughtered them were subject to. Not all the Jewish people sent to concentration camps were German citizens. Chattel slaves weren’t classified as full citizens of the United States, but instead as property. I don’t think people would say that would have made slavery less unethical compared to prison labour today because prison labour is done to legally recognized citizens. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 23:27, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are trying to argue here. My point is that countries have the right to deny entry to would-be migrants. There's a world of difference between "we should invade X to stop a genocide" and "we should invade X to force them to accept more immigrants". Corona (covfefe) 00:39, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
Right-to-deny and forcibly house in detainment camps so that six year old's are separated from their parents, sleeping in cages, and forced to change the diapers of their infant sibling is not exactly the same thing. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 00:48, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
Sure, but a country abusing migrants wouldn't justify starting a war, which is what your original comment implied. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 19:02, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
Technically speaking nothing actually concretely justifies starting a war as an objective standard, but also no. I stated "immigration detainment camps" not "abusing migrants". If a border patrol officer spits on a migrant that constitutes abuse and is not at all included in my list of inhumane acts. You can't just take a narrow member of a set and assume it implies the entire set. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 03:27, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
It should also be stated that by definition camps used to hold prisoners or for detainment without judicial review are by definition concentration camps according to the Holocaust Encyclopedia. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 05:01, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
If the migrants are awaiting processing via immigration services or judicial hearings, then by that logic they are not concentration camps. Unless, obviously, the "judicial review" is scheduled for next century. Corona (covfefe) 06:47, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
Okay, even if I bought the concentration camp false equivalence that still wouldn't justify military intervention. This has gone right past discussing the poll into just being hysterical. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 07:19, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
That still doesn't change the human rights violations being committed in those camps. Which, if we're being consistent, are so gross that while no one here is advocating for war, if we were to apply "humanitarian intervention" logic seriously, would be grounds for intervention. The "right to police our border" is a red herring when it comes to crimes against humanity. Vee (talk) 10:26, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
I'm curious. If a country wants a no-immigration policy, what tactics do you think should be allowed? CorSock (talk) 14:23, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
I don't know what you're trying to imply, but many of those seeking to immigrate here are asylum seekers. Asylum seeking is legal under both US and international law. What we were doing at the border counts as a violation of international and domestic law. It also counts as a violation of both the political and human rights of the asylum seekers. Vee (talk) 15:22, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Sorry, I'm not a lawyer. Which international law requires a country to accept all asylum seekers? CorSock (talk) 18:11, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Asylum is an international right, as demonstrated here. It is also a domestic right, as demonstrated here. The US is violating international and domestic law wrt the migrant situation. And as I've said before (which you keep ignoring), the US is engaging in crimes against humanity at the border. The fact that you've been equivocating on this is still disturbing. How can you justify locking kids in cages, separating them from their parents, and forcing six year olds to change the diapers of their infant siblings? I also didn't say that "countries are legally required to accept all asylum seekers." That's a dishonest strawman of what I actually said. Vee (talk) 18:17, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
I feel like an anchoring bias has taken hold with all this attention to immigration centers. Ignoring the periods of time when the US and/or Canada have been partaking in genocide in some form or another. In Canada's case as recently as 1996. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 02:46, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
Agreed, whether or not detention centers are crimes against humanity, they don't nearly rise to the level of genocide, nor are worth going to war to stop. Corona (covfefe) 17:36, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
Camps replete with systemic sexual assault, tearing families apart, using weapons banned in war on toddlers at "the border", the removal of kids from border patrol custody due to "severe neglect and inhumane conditions... Yeah, "they don't nearly rise to the level of genocide..." Our government is still acting like Saddam's. Let's not forget that asylum seeking is perfectly legal, meaning the government is violating the law at the border. If this isn't a valid casus belli for war, then whatever Saddam did in Iraq wasn't either. Vee (talk) 19:19, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
"Whatever Saddam did"... He murdered 5,000 Kurds with a gas attack and later killed 12,000 more. Please don't minimize atrocities. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 02:28, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
You don't have to read Chomsky to know that the US has induced death-tolls within the thousands themselves in the Middle East by bombing pharmaceutical factories and the like. This just goes back around...if we were being consistent about our responses to atrocities, either the US has been morally permissible as a target for intervention or wars like those in Iraq weren't justifiable. Of the people here who do support foreign intervention I don't see the grounds for distinction. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 06:30, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

What happened to Alt-Right?[edit]

I Have not have heared of these guys since 2017 what happened to them? Edward the eight (Talk) 24 November 2022 16:09 (UTC)

Didn't they all buy MAGA hats, join QAnon and get sick with Covid19? But, I'm not from the US, so what do I know?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:16, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
I thought they just mingled with the crazier types of trump supporters so much as to make it no longer worth distinguishing them.-Flandres (talk) 16:33, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
Now I think about I guess it's like the Tea Party movement - an example of endless right-wing American political squirming which the rest of the world looks at with surprise and distaste.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:09, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
The alt-right was fairly amorphous, not a single group. The Unite the Right rally in 2017 identified the key people and groups making up the alt-right, but at that time the Proud Boys were still under the leadership of cosplay Nazi Gavin McInnes and he told PBs to stay away from the rally. Since that time, PBs have gone full alt-right under the leadership of Enrique Tarrio, joining the 2021 U.S. coup attempt. PBs are still quite active in anti-LGBTQ activities and are still promoting violence.[1] Bongolian (talk) 18:07, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
A lot what was labeled "alt-right" were edgelord trolls at heart that flared up around the Gamergate shitshow (I'm thinking about your Baked Alaska / Milo Yiannopoulos types), and these types seem to be ephemeral, as edgelord audiences tire of one talking head and move to the next one. Other alt-right labeled figures, like Steve Bannon, got involved in the Trump administration, and the Trump administration was enough of a shitshow of losing that even a few of the edgelord types noticed. As Flandres mentioned, I agree that MAGA and QAnon absorbed the rest.
That being said, the white nationalism that was the core behind the movement certainly still exists. In some ways, it's more visible than ever and no longer that "alt", due to prominent television hosts like Tucker Carlson and several prominent politicians (Paul Gosar, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lauren Boebert) embracing elements of such. (The good news, however, a lot of people seem more pissed off at these types than ever, as demonstrated by Boebert barely winning her very conservative district in the 2022 election and the general "anti-Trump" effect seen in the last two.) BobJohnson (talk) 18:25, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
Maybe they just grew up? You know, most of them were just a bunch of angry teens. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 18:29, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
Not all of them, but for the true white nationalist types, I do think the violent events linked to "alt-right" labeled figureheads and locations (the in retrospect ironically named Unite the Right rally, the terrorism linked to 8chan, and the 2021 U.S. Capitol riot) has helped diminish (but not extinguished) some of the more militant side of the movement. BobJohnson (talk) 18:50, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
Like many of these things, I think there's a myriad of answers and for consideration for the collection I'll offer the opinion is that some of them have simply dropped off the radar of the Big Public and others were booted off it. The early-mid teens was the true 'Wild West' era of social media, and the 'alties' loved that (along with the shills, scamsters and Russian trolls). However, the double whammy in '16 of Trump's election and Brexit made 'Them' wake up to the shitshow social media was becoming and started to attempt to clean it up - and the obvious shitheads were naturally, the 'low hanging fruit' in that job. I was looking at a (partial) list of 'Banned Subreddits' recently, and I did notice that most of the altie ones perished between '17 and '19.
Thus, a lot of them ended up decamping into Parler, Gab and later on private WhatsApps, Telegram and Discords. In their bell-jar, locked in the constant circlejerk and out of the general view of the average person. Unless you're gonna ban these folks from the internet in general, this is perhaps the best realistic solution we have right now; that while you can find them if you really so desire, you're generally not going to encounter them in the main zones of the ol' superweb. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:02, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
Reddit did a substantial purge of the nastier hard-right subs in 2019 (and some earlier). "Anudda Shoah" as the alt-right calls it. Reddit is substantially better now on racial things, though there are still some major pockets of anti-trans sentiment particularly. Probably the nastiest remaining sub, which survived afaik because it plays a little coyer than most and because it's large and popular (thus profitable for engagement) is Political Compass Memes. Really nasty sub, and appeals to really young readers, so that sub is substantially responsible for so many Redditors knowing what "13/50" means off the top of their heads, and many other "redpill" talking points like that. It has a massive following of angry tweens, so anyone criticizing PCM on Reddit tends to get an outpouring of nasty DMs, false reports to get your account flagged by the Admins, things like that. Those kiddies are extremely emotional about protecting their little rats' nest. But overall the site is substantially better than it used to be before leadership cleaned house. TapTheForwardAssist (talk) 01:22, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
They're still around. They're still in need of a punch to the face. They just occupy other web spaces that you don't haunt. Although Milo now sells religious icons, I shit you not. Cardinal Chang (talk) 08:42, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Some of the alt-right will be back on Twitter. Elon Musk says Twitter will provide 'amnesty' to some suspended accounts starting next week. Werter20 (talk) 15:18, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

The question is whether anyone other than the hardcore fanpersons will care. There's an extremely crowded landscape of has-been political pundits and organizations, all vying for relevancy, certainly still with some followers, but past their prime peak. On the "right", consider 2000s giants like Glenn Beck or websites like WND, Drudge Report and Free Republic. None of these has disappeared but it's clear that all of them are not prime time anymore.
These days, there are newer faces in the crowd. Probably the space occupied by folks like Joe Rogan and Jordan Peterson, which is not as explicitly identity-political and more nebulous, is the most popular area on the "right-ish" side these days. For the explicitly conservative populist conservative pundits, Tucker is inexplicably popular at the moment, as is Ben Shapiro (who was associated with the alt-right rag Breitbart but is fiercely against the alt-right these days for some reason). Where will the Gamergate edgelords fit in? That was nearly a decade ago. No one cares anymore, it's 2022, and the hip new game in town is the Ron DeSantis drinking game (drink every time he says "woke" in a speech). Sure, Steve Bannon has a podcast too, but I think even a has-been like Beck's podcast is more popular. That's "entertainment" for you. Some pundits gets their "fifteen minutes of fame", and usually that's it.
I don't think Twitter content moderation policy matters much as conservatives like to hype unless you are one of those types that is as stupidly obstinate as Peterson. I actually don't think either Carlson or Shapiro have ever been suspended from Twitter. BobJohnson (talk) 19:00, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

They didn't go anywhere they just re-branded. -Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 02:50, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

'A pickpocket does not go to the races with 'Pickpocket' pinned to his lapel' - George Orwell
'Alt-right' as a term only had value while the majority of the Big Public were either unaware or confused regarding it's true definition. Thus, between '17 and '19 people grew wise to the truth and thus, the disguise became debased in value to the point it became a negative as 'alties' were increasingly shoved outside the political Overton Window. It's a classic example of the 'euphemism treadmill'.
I also offer the fact that 'the movement' never got a true Fuhrer in either the USA or UK. The nearest it got was Trump, and he was neither that charismatic or that organised/driven to actually take the alties and forge them into 'his' movement. This was needed, because while there was enough 'elements' to make a large-scale fascist-y movement in both nations, it needed a central figure of ability to take the various little groups, bridge the ideological issues between them (example; views on 'the Jews') and forge them into a large movement.
Thus, without the central figure... the bits floated about together for a little bit, then dissipated when the heat of the moment was lost. KarmaPolice (talk) 10:40, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
Trump also came up short as fuhrer for that crowd because many alt-righters were disillusioned by his ties to Judaism and Israel, much of which was just his pandering to the Evangelicals. So I've seen them complain about his Jewish converted daughter and her husband, moving the embassy to Jerusalem, continuing US financial support for Israel, etc. So that left a bad taste in their mouths. Many of them also found his racial discrimination policies to be insufficient, and outweighed by his nominal/notional outreach to the Black and Hispanic communities. You'd still see some even pretty hardcore white nationalists argue "he's still a step in the right direction" or "lesser of evils," but he didn't totally captivate them while in office, and it's my vague impression that his fading star has faded particularly fast with white nationalists since he left office. TapTheForwardAssist (talk) 01:26, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
I also suspect the various stripes of fascist were/are disheartened by the Orange One's simple incompetence, laziness and cowardice. They wanted a 'man of vision' like Mussolini or 'a destiny-maker' like Hitler. Instead, they got a septuagenarian Goring without the Fat One's intelligence or wit. KarmaPolice (talk) 11:28, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Christmas season is upon us....[edit]

(video removed)-- Andrew5 (talk) 22:05, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

The War on Christmas is also upon us. Bongolian (talk) 17:50, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
How DARE you say “Christmas” in this woke SJW safe space??! Guards, take this cis male conservative scum to the work camps!!! Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 18:03, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
Comrade Obamski will be very pleased with this new addition. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 18:31, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
Yes, Dennis Prager will be b*tching about this like every year. Man, how long has this "war" been going on?? Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 18:31, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
Some glorious Youtube poops have been made out of it though. Vee (talk) 18:35, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
Aren't embeds frowned upon? Vee (talk) 18:29, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
I ain't frownin' Servasym (Talk / Contribs) 20:12, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
Excessive video embeds (more that 4 at a time) in the Saloon are frowned upon because they have slowed server response time. Excessive embeds are to be removed on sight. Bongolian (talk) 20:29, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
Thankfully this is the only embed in the Saloon at this time. :) Andrew5 (talk) 23:33, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Do any of you Yanks actually watch the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade on TV and enjoy it? I watched it live on YouTube one year and was very disappointed to find out it was just a 3-hour long commercial. I looked online for criticism of it but couldn't find much. I found one essay that criticized it for just being an extended commercial break. It also said the reason it's still a beloved holiday tradition and there isn't more criticism of it is because most Americans don't really watch it. They have it on in the background while they're cooking, playing with their cousins etc. and don't pay much attention to it. Spud (talk) 03:00, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah really by its whole nature and concept it's promotional so it's not really a big deal lmfao Servasym (Talk / Contribs) 06:02, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
I think it comes under the category of being 'a tradition because lazy journalists simply read out the PR guff that says it is and it's survived long enough for people not to really question it'. I mean, here in the UK the accursed 'John Lewis Advert' has been termed a Christmas tradition even though it only been going since 2007. Anyway, I have a pet theory about shite like the Thanksgiving Parade, if anyone's interested.
I suspect parades, like awards ceremonies and 'live from' special occasion yawn-fests are relatively cheap ways to fill some TV hours as well as perhaps ticking some 'public service' commitment to boot. The programmers know the folks watching TV at that time, on that channel are either the ones who a) really like parades, b) have zero things better to do or c) are stuck in a location their viewing is not by choice. It's similar to the '3PM Weekday Made-for-TV film with one actor you may have seen in something good once' situation - they assume if you've got anything better to do/be, you would be. KarmaPolice (talk) 11:39, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
"Angels we have heard on high / Tell us to go out and – buy!"
Most parades I think fall in a spectrum somewhere between "town stuff" (bring out the local high school football bands and have the town mayor wave to the crowd, with excuses for the parade ranging from holidays to sports stuff); "military shit" and other wave-the-flag army-troop-parading stuff; and "it's party time!" (carnival / Fat Tuesday parades and others of that sort). Sometimes political too, whether it be marches to cults of personalities or (more preferably IMHO) the bawdy satirical floats found in New Orleans and Düsseldorf.
Macy's is more or less a special type of American usually local town type parade, the Christmas parade, which always ends with the Santa Claus, is often sponsored by a department store of some sort, and I think usually is aimed at the kiddies (so the parents can spend more money on gifts at the department store, of course). Of course, somehow Macy's became a national television spectacle, so it has little charm or local flare. That being said, from what I remember of the parade, because there is a lot of time to fill, there does tend to sometimes be an interesting amount of niche groups and niche stars, which leads to fun look-ups on Wikipedia to see just what exactly this person is that is on national TV. (Just to show how long its been since I've sat through one, though, and kind of giving a hint of the aim, the last time I saw a Macy's parade, a lot of the singers I hadn't heard of ended being artists on the now-shuttered Radio DisneyWikipedia.) BobJohnson (talk) 18:33, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
There's also the 'religious shit' and 'historical shit' options too; thinking of say, the St Alban pilgrimage and the Lewes Bonfire. And while I'm not some antisocial grouch, I do think three hours for a parade is just too long. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:34, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
I really think that Christmas is what any individual projects onto it. I guess that for a shrinking minority it has something vaguely to do with religion. But for most secular people it's just a great excuse to have fun in the middle of winter. But, hey, whatever works for anyone.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 12:01, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
I've come to the conclusion it's more important than that. For many folks, the Christmas - New Year period is perhaps the only part of the year where people's 'time off' coincides. And when I say 'time off', I also include 'normal' stuff like large chores, home study and so on. The length of period also gives enough justification/time for making long journeys, and the 'importance' of the season provides the backdrop/motivation for people to make contact with distant friends/family which we'd not really done so during the rest of the year. Lastly, the 'importance' of the period is accepted as normal by culturally Christian nations.
But I do agree it's what you make it; doesn't even have to be on the 'correct' day - my part of the family has an 'official Christmas' the week before because usually we're working etc over the period itself. Though admittedly, the 'can't I'm working' has become my default (genuine) excuse of getting out of the invites I really don't desire to take up. KarmaPolice (talk) 12:52, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Sorry the video got taken down. Andrew5 (talk) 19:51, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Human Biology/Sexuality question (not trying to sound stupid as I don't know why)[edit]

Why is for cisgender straight male, plenty find trans women who have not had the surgical removal of the male genitalia sexy in the fetishist sense? I get that everyone has a small amount of bisexuality but I am not sure if that is the driving factor.

I don't know if it is like that with straight cisgender women and trans men who have not had the surgery to create male genitalia.

Just trying to understand it. --Trans Zombie Queen (talk) 22:16, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

My working theory is; the vast majority of them are in fact, not 'straight men' but poly/pan/bi men. It's just until very recently folks have even started to understand the above things are even 'things'. KarmaPolice (talk) 01:00, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
suggesting they are bi/poly/pan can run with it certain implication that the presence of a penis makes someone in part a man — which has deeply transphobic implications. It’s a cultural association that doesn’t universally exist in other cultures. It’s also the basis for a lot of “tran-panic” defences and the whole “tr*p” slur/meme. You have to remember that sexuality isn’t exactly cut and dry, and in reference to essentialist categorizations. You are dealing with a dimension of human and animal life that is more in reference to a series of natural continuums that humans from various cultures draw different cultural lines within — rather than a set of neatly defined and categorically distinct elements. Human sexuality is not akin to chemical elements. So you have to be a bit careful applying a cultural label to others that invalidates their sense of self, or even the sense of people they sexually engage with. People don’t come into the world metaphysically endowed to be put into culturally constructed boxes. Kind of the whole lesson of queer theory and trans inclusivity as a whole. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 03:29, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
What a crock. Firstly, we're talking about simple lust, not love. I'll argue that loins cannot be transphobic because prejudice requires a brain. We are not talking about dating, because that involves at least a partial conscious choice some of which I suspect is governed by 'culture' (interesting article on this, though the study had clear limitations, such as not asking the respondents reasoning or sub-dividing the hypothetical trans date on the state of their genitals). The OP was clear enough on this point. What's more, your position is actually quite dangerous (and I don't think you've thought this one out). To quote; 'It’s a cultural association that doesn’t universally exist in other cultures' .
Now, 'culture' is not static, but develops organically and can be actively changed. If you are saying people can be taught to find male genitalia as sexually attractive on a woman when before they did not, this means you are saying conversion therapy can work. Yet, if the decades of fundie peddling of such 'therapy' has proven anything for science, it's that it doesn't (or more correctly, it 'works' by the use of classical conditioning and/or simple conscious denial of urges). Sure, your proposed target is different, but hell the principle is the same.
What's more, the concept of 'culture' being the driver for sexuality is clear crap, because you have LGBT folks appearing in societies where their exposure to such a 'culture' is minimal or non-existent (and this is even making the assumption such a 'culture' exists in the first place, which is a huge if in itself). This can be extended to more general sexual fetishes/preferences; we still have no real idea about the workings of that part of people's deeper psyche (and perhaps never will) and thus, don't really know how to 'change' it apart from classical conditioning and/or libido-wrecking drugs.
Trotting out the transphobia bits isn't helpful at all in this case, because if nothing else it's a chilling effect on the entire discussion (which might be why Rational is asking this very question here; the hope they'd actually get some theories). It's why the study of sex and sexuality is so slow; a fear of treading on people's toes ('applying a cultural label to others that invalidates their sense of self'), of being labeled as bigoted as well as the more neutral issues of strong response biases and so on. KarmaPolice (talk) 11:31, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
My hypothesis is what I would call "Characteristic Preference". Some men will argue whether "butt or boobs" are better, which implies everyone has a different ranking of sexual characteristics which ranges from indifference to obsession. This needn't be limited to the characteristics typical for a particular gender. If you like the cliché feminine form, but also like dicks, there you go. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 13:37, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
My problem with arguments like KarmaPolice's is that you can't reduce something as complex as human sexuality to attraction to genitals. Seriously, when you see someone attractive, is your first thought that they have a hot penis/vagina? Plutocow (talk) 17:46, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Well, I don't - I outright say that I was only talking about physical lust, that sexual preferences in general (including gender preferences) are basically unknown in origin and my point was only relating to the OP's question - which in fact gave quite narrow parameters. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:23, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
I don't know why you think it is common for males who are attracted to females to act in the way you seem to suggest. If you see an attractive person and your first thought is something like "I'd like to have sex with them (to be polite)," then you might be more sexually aggressive than you would like to admit. Typologies amount to folk science. Gender theories are spun as postmodernist narratives and are far from scientific. We all seem to have a "type." Don't ask me what that is exactly, but we all know that there are faces we'd like to kiss and faces we'd like to punch; and faces we just would like to get away from. We are all predators, after all. But this kind of discussion is really for the benefit of third parties. I don't need an explanation as to why I find someone to be attractive. I suppose it's the kind of thing you might explore while in therapy.Ariel31459 (talk) 20:38, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Is this directed at anyone in particular, Ariel? KarmaPolice (talk) 21:15, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── "Gender theories are far from scientific". That's a strawman of gender studies. Gender studies doesn't claim to be scientific. Either way, you're ignoring the role culture plays in gender and sexual attraction. To claim culture plays no role at all is anthropologically dubious. Vee (talk) 21:30, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

A clarification is not a strawman. Some people suppose gender theories have some sort of platonic reality. They don't, in my opinion. The way you order your life is not scientific, so it is not an aspersion of any kind to say so. I haven't ignored culture, I simply haven't offered an explanation as to how it affects our behaviors. But I think that the things we regard as culture: the art, the music, the religion, the language, etc., has little to do with who we find attractive. I may eat fish on Friday because I am Catholic, but I still don't like fish all that much. And, to KP, I was was addressing RZ with some reflection upon what others have written.Ariel31459 (talk) 21:42, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Literally no post-modernist theory was used in my argument. I based my understanding in what is understood in anthropology, combining it with what I know from queer theory, developmental psychology, neuroscience, and history. I have done my homework on this and I can post the essay I wrote reflecting my views. Not one source I have ever actually consulted could be called “post-modernist”. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 23:13, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

@KarmaPolice this entire response is just bizarre. It Doesn’t really seem to understand what sexual orientation or attraction even is. It’s not just a simple fact of loins being aroused by other loins. That kind of idea fits into a lot of problematic ideas as well. Studies of blood flow to genitals have been used to argue a “disproof” of bisexuality. There plenty of gay people who have had children before coming out — and not just lesbians. I know gay men who are exclusively attracted to men who have only had sex with men - both trans and cis. Are you going to tell them that they are not actually gay because some of these men had vulva? Like this is straight TERF territory you are venturing into right now. The lust/love distinction isn’t even relevant here. The point about culture is that it’s kind of accepted by cultural anthropologists that sexual orientation is socially constructed, and this is reflected by the historical narrative as well. Same-sex attraction and same-sex activity have always been a thing, and there is considerable evidence of prenatal factors having a huge role in people’s preferences later in life, and even evidence to suggest similar factors lead to gender dysphoria later in life. But that being said for most of history no one thought of these experiences constituting a unique identity, it was just something you did or experience. In some cultures it was openly a norm to regularly engage in same-sex sex. Many cultures had different ways of acknowledging or allowing people to live by a different gender then what they were culturally assigned at birth, with different cultures having different ideas about one’s sexuality if they had sex with these individuals who have changed genders. If you insist upon or impose the cultural norm “it is all gay” not only are you invalidating gender identities you are engaging in a deep ethnocentric bias. The whole idea of “other cultures have sexuality wrong” has been the pre-text for the catholic church to justify colonialism. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 23:32, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Here is a general source on Queer Anthropology: https://www.anthroencyclopedia.com/entry/queer-anthropology - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 23:35, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
I never argued that sexual orientation was learned and that isn’t logically implied by what I wrote the whole allegation of supporting conversion therapy is a blatant strawman fallacy. You clearly are not verse enough on the nuances of this subject if you work from dichotomy of “essentialism or conversion therapy”. Like according to that logic most trans-feminists, queer feminists, and queer scholars in history and anthropology are arguing conversion therapy works. That’s not what any of this means. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 23:43, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Your response to sexuality being driven by culture is misunderstanding me and confusing the map for the territory. I am telling you the map is socially constructed, and our names and labels are products of the map. The territory itself is very real, but the territory exists as a spectrum while our labels treat most things as binary, or classifiable into discrete separate boxes. I am telling you are working from an outdated map, not that the territory itself is of our cultural choosing. There is an underdetermination to the territory as presented that allows us to map it in multiple different ways. The way you choose to do so is actually invalidating to many queer people’s sense of self and more reflective of patriarchal tendencies then a scientific understanding of the subject. Remember that anthropology is the scientific study of human populations, culture, and evolution. As a bisexual with a degree in a social science I am informed enough to tell you, you are not well versed on this topic. You don’t know what my philosophy of sexuality is, so don’t to shove me into your false dichotomy. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk)
(EC) To piggyback OSD's point about how culture affects sexual orientation and same sex activity (and societal views of it), among the ancient Norse, those who were the "top" in same sex activities were considered masculine, and simply expressing power on the now socially ostracized, and "feminine," bottom. It's a bit more complex than that, but rape of men by men was considered acceptable and suitably masculine if you were the rapist, and not the rape victim. Ozzyboo also pointed out how in the Turkish Armed Forces the penetrator isn't considered a sodomite and so is therefore not socially ostracized, but the penetratee is.
Another example is Ancient Greece, where most of the male population engaged in homosexual activities, but obviously didn't consider themselves "gay" or "straight." Same sex activities were just a part of the average sexual life of the Greek population. Were the men in Ancient Athens bisexual solely because of their genes, or because of their culture? Vee (talk) 23:56, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
An appropriate answer being neither, which is where the nuances come in. There is considerable evidence that factors related to hormonal exposure in utero, variations in sex determination due to certain genetic pathways working atypically, certain enzymes not being produced, variations in brain development, etc. All impact sexuality and gender identity in measurable ways, while all the evidence in psychology suggests efforts to “change” a person’s sexuality or gender identity is due for failure there is no doubt a a-lot more variable outcomes biologically for sexuality then the handful of boxes we supply to people in the west. Many people may be more fluid and/or flexible in their sexuality then they realize. Considerable evidence does seem to suggest this, while many others experience sexual attraction overwhelmingly to only certain kinds of people. Regardless though I think I would have a tough time explaining how evolution would select for individuals to have a fetish for cartoon characters without consulting culture. We also know too that many people experience changes in their sexuality through HRT, and that people’s willingness to engage in same-sex sex tends to vary depending on how isolated they are from people of a different sex (this is observed during war, in prisons, etc.). The possibility of someone only experiencing attraction to women but is also sexually aroused by a woman having a penis, or being pegged by a woman with a dildo while experiencing no sexual attraction to men is totally in the realm of possibility here. Unless you transphobically assume that intersex women and trans women with a penis are all actually men. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 00:19, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Try to express yourself without resorting to references to transphobia. Your arguments are not strengthened by using it and it clearly suppresses the discussion. Incidentally, that women can have functioning male genitals is a very postmodern idea. That's fine. There have always been alternative movements in the humanities.UncleKrampus (talk) 02:38, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
You don’t know what “post-modernism” even is if you sincerely believe that. I am just stating facts here, and that exact argument you provide in response is a very blatant type of TERF argument. There is no need to open the discussion for bigotry. This is trans-feminism 101. If you don’t understand the basics of queer identity and theory and you are cis-het then you need to do more listening and less talking. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 03:05, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

i am curious as to where these cis fellas are declaring their straight identity and love of trans women. i only know of such declarations on dating/hook up sites. primarily grindr, but i assume they must exist on the straight sites like tinder. im curious because such declarations made on such sites, grindr at least, are not particularly heart felt expressions of identity. no doubt their ratio gay to straight thoughts lean to the no homo side of things but there isnt exactly official criteria that must be met before one can apply that descriptor to oneself. on a predominantly gay hook up site, i imagine declaring straightness maybe less necessary on tinder, it lets the gays know they are not for them, while indicating to trans women, many of whom specifically indicate they are looking for straight men, that you tick that particular box. maybe even talk up your straightness, clarify you are not into men, looking for transwomen only. maybe transmen too. and maybe femboys, if they cute. no homo.

you cannot simply dismiss someones identity based our own assumptions and our own criteria about what that identity means. one probably should not overgeneralise about motivations of the members of such broad and diverse groups in seeking goals that have a myriad of reasons to want to seek. if one must, perhaps asking someone identifying a particular way about their identity if there is something that doesnt match what you'd had assumed. plenty of straight cis men into trans on grindr. not all of them are pricks (im ok with straight folk on a gay hook up site, but honestly, profiles telling the gays to 'get over ourselves im str8 ok' as if the historically oppressed group needed a member of the historically oppressing group telling them chill, i am what i am. just do one) AMassiveGay (talk) 14:59, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Although often as crappy as the standard kind, transgender pornography has been a reasonably popular subcategory of porn for a long time, even before "transgender" was very common parlance, and straight cis men are as far as I know the main consumers of such. I assume this was what was meant by "in the fetishist" sense. It is therefore not surprising to me that there is something like a MSTW (straight men sexually interested in transwomen) scene in hookup apps. There's a couple of WikipediaWikipedia articlesWikipedia on the subject and scattered information here and there, but I really don't get the impression that the studies and information on the whys for this attraction is very deep right now. The reverse scenario is worse data wise, there is zero information I can find on it at all, even though I assume "women sexually interested in transmen" is something that does exist.
My current assumption is the same as Karmapolice: that sexuality is more fluid then society (even now) supposes. Though, for all I know, there also might be some of the problems inherent in the much better studied "racial fetishism". Which of course isn't always problematic, but sometimes the sexual fetish involves problematic "racial stereotypes" and "race based social constructs". It's not something I can say one way or the other, given the lack of information. BobJohnson (talk) 16:28, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Having read your myriad of replies, my own previous responses and the comments from other persons in the discussion I'm going to provisionally conclude that 'the problem' is on your end, Dumb - not mine.
Firstly, why on earth are you repeately going on about gay men? That was not the topic of discussion regarding the OP's scenario/question and perhaps more importantly, something I never brought up either. I'm not sure whether to be insulted or amused that you tell me that I don't 'really seem to understand what sexual orientation or attraction even is' and then repeatedly make such an elemental mistake on the very topic.
You complain that 'lust/love distinction isn’t even relevant here' yet the original question was literally regarding a sexual fetish and nor do you offer a convincing argument in regards to non-relevancy. Your points regarding HRT, non cis-males and situational sexuality are all also irrelevant in this case because that's not what we were discussing. And when you're given a chance to say why I'm wrong, you tell me to go and do my own reasearch and then complain I'm mistaking the map for the territory - a delightful generic cop-out to claim that means you're right anyway without actually stating why (as well as ignoring the fact it was you who dragged us into this territory in the first place).
But then we finally get to the genuine crux of the matter; 'The way you choose to do so is actually invalidating to many queer people’s sense of self'. What the hell does that even have anything to do with the OP's question? What would be an 'acceptable' reply for this - 'Oh yeah straight guys like dicks all the time too?'. To accept your corkscrew logic regarding 'culture makes sexual preferences unless religious bigots argue that and then it's wrong' simply because it would be socio-politically convenient to do so?
Face it; you don't like what I have to say because it doesn't fit the narrative you'd prefer to have and thus I must be wrong. Yet you squirt out a huge amount of overly-dense academic jargonese in the hopes of disguising the fact you don't actually have answers to why I am - it's all either deflections, changing the subject, allegations of transphobia or appeals to authority.
Gay has raised a point which I'd not considered, though; that for the OP's scenario some of the transwomen could feel 'validated' if the guy nailing them was '100% straight'. To make the suggestion that perhaps they were pan/poly/bi instead could raise questions / throughts regarding their conformity to the whole binary-gender thing which they'd prefer to not have. Just a thought.
Oh, since when has Grindr been basically 'anyone who's not binary-cis-hetro'? News to me.
And I agree with BobJ too; sexual fetishisation and preferences does need much better study. At the moment, we are like most physical scientists in the 16th Century; while we can explain the observable effects of stuff, we have no idea on the causes of them. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:04, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── "Another example is Ancient Greece, where most of the male population engaged in homosexual activities, but obviously didn't consider themselves 'gay' or 'straight.' Same sex activities were just a part of the average sexual life of the Greek population. Were the men in Ancient Athens bisexual solely because of their genes, or because of their culture?" Are we just going to ignore the concrete examples I gave of how culture plays a relevant part in sexual orientation and same sex activities? Vee (talk) 17:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Ignore it for this conversation thread, yes. Nothing against either you, the example or the question but I was trying to keep it OT (ie the OP's question/scenario). KarmaPolice (talk) 17:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the clarification. Vee (talk) 17:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Acting as if the allegation that if straight men have a fetish for trans women they must be at least be bisexual somehow doesn’t imply the attraction or sex they engage with is gay is kind of playing a weird game. I don’t call the sex I have with my boyfriend “bisexual sex” I call it gay sex. What makes me bisexual is my attraction to more than one gender, I have engaged in sex that can described as straight and I have had sex that can be described as gay. That isn’t what makes me bisexual though as it’s the attraction I experience not necessarily my behaviour. So either you are implying that sex with trans women for straight men implies an attraction to someone that is in essence male, or they are in essence some other third gender - making the males attracted to them bisexual by not simply being attracted to just women. No matter how you cut it — it implies trans women who haven’t had bottom surgery are not “really” women or meaningfully female. There is no interpretation of that isn’t basic transphobia. Based on your response I don’t think you understand what I am saying, and it’s okay to admit that. It seems you are picking up on random terminology but not understanding the actual premises of my argument and the conclusion being argued. I am telling you that are trying to put in people in boxes to which they wouldn’t say they belong to based on outdated essentialist views regarding gender and sexuality. You keep accusing me of stating “culture drives sexuality” but I stated a myriad of biological factors that shape sexuality and how therapeutic attempts to change one’s sexuality are doomed to failure. You seem to come at this conversation with oversimplified nature-nurture dichotomy assuming that I am arguing a purely nurture view and that sexuality is a product of. I am not. I am saying it’s intractably both nurture and nature the product of which is a spectrum that doesn’t suit your essentialist assumptions well. Basically the boxes you insist other people belong to when they themselves may very well contradict you. No one is in essence a given sexual orientation that you can identify better then they can; that is for themselves to decide based on what they feel best describes the sexual attraction they experience. The same can be said for gender no one is in essence male or female — these categories at best are a continuum between family resemblances to which ethically psychological identity should place precedent. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 18:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
I think you may be on the wrong track, as far as postmodernism is concerned. Postmodern philosophy is characterized by broad skepticism or relativism and a general suspicion of reason. Gender theory often sets aside traditional scientific categories such as male and female thus creating postmnodern narratives.Male and female are often thought t be relatively unimportant to gender identity problems. Ignoring scientific categories for ethical considerations is very postmodern.UncleKrampus (talk) 19:28, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Forgive me for being crass UK but you have no idea what you're talking about and should ideally stop talking like you do. Humans are not set into binary categories of male and female from a scientific standpoint. What you call postmodernism is just the scientific understanding of human biology and how it relates to gender evolving over time. Sex is bimodal, as is gender, as is gender attraction. Nothing here is postmodern or inconsistent. ---Ozzyboo (talk) 19:43, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
See, thanks for making an important point. Postmodern thought will tend to defend itself in the way you have done. But I am not mistaken in saying what you claim about humans is not claimed about any other species. Very non-scientific. Very postmoderrn. I have called gender theory postmodern, not identified it with postmodernism. Fish are seldom aware of being in water. It is only a philosophical POV. You are entitled to believe whatever factitious narrative you like. That's what humans do. UncleKrampus (talk) 20:23, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
I take it you are not aware of the anthropological third genderWikipedia? (You also make the mistake of conflating sex with gender. Sex is biological, gender is psychosocial.) What you're calling "post-modern" is what Kuhn would call a "paradigmatic shift." No other species studies itself like we do. We call this field of study the "social sciences," and what we're discussing is a paradigmatic shift in both biology and the social sciences. Here's a Medium article that explains the current consensus. Nothing about this is unscientific. The current consensus is that sex and gender are both bimodal. Vee (talk) 20:32, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Anthroplogy is quite involved in postmodern ideas, as are many in social sciences. Some of it is quite unscientific by traditional standards because they may deal with anthropological philosophy and not the traditions and methods of modern science, which is not involved with engineering solutions to social problems, as they tend to be contingent upon theories rather than extended study.UncleKrampus (talk) 20:47, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Er, biologists tend to disagree with you on this one these days, Krampus. Or: I can't wait to hear about how chromosomes and genes are "postmodern", too.BobJohnson (talk) 20:59, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
That's what the article I linked says. Also, to address Krampus' strawman: nothing we've talked about here is remotely postmodern. Our "argument" simply reflects the latest research. The concept of the third gender exists to describe the phenomenon that some cultures lack the concept of the gender binary, which is a social construct based on Western traditions. Given that gender is psychosocial, it makes sense that not every culture's ideas of what constitutes "gender" would match up with Western conceptions of it. Vee (talk) 21:07, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
EC and yet the argument here is very much concerned with male and female identities,and perceptions there of. specifically straight cis men and their perceptions of some those identifying as women. the whole question of trans people is framed mostly today in an aggressively binary fashion. all talk of a range of identities, of non binaries and infinite varieties cease and it becomes transwomen are unambiguously women, no question about it and transwomen are categorically men not women, 100% not debatable. self identification is the 'only' factor to take in to account vs you can identity how you like but you cant just say you something or not. its an ugly debate whose toxicity prevents any compromise or resolution helping no one but those who thrive on division. this above debate started with a common misconception and/or assumption that is easily corrected, but as would be befitting of the best twitter spat we got strident accusations and sanctimony met with aggrieved overdefensiveness and now im not sure just what anyone is responding to or even if they are arguing over the same things. tis a mess of talking at and over each other and im pretty sure the point is being missed by all, but its you are with us or against us now. no clue about postmodernism - im an uneducated prole.
im blame myself really. i was going to respond with a personal anecdote from experiences that challenged the exact assumptions about male sexuality and masculinity posed in the original question. its a question most gay men have pondered at some point and could have something to say about. but i gots some tales with added trans that have furthered my conception of this question that would have been applicable here. alas i was on a massive comedown and i left it and instead of an uplifting and enlightening tale of real human beings and relationships we have acrimony and dehumanising academia. i'll have to share my obviously enlightening and completely correct insights for another time. se la vie AMassiveGay (talk) 22:05, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

Generally, I tend not to give a shit about social media on many subjects, sexuality especially. Science is not foolproof, but on subjects like this, when the Twitters are shrill and there is tons of bullshit being fed into the discussion, I look to the "big science mag" sources like Science and Nature and see what their thoughts are. The scientific process seems to be able to handle the humanity of mistakes, paradigms, and groupthink in a much better manner than pure mob think. Definitely there's been some major misses for science historically, but between this and a Twitter circle jerk, I'll take the scientific method.
The thing is, even for physical sex characteristics, it is rare for something to be completely binary in the biological sense. Take something like facial hair. The naive statement would be, "a man can grow a beard, a woman cannot". Which has some truth. But, the condition known as hirsutismWikipedia is not all that uncommon in women (along with a few other rarer syndromes that cause female facial hair), and although it is relatively rare for the condition to get to the point where one can be a "bearded ladyWikipedia", it can happen. We are well beyond the point in society where throwing the "bearded ladies" out there in the freakshows is really socially acceptable, as it was in the past. But women with facial hair of any kind do face social pressure even now to pluck, wax, and manage the hair and try to "maintain the binary paradigm", as it were.
Even on more stark sex characteristics, there is some fuzz. Even if, say, as this article in Nature postures, only 1 in 100 people have some form of "disorders of sex development", that's still 1 in 100. What do you do with them? Binary classification will cover a lot... but not all. The edge cases may matter in some cases; the Olympics, where certain male sex characteristics do help athletic performance, has struggled with various forms of intersex issues in women's sports since, oh, the 1930s (see Mark WestonWikipedia and Zdeněk KoubekWikipedia). Historically, the trend was for medicine to use corrective surgery etc. to turn the edge case into a binary, but I think there's been some movement away from that approach of late.
When it comes to the science behind sexual attraction, well, it is very difficult to study the brain. The only thing is, it seems like the transgender brain is indeed different, whether it is closer to their cis identified type or simply unique altogether seems to depend on the study. Scientists are concerned primarily with things like gender affirmative care at this point, helping people with gender dysphoria etc. manage life better, and what is currently developed is probably the best we can do for now. And even that gets a bunch of screeching hysterics on social media about supposed child genital mutilation (which, in countries like the USA which socially, by and large, has no problem with other forms of baby genital mutilation, is a rather rich take, but that's a topic for another day). I don't even know where this postmodern thing fits into this discussion (or even gender studies), all I know is you can't deny gender dysphoria is a thing. This, of course, produces challenges in a world molded to fit a binary paradigm. On social media, these challenges are generally answered by circle jerks with lots of yelling, to the point of sending bomb threats to children's hospitals. Sigh.
It's no surprise therefore that niche things like various fetishes and attractions are little studied at all, between the complexity of brains and the screaming of the crowds we can't even study the fundamentals. Therefore, there is no good answer to the OP question right now. We can only speculate.BobJohnson (talk) 15:23, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Is Vladimir Putin a right-wing politician or a left-wing politician?[edit]

Putler is too batshit crazy to be classified as right or left. He cultivated relations with far right and far left groups. Putler seems to only be affiliated with money and power. The rest is pretty irrelevant. --Trans Zombie Queen (talk) 22:25, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
Good post!cosmikdebris talk stalk 22:27, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
Russian-supported parties like National Rally and Fidesz are overwhelmingly far-right, and while there are "far-left" pro-Russian parties they are largely Cold War-era leftovers that were pro-Soviet anyway. Aditionally, Putin's rule has been very pro-oligarchy, unlike Soviet communism which at least pretended to be for the workers, not to mention the "blood and soil"-type rhetoric that is characteristic of fascism and which the Soviets to my knowledge did not use, at least not nearly as openly. It's pretty clear that Putin is a far-right fascist, and any support from "leftists" is more a result of Cold War inertia or anti-Western attitudes than anything else. Plutocow (talk) 23:40, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
I think he's socially conservative, but I don't like to use the left-right spectrum outside Western nations. Putin received support from authoritarian leaders on the right (Trump, Orbán), but also on the left, Maduro, Ortega, and Assad, if we disregard what I said about left and right outside the west), and while this exists, this also exists. Putin has also garthered support from over 35 communist parties across the globe [2]. If I had to say, yes, his right-wing, but more than that he's an opportunistic leader that cares more about remaining in power than ideology. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 00:39, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
Of course, with people like Maduro and Ortega their support of Russia is less because of ideological reasons but rather pragmatic ones since as America is opposed to them and thus their best hope of survival is sucking up to America's other enemies. Iran is undeniably a far-right theocratic regime but they support it for the same reason. Plutocow (talk) 01:07, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
Being anti-Western (especially anti-America) is an ideological position though, and it's normally considered a left-wing one. That's why people like Maduro, Ortega, etc. like Putin. As someone here on RW said once, the far-left supports Moscow, the far-right Putin. Only two days ago Canel inaugurated a Fidel Castro statue in Russia with Putin [3]. Again, If I had to choose, I'd definitely say he's on the right, but his fan club is far more mixed. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 01:22, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
I think that can be simply shown by making a list of the nations which support Russia's narrative in Putin's war and then crossing off the ones which are a) socically reactionary dictatorships, b) staunchly 'anti-Western', c) are deeply in hock to the Russians either from finance/trade or d) are being propped up by them militarily ... well, you have a list of zero. If you judge a person by the company they keep, well Putin isn't doing that well right now.
And Putin is a fascist, simple as. Ignore the foreign groups stuff, Rational and simply look at Putin's own record and rhetoric. From my own experiences, the far-left don't like Putin either, but think he's 'just as bad' as Washington etc. KarmaPolice (talk) 01:29, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
most of you guys probably might know by now that gjk and i don't like lula much more than we like bolsonaro. that said, in what ought to be yet another interesting case study of horseshoe theory, putin is friends with both of them. it's a bit tangential to the discussion, but this is one of the reasons i "both-sides" them. regardless, this should (more or less) answer the question of what putin's politics are: he's pragmatic so long as he can project his wealth and power while sticking it to the west. G Man (talk) 01:37, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
You're right, we don't like Putin. It's actually a pretty common position to consider the War in the Ukraine to just be another geopolitical squabble. War is bad business, but NATO isn't helping the Ukraine out of the good of its heart. That's just basic geopolitics. Either way Russia is still clearly in the wrong here, even though I don't consider NATO to be much better. (Iraq, anyone?) Leftists like me kind of view it as critical support for NATO. Vee (talk) 01:52, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Anti-Western isn't necessarily a "leftist" position, it is also common among nationalists, religious fundamentalists, and people who generally reject human rights for "degeneracy". In general, Russia, Venezuela, and Iran dislike the West for different reasons, the Russia due to nationalism and wanting to relive the Soviet glory days, Venezuela due to the US's anticommunism and interventions in Latin America (the latter is the reason why even more democratic leaders in Latin America often can't portray themselves as being completely opposed to Russia), as well as their support for Guaidó, and Iran due to religious fundamentalism as well as the US's support for their geopolitical rivals like Israel and Saudi Arabia. Them aligning together is more due to their shared opposition to the US, which is the most geopolitically powerful country, rather than because they share goals beyond opposition to the US, ideals, or styles of government (beyond all three being authoritarian regimes, they aren't really that similar). Plutocow (talk) 01:47, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Less horseshoe, I suspect G Man and more simply both sides thinking 'like Brazilians'. The shadow of China and the USA is long over Brazil, and so courting other 'majors' might help the country break out of this duopoly. Europe might have been this, but they're rather too 'gringo-ish'. However, this relationship may cool if it becomes increasingly obvious Brazil cannot get what it needs/wants out of the Russians (I expect high-tech kit, technological transfer and finance capital) and having the friendship of the world's most hated man isn't really worth having. KarmaPolice (talk) 02:04, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
it might not be the most desirable thing, but it's a natural consequence of maintaining neutrality in international relations. (i mean, the swiss maintained trade relations with nazi germany, after all.) brazil is no exception. brazil has a long-standing tradition of neutrality (though we did join the allies in ww2Wikipedia). in a way, this is a good thing because we don't get involved in pointless expensive wars (unlike some countries we could mention), but this may also have unfortunate implications (for instance, brazil has an embassy in north korea of all places, even though most of us don't hold the kim family in high regard). this policy of neutrality and multilateral relations has largely survived even under bolsonaro's nationalism. [4][5] this might be why putin has good relations with both bolsonaro and lula. G Man (talk) 03:15, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I believe the situation with the non-aligned 'south' is easily explained if viewed via realpolitik.

I don't think the likes of South Africa (to get it away from being Brazil-centric) etc really think it's a 'both sides are equally wrong' situation with Ukraine. Instead, I think they've generally calcualated that they have nothing to gain by backing either side. But this cuts both ways; Moscow has proven itself fairly incapable of tilting any of them towards them either. This is why (for example) I don't see most of them helping Russia bust sanctions - it would unduly piss off the 'Western Bloc' for little promise of gain. The flaccid Chinese support and Indian coolness towards the Russians makes this position more sustainable in this 'multi-polar world'.

Perhaps even more importantly, I think these countries weigh up their official position in the knowledge that in the grand scheme of things, it means fuck all. They're too distant, too 'small', generally don't have what Russia needs/wants and if they do, they have no way to get it to Russia. They know full well that their urging for a cease-fire shall be ignored by both parties. The only area I think they are having a bit of an effect is regarding the foodstuffs situation, which I think got the West to backstop the grain export agreement which Russia has tried to actively sabotage at least once.

You can afford to smile and utter platitudes, because they're free and they have nil effect on the result. KarmaPolice (talk) 08:42, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

what difference does it make if he is of the left or of the right? in either case he is a prick AMassiveGay (talk) 14:22, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Gotta be honest. Didn't think the OP was a Kensock... Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 16:06, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

don't worry; most of us didn't. then again, i'm an amateur when it comes to detecting ken posts. G Man (talk) 20:07, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
I did, but from the other messages (some of which were deleted). The OP was perhaps the least Ken-like of the comments. KarmaPolice (talk) 20:30, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
I don't put too much faith into Plutocow's blocks. This doesn't strike as Ken. Nonetheless it is probably some block evader. Andrew5 (talk) 02:19, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Nah, I think this was Ken. Ken has been getting better at evading suspicion lately. Plutocow's rationale for blocking this latest Kensock is convincing enough to me. Vee (talk) 20:52, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
If Ken is getting better at evading detection, shouldn't we be better at picking up his new traits? Andrew5 (talk) 20:36, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── If I had charismatic tendencies and wanted power, I would play all extremes (far right, far left, libertarian, anarchism and so on) like a fiddle. No real need to believe in any ideology. Disinformation, which Putin uses, is a powerful tool. --Trans Zombie Queen (talk) 00:31, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Are Macs worth it?[edit]

Life long Windows user here. Is it worth the investment to learn Mac OSX? I do use iPhone because fck Google. King Bowser K. Rool (talk) 00:49, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Macs are great for video editing and graphic designers, but they are more expensive. Windows is great for business software and has much more software in general that it works with. Windows 10/Windows 11 is a huge leap over its prior versions. Werter20 (talk) 01:00, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
Macs are not necessarily better for video editing or graphic design either, it's all dependent on your computer specs as well as the hardware ergonomics. I particularly dislike the mouse for it, do not like quiet keyboards made for it, and I particularly dislike the key that replaces Ctrl. Windows is just a general OS, not necessarily more "business" oriented; I'm a 3D modeler, and I use Windows OS; Winodws is just a popular OS and so many programs are made for it (and so are viruses but people are under mistaken impression to think Apple OS is more "secure"; it's not necessarily). Also you will pay more for a Mac with the same specs as Windows, which is crucial when it comes to that software. Maintenance too, I think is pretty hopeless with Apple products. Also I hate Apple more than I hate Google for many reasons, so I use any other product. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄(Mod) 20:58, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Pointless question of the day; does this mouse have left or right-handed buttons, and is it used in the left or right hand? KarmaPolice (talk) 01:14, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Um... which mouse? Kencolt (talk) 03:53, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Fun:OS Wars. Bongolian (talk) 07:00, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
I retired my MacBook Pro earlier in the summer after almost 12 years of continuous use, and replaced it with an M1 MacBook Air (big discount at Microcenter). The Air is the fastest computer I have ever owned, by far, and it an absolute pleasure to work with. I splurged and got an Apple Magic Mouse with the new system; it has invisible left and right buttons and scroll all built in, and no batteries; it recharges with a cable that attaches to the Mac. The Apple stuff is much more expensive, but I would say that I got my money's worth and then some with my old Pro. I use a Dell Workstation running Windows 10 for my audio processing work, and used to think it was a very fast system, but the Air runs circles around it. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 17:10, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
The touch bar on Mac Books was a major mistake, which Apple fortunately (mostly) retired. The touch bar was too easily accidentally touched, triggering unexpected behavior. Otherwise design and performance on Macs in recent years has been superlative. Bongolian (talk) 21:31, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Only Mac I ever owned was an Air (I think) - notebook - given as part of a course 10 yrs ago with all the notes in it. Even in the course (surrounded by people giving useful advice) I could never figure out how it worked, and the Apple ID thing was as confusing as heck and came back to bite me 10 years later when I tried to subscribe to Apple TV. So you can take Apple OS and place it some place where sunshine never reaches as far as I'm concerned! :) Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 22:14, 28 November 2022 (UTC)


im happy with just me chrome book AMassiveGay (talk) 20:12, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Voting[edit]

So, umm, are we opening up the elections? It's the 26th where I am, elections were supposed to open the 24th... Corona (covfefe) 14:45, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I already casted my vote. I ranked all 11 choices. Andrew5 (talk) 02:16, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
The election booth seems to be broken. See RationalWiki talk:Moderator elections/Election booth#Seems to be a problem with the voting booth. We may have to postpone the election. LongStylus (talk) 04:19, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
I voted... Corona (covfefe) 04:49, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
But Bongolian hasn't. Stop being so self-centered and think about other people! LongStylus (talk) 04:59, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
I self-ineligibled to vote due to a hopefully now-fixed voting booth error. Bongolian (talk) 20:18, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I can't vote yet. O the struggle of being a (relatively) new user! Vee (talk) 20:50, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Me and my dead relatives all voted 17 times! I hope Giuliani doesn’t catch me! Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 02:27, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Voted, and can happily say I voted for the green Italian, again. Cardinal Chang (talk) 16:28, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Cosmikdebris, as vote reader, offered to re-enfranchise my vote. Bongolian (talk) 18:03, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
I reluctantly put CorruptUser as 7th I believe, maybe 8th, because of the concerns noted during the campaigning. I put Bongolian at the top, and Rockford went 2nd, and now I kinda regret I didn't flip flop 'em. Andrew5 (talk) 19:50, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
It's not as if there's any difference between 1st and 6th place, so it doesn't really matter unless it comes to being eliminated early.
Side note, anyone know if there's a safeguard against socks voting? My sock can vote, I think, but shouldn't be allowed to. Corona (covfefe) 20:10, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Ballot readers can see a list of voters, and for the last couple of years have published this list along with the results (although they have not revealed which voter cast which vote). Sock votes can be removed. Christopher (talk) 20:51, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Due to the complexity of STV, the difference between listing someone first and second can matter to who gets elected. I'd prefer a system like approval voting or score voting that doesn't have these issues, but that's just me. Plutocow (talk) 21:02, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
That's what makes STV so beautiful. Andrew5 (talk) 22:47, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

"We should colonize anything we wish"[edit]

So I take it the people who voted for that option would have no problem with an alien invasion then, right? If one wants to have a logically coherent world view, they need to not resort to special pleading and hypocrisy. If we can invade and colonize alien worlds, then why can't aliens invade and colonize our world? Vee (talk) 21:44, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I voted for not colonizing the planets with intelligent life. However, I don't inherently have a problem with colonizing a planet that already has an intelligent species, if we truly were going to Uplift their species or only settling the parts that they aren't using. But that won't happen and we know it. At best it'd turn out like Africa/Australia where we only gave lip service to helping the locals through enslaving them, dislocating them on a whim, refusing to provide any education of value, actively sabotaging anything that might lead to self-sufficiency including murdering their skilled craftsmen, all while teaching them how inferior they obviously were. Corona (covfefe) 22:30, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
I think it'd be incredibly tough to know what an alien species would consider being 'uplifted'. Even if the colonizers went in with only the best intentions, the aliens may resent the resulting changes. Vomitorium (talk) 23:13, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Uplifting another planet's species would go against the prime directive. LarryKhoo (talk) 23:47, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
I saw this topic title and immediately thought "Because colonialism worked so well here on Earth… 🙄" Luigifan18 (talk) 02:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
The Uplifting would have to be things like "here's a bunch of physics, biology and philosophy textbooks. As for the latter, it's critical to understand that it's possible to be both 'right' and 'wrong' at the same time, so please don't form cults around Hume and Proust and kill each other over it, they are just lenses to view the world with. Also, the biology textbooks can help you find the cure for diseases, but please don't focus on ways to kill each other. The same with the physics textbooks. In fact you know what, sorry, we're taking all these books back."
But seriously, while genetically altering a sentient species is morally wrong, technological uplift isn't itself bad. The only reason I don't think we should, e.g., make contact with the Sentinelese or other uncontacted tribes has nothing to do with their rights as sentient/human beings, but rather, contact would likely kill them off from disease. Corona (covfefe) 02:37, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Meh, depends on what we find up there, who we are on the other end. If we can dance on the head of a pin with the angels then it probably won’t make much sense to refer to our living side by side with the locals as “colonization” in the terrestrial sense, and yet we’d be there, shadows and Djinn.
Anyone else playing Terra Invicta? I’ve been taking it slow: last night I was treated to the sight of my four nuclear-armed dreadnoughts massacring a Resistance Mosquito fleet who’d essentially fled Earth for Mars, it was just a shit ton of two-digit craft that’d transferred in the launch window to a high orbit station. Although they did snuff it, the station was preserved and retrofitted minus whoever the marines tossed out the airlock. Humanity First, mothafuckas! Artificius (talk) 04:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
No but it's on my wishlist. Playing SimSettlements 2... Corona (covfefe) 04:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
I'm guessing you're malding at an irrelevant poll result about a theoretical topic we may never have answered (fermi paradox)? But to address what you said, your response that those who wish to conquer planets should "logically" be okay with being conquered is as "logical" as the idea of "in order to be truly tolerant, you must also be tolerant of intolerance". Wanting to conquer sentient/sapient aliens while not being conquered yourself is a completely logical viewpoint, it just may not be a moral one.-Ryan1257 (talk) 08:00, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Good points. (I didn't vote because there were too many "yes, but what about ..." questions that could be asked.)Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:20, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
On the point of uplifting, I don't think genetically modifying an intelligent species is inherently morally wrong. It depends how precise your genetic modification is. If a species has hit a genetic dead end because their population got screwed over by an asteroid and has been forced to resort to excessive inbreeding, fixing genetic defects is better than their extinction IMHO. Being a bunch of non-interfering sky-jerks and refusing to help the suffering cause "lol prime directive" is, to quote Dr. Pulaski: "I have a problem with that kind of rigidity. It seems callous, and even a little cowardly." MirrorIrorriM (talk) 11:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
I think colonizing a planet with intelligent life could be justified if there exists an existential threat to humans. If the Earth were to become uninhabitable, and the only reasonable solution is to settle on a planet that happens to have intelligent life, then we are probably morally justified to colonize that planet. We would be more like refugees than colonists. LongStylus (talk) 17:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Assuming we are in a state that we can travel across interstellar distances, it'd be a lot cheaper and a lot more practical to just build up a bunch of habitats than colonize planets. Vee (talk) 19:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
You can build stations, but you would never come close to matching the ideal conditions and advantages an earth-like planet could bring. Gravity is one of those things.Ryan1257 (talk) 20:18, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
You apparently forget about centripetal force. You can tailor the gravity using fairly low tech means, and tailor the environment to fit your needs. Why space habitats are more practical than planets Vee (talk) 20:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
I didn't, it's just that that's not a cheap or low-tech solution. You'd need a very large station in order to not have its occupants feel nauseous when they turn their head, something that's already expensive even if you don't take into account that everything inside will have to be designed to accommodate both it spinning and not spinning for emergency reasons. And gravity is just one problem of many space stations would face.Ryan1257 (talk) 21:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Fuck them aliens. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 02:24, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
The universe is awash with resources, so building big stations isn't as much of a problem as it initially seems. Colonizing the Moon, for instance, is probably going to be done with the intent of mining it to build all those stations. There's also asteroid mining. Vee (talk) 17:54, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
i like how you just hand wave away all this technology that hasnt been even been conceived of yet to over come any possible problems. sure we can avoid transplanting all the errors of our past with technology, read magic. i think its pretty safe to assume that in the far future that has us mastering intersteller travel, terraforming, the advanced genetic manipulation of alien organisms to 'uplift' them, that any problems and dilemmas we might hypothetically have, the limits of our tech and access to resources probably not a primary concern. what is more likely are issues of how we handle contact with an alien culture as technologically as advanced as or our own or more so, or how treat alien life that is less advanced than us so exploitable by us, advanced enough that our exploitation of them has ethical questions.no one will care if we exploit a planet whose highest form of life are akin to mosquitoes. its a moot to ask should we or shouldnt we. if humanity has survived to exist at this imagined future, there is no question at all that we will drop by and say hi, and to varying degrees our relationship with the less advanced ones will be in some manner exploitative. this is a certainty. no question at all.
and what would be the purpose of any kind of 'uplifting' at any rate? would we have already 'uplifted' chimps on here on earth? what would be the purpose of that? if we were in the position to do this to an alien race it would be so they make better slaves, so we can get rich and/or resources selling them our fancy space tech, or they are to be our proxy in some intergalactic cold war. it wont be for shits and giggles or so we have someone to talk to in space. we will exploit them as naked imperialists or exploit them as 'enlightened' missionaries. uplifting any alien race would be an act of barbaric cruelty, we would only be making them just smart enough to fully appreciate the misery we will bring and to understand just how much they have lost when we take it from them.
the question would never be 'should we? - we will. its how far do we go when we do ? AMassiveGay (talk) 20:02, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
I actually object to the whole proposition of planetary colonization. It's often expressed as a "we fucked up the Earth, let's go somewhere else" sort of idea, really quite nihilistic. Stabilize this planet first (climate/biodiversity/wealth disparity/education/democracy), then think about other planets. Bongolian (talk) 04:34, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
They are all empty except for microbes beneath thousands of feet of Ice. If we lucky. Humanity will be extinct by the time it takes to travel anywhere where life that is advanced enough for us to have any meaningful ethical dilemmas. What is the morality of colonising barren rocks? AMassiveGay (talk) 09:00, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
If nothing else we can off load elon musk to mars. Martian twitter can have absolute freedom of speech for the dozen or so individuals who go with him. In space no one can hear your hashtag.AMassiveGay (talk) 09:04, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
If making stupid comments online made you a terrible person (other than trying to call a diver a pedophile), all of us here would be destined for hell. But that's not the case, that's why the MAGAs refer to Trump as Mr Mean Tweets, because they know that's what so many people saw the press focusing on and what was ultimately meaningless in compared to e.g., appointing Betsy Davos to power or abandoning the Kurds or more tax breaks for the uber-wealthy. If we want to go after Musk, it should be for things like his Tesla factories paying workers less than Toyota or Ford. Corona (covfefe) 14:41, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
i went for musk because musk has talked of going to Mars and colonising/terraforming it, so if hes going there any way... and this thread is bout colonising planets. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:43, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
I would say colonizing a planet with intelligent life is inherently bad and immoral. We have actual sci-fi horror stories of aliens colonizing US. This is LITERALLY the plot of Half-Life. How is it more acceptable if we do it? Are humans just inherently better? We don't give aliens the same amount of hypothetical right to self determination we would give other human beings? You do realize the perception of someone being subhuman is what allowed humans to colonize each other for so long? ---Ozzyboo (talk) 18:22, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
I don’t consider it nihilistic to acknowledge that civilization has a lot of inherent buffer overflow errors, and a lot of terrestrial problems will be solved when the powers that be exist outside the Earth, order can be imposed from the outside if it turns out Hobbes was right. Earth’s ultimate value will always be as a green and blue jewel of biodiversity, this parlays well with an eventual status as a game reserve and Amish/neo-Luddite commune (the latter providing a degree of legitimacy for the former, of course). Unfair to many, but I can see the broad strokes to get us there, and then we’re a multi-planet species so… At that point, the overwhelming majority of humans to ever exist won't have the privilege of setting foot on Earth, good for us. Artificius (talk) 02:56, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Helena Bonham Carter.[edit]

Let's check in with one-time RW fave Helena Bonham Carter. Aw, shit. RagingHippie (talk) 22:03, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Do we really need to shit stir? ShabiDOO 22:33, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Ms. Bonham-Carter is of historical significance to RW culture and history. RagingHippie (talk) 06:17, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
I usually assume any prominent celebrity supported Depp unless I see something which directly contradict that. How to put this politely...Hollywood can be quite insular.-Flandres (talk) 01:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
I think a lot of relatively small (numbers-wise) industries are, to some extent. If it has 'gatekeepers' within it, next thing you'll see is incestuous crusts collecting around them quicker than limescale on a heating element. KarmaPolice (talk) 11:08, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Well, RH, we have largely ignored the Amber Herd vs Johnny Depp thing, here. The people who are surprised haven't taken money into account. I'm surprised it has taken this long given the billions at stake in the deliberations. Businesses have always settled disagreements in legal courts. Money talks, twitter walks.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:59, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
HBC (the actress, not the oddball RW troll) was romantically involved with Tim BurtonWikipedia for a pretty long time, and Burton had a bit of a habit of casting Depp in a large number of his films. I think the "insular" definition fits best for that remark, it's not surprising. The JK Rowling defense OTOH is a bit weird, considering that Rowling is less "I made a few transphobic tweets" and is more full on anti-trans activist these days, and most of Harry Potter movie cast (let alone fan groups and societies etc.) as far as I know has distanced from her as a result. BobJohnson (talk) 18:54, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
The small picture is just that, the relationships people have had with one another. The big picture is the relationships they have with their world. Tim Burton is a producer who knows and can deal with the biggest movers. Rowling is in the billionaires club. That club doesn't obey the same rules as agents of media. The cast of the HP movies will certainly be replaced. More movies will be made. Can they be successful? Don't know. Can trans-activism suppress valuable intellectual property. Doubtful.Ariel31459 (talk) 19:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
i know rw doesn't really care much for celebrity drama, but the johnny depp case intersects with our mission to a certain extent. a celebrity drama escalated into full-blown online misogyny perhaps not seen since gamergate with all the social media influencers (most of which probably have little to no background in law) spreading misinformation/disinformation and playing the part of the internet lawyer. there was a good bit of darvo, victim blaming, and other things that skewed the trial in johnny's favor. this isn't to say that his ex-wife amber heard is totally innocent, though. from my understanding, she did also have some issues of her own. my point is this legal dispute had the unintended consequence of empowering misogynists and apologists of domestic abusers alike. The G (talk) 01:19, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
The funny thing about HBC's "cancel culture" whine is that one of the more recent news items on the Heard-Depp shitshow is Depp trolls report-flooding and temporarily suspending an Instagram account connected to an open letter, where over 200 people called for the end of harassment of Heard and others who report sexual and domestic abuse. Not that the doublespeak behind that "cancel culture" term hasn't been obvious for a while, it's just bemusing to see the hypocrisy in action. 72.184.99.135 (talk) 03:24, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Thing is Johnny Depp is a wife beater.he lost his libel action in the UK. 86.18.19.64 (talk) 04:19, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
People seem to forget that the trial in the US was not about whether or not Depp was in fact abusive, it was about the specific claims of abuse that came out of that particular article he was suing for. No one seems to actually give a shit if Johnny Depp is a wife beater or not... nah people are much more interested in having a woman they feel is socially acceptable to harass and abuse themselves. This case seems like a good litmus test on people's attitudes towards women more broadly, and their general understanding of how abusive dynamics actually play out in the real world. The stance of popular opinion does not look pretty here. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 05:55, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
again, you can thank social media for that. The G (talk) 07:26, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Heard falsified evidence, abused her previous partner before Depp, and the UK case was a sham without a jury and without allowing Depp to provide proper evidence. People being misogynist is unacceptable, but the jury made the right call in the latest case 100%. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 14:14, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
The trial was a libel case. It is pretty clear to me that both Depp and Heard were both abusive pieces of shit to each other, and both at some point have been caught as lying assholes (not untypical for a seriously acrimonious divorce). The details of who abused who when should not have mattered for this particular case; the only thing that should have mattered was if at some point Depp abused Heard, therefore Heard did not defame Depp when claiming such in an article. I would think that you have to basically believe that Depp was always telling the truth and that Heard was always lying to accept otherwise (and I would question anyone who believes this, the shitshow altogether, from the initial divorce statement, previous claims, UK trial, etc. kind of showed that both parties were extremely questionable narrators IMHO, and the general conclusion I get is that both Heard and Depp were abusive fucks to each other). However, the Depp legal team indeed pulled a DARVO strategy in order to obfuscate what the actual trial was about. It worked, and the trolls that turned this into a cause célèbre Hollywood-style gossip shitshow were a huge part of the help. Judges tend to be much more nonplussed by obvious obfuscation strategies like that, so it didn't work in the UK despite the UK being much more friendly to plaintiffs on libel cases. The question I would have is why Heard's legal team failed to ring in the legal shitshow in the US, but I didn't pay too much attention to the case, so maybe there was some circumstances they couldn't control. All I know is both sides are appealing their defamation penalties, so the shitshow ain't over. BobJohnson (talk) 14:59, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────This is post modernism in action. There is a libel case in court. The social commentary organizes itself along polarized positions. The media itself divides into manichean camps supporting one or the other of the two contestants, and the coverage takes the form of a competition of sorts with the prize being a kind of moral exoneration and the experience of schadenfreude by proxy. Reason gives way to emotional satisfaction or outrage. The effect of the trial on the wider social movement, it is claimed, should effect the outcome of the trial. Educated people decide that the way the outcome "feels" to them should outmatch the convictions of a unanimous jury on one hand, while others claim a British magistrate had already decided the matter. An American jury decided the matter. That's enough for me until further notice from the appeals. Don't like the system because you don't like the outcome? Maybe you are not so unlike the Trumpists after all.UncleKrampus (talk) 16:09, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't know what the fuck you are on about postmodernism, or what the fuck Trump has anything to do with it, you need to stop trying to pretend to be a highbrow with words you don't understand when delivering your shitty ad hominem attacks, you aren't fooling anyone. Western legal systems are a "worst form of legal systems, except for all the others" type of thing... why would one celebrity trial shitshow change that?
The thing is, we have an appeals process for a reason, sometimes court cases go all fubar. And this strikes me as one that did. Defamation has a pretty high standard to clear in the US, even for individuals. The statements must not only be false, and they must be made with actual malice. It's not just Heard, incidentally, Depp also got a defamation fine (albeit a much smaller one) and that struck me as odd as well. But we'll see whether the appeals courts disagree or agree. BobJohnson (talk) 17:03, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Characterizing social situations as postmodern reactions is pretty basic. Your attitude is well-described in my previous comment. Your direct ad hominem only shows the weakness in your argument. You don't want to study the transcripts, but would rather adopt some intermediate interpretation consistent with some branch of popular opinion. Pathetic. The standards of our reason have developed our legal system and our system of elections. Questioning the outcome because it is inconsistent with an ethical POV is quite postmodern. UncleKrampus (talk) 17:24, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
It's funny you keep using the "postmodern" term in light of your "postmodern" rejection of biology when it came to arguing about sex.
One could say more, but there is no need for further discussion, methinks, when the intent appears to be deepity trolling. BobJohnson (talk) 18:18, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
depp and heart are both public figures and rely on good publicity and popular more than anything to keep their careers alive. for depp, he needed the the case to go ahead and and needed it to go ahead in full of the voyeuristic public. hes a wealthy man and does not need the money of any settlement, but a jury verdict in his favour, though preferable, was not what he needed/wanted the trial and from what i understand was a longshot. and he could still be a pariah in hollywood if he had won on some technicality but still looked like an abusive thug in the eyes of the public. what wanted was to grandstand and destroy heards credibility, paint her as a scheming and vindictive shrew fabricating the abuse she claimed she suffered while the real abuse was from her directed depp as the abused and true victim, playing up to that element of the public believing all claims of rape and abuse are falsified by women not knowing their 'proper' place. the whole thing was livestreamed from the start, a media circus from the start and depp got to appeal directly to the only court that he was concerned with, the court of public opinion. it turned out it worked on the jury too and got a favourable verdict, who from what i have read of what the jurors have said about it all, were swayed by the antics and decided a verdict for the popularity contest not the libel case they were officially heard. they simply believed depp more than heard.
again, i have no clue about postmodernism nor really care, but thats essentially what happened and seems more or less what krampus was saying about the trial. i dont know if depp has been vindicated in the eyes of the public, they are as polarised as ever it seems, but he was a hugely popular star and probably still has a pretty significant following - he will sill likely have career. heard im not so sure about. she hasnt had the years in the biz that depp has had to establish his status, does not have the body of work encompassing both absolutely fucking huge hollywood franchises and the kind of flicks that made him an arthouse darling. his name was a box office draw. and probably still is, the spectacle of the trial probably doing enough for him to be 'forgiven' by a fickle public. heard's name was never a big draw and now is probably box office poison. depp won and heard lost when the he said she said nature of the case should have left it more ambiguous. losing along with heard though is anyone in an abusive relationship, or escaped from one. victims of such abuse seeking redress will see that to seek justice in the courts is to submit themselves to the pillory in front of a baying mob. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:37, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

What a great time to be alive[edit]

  • Putin is losing the war
  • Bolsonaro lost in Brazil
  • Election denialists lost in the US
  • Protests in reactionary Iran
  • Protests in "communist" China

All within a month. Not saying that everything is good (Lula is far from the democrat the press paints him, and we had another Trump clone winning in Italy, also I don't think the protests in China and Iran will actually result in regime changes) but is liberalism actually dying, as people think it is? GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 14:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Also Iran just lost their World Cup game to the US. Corona (covfefe) 22:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Putin hasn't lost yet. There is a huge amount of work still to be done, and putin is willing to burn the world to prevent admitting defeat. I'm still very anxious. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 00:33, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
the world cup is a whole other story in itself. (fifa has an extensive history of corruption.) otherwise, it's important to keep in mind that while some battles have been won, the proverbial war continues. The G (talk) 01:06, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
As a pessimist, I must say it's nice to see the bad guys losing for once. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 02:23, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Oath Keeper leader, Stewart Rhodes guilty of seditious conspiracy. Let's keep this run going! Ariel31459 (talk) 02:55, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
China experienced mass collective protests without the PLA murdering everyone. It's the little things.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:47, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
There's also more eyes than ever, no matter how much the government tries to lock things down there's just too many cellphones. Corona (covfefe) 18:35, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
The war in Ukraine is far from over. It will probably be fought until the 2040s. Neither side will concede, and it would take 2 million Russians to overthrow the government. That's 1.3% of the population. Andrew5 (talk) 20:39, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
'probably be fought until in the 2040s' - im a pretty much a glass half empty kinda guy, but while the future is impossible to predict, thats a statement pulled from right up deep in the rectum. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:18, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
"Will be fought until the 2040's" (no source) (no evidence) (said by a complete moron) ---Ozzyboo (talk) 22:59, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Don't be so hard on Andrew. I'm sure by some standards "the rectum" counts as a proper citation. :p Vee (talk) 23:07, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/the-ukraine-war-a-longer-dystopian-looms-large/ Andrew5 mobile (talk) 23:47, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
then they are pulling out of their arse.
as for you other two - he pulled it out of his and i said so. thats all that was needed. it didnt need you two piling on after the fact to add nothing but abuse. it didnt need personal attacks. there is sometimes heated and passionate debate, and sometimes people lose their temper, but this isnt that. this is picking on someone, bullying behaviour. cut that shit out. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:55, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
and it doesnt actually say it it is likely to last till 2040 and the scenarios in the report it cites 'are not intended to be predictions but to widen the aperture as to the possibilities' AMassiveGay (talk) 00:01, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Wagner Group[edit]

I am trying to create a draft of Putin's personal SS-unit, the Wagner Group in my sandbox as we seeing more and more of Wagner in the news. Please comment on your thoughts. Euromec (talk) 21:02, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

It would be interesting to talk about the irony of an openly fascist private military claiming they're fighting fascism. Plus, I think a lot could be said about their activities in Syria and Libya.Ryan1257 (talk) 22:02, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
That's a good start, Euromec. It would be good to at least mention the Internet Research Agency, which Prigozhin also owns. Ryan1257, historian Timothy Snyder coined the term schizofascism for fascists who call non-fascists 'fascist'. Bongolian (talk) 04:47, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Ukrainians have come up with the word RashismWikipedia [Russian fascism] to talk about the current government philosophy, and how they use the word Nazi and fascism as snarl words in their media, despite openly using Nazi and fascistic philosophy and symbolism in the wider context. So it is not just unique to Wagner. Euromec (talk) 07:27, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Does Russian Fascism have a strong amount of ethnic supremacy attached? Corona (covfefe) 13:54, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Yes. Russian nationalists are often attracted to the USSR because of this reason. To Russian nationalists, Ukraine, Belarus, Chechnya, etc are all rightful Russian land to them. It's blood and soil shit. ---Ozzyboo (talk) 18:25, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
From as far as I can tell, yes; it's not much more than a re-tread of 19th Century 'pan-Slavism', of which sees all 'Slavs' to be either a) offshoots of the great Russian Volk or b) (little) brothers/sisters of previous who should fall in behind the Third Rome sharpish. The designated 'Others' are 'Germans' (often including the Baltic nationalities and Scandis), Jews, 'Blacks' (ie people from the Caucasus) and 'Tatars' (ie anyone Turkic or Mongol in ethnic origin). The anti-Chinese fears are more modern, but 'understandable' in that Siberia is a) almost empty of Russians and b) China's major natural resource supplier.
Anyway, this ideology is proving somewhat problematic in Russia right now (and not just the Sinophobia), because while it is 'motivating' to the section of the population who are susceptible to it, it's also deeply problematic to the 'Blacks' and 'Tatars' Putin is disproportionately forming into the levies he's throwing into the Ukranian meat-grinder (there have been reports of 'ethnic' tension between them and their Russian officers to the point there's been fragging incidents). KarmaPolice (talk) 18:35, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Oh, Euromec. The ISU website may prove to be an excellent source for your draft, though chances are you may have to do some leg-work finding the bits in the various daily reports they've done. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:39, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
i read somewhere his draft has been so complete in some of the republics it can be considered ethnic cleansing AMassiveGay (talk) 18:53, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
russia is a diverse multi-ethnic multi-national state, but with russian law more and more favouring russians over other ethnicities. neo nazis and racism has been a presence in russia for quite a while. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:59, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, people forget that 'Russia' is in fact, only 81% Russian. And due to differing birth rates, demographics and immigration, that ratio is falling. It's part of the reason the Russians have been kidnapping Ukranian kids and taking them back to Russia. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:04, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Here are two maps of Wagner Group's worldwide presence: world (2019)[6] and Africa (2021).[7] Wagner Group also provides a Russian foothold for arms exports and non-military businesses. Bongolian (talk) 21:59, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

news from brazil[edit]

there is a rather bizarre, clog-worthy conspiracy theory circulating among the brazilian far-right that lula died and has been replaced by a double. it might seem like another internet death hoax, but a surprising number of people actually seriously believe this (including many brazilians i know), and it is quickly becoming mainstream. needless to say, it's been debunked. of course, that's what they want you to believe. well the press is obviously in on the conspiracy. d'uh! wake up, sheeple!!11!1!

but seriously, this is just in case you guys thought things couldn't get any weirder. i'd add an entry to wigo:clogs, but all the sources are in portuguese; so far, i haven't found any english-language reports on this. The G (talk) 02:22, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Heard something similar a few years ago with nutters believing that Putin and his wife & daughter were replaced by clones. We can hardly clone a sheep, but for some reason, we can perfectly clone humans... ¬¬
And apparently this is all happening at Area 51, because of course it does! Why wouldn't it be happening over there...?
My guess is that this is what happens after you start smoking the bong 3 times in a row after you had a bad trip. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 01:14, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
i've also heard people say saddam hussein died much earlier than official reports say he did. i don't understand why people fall for death hoaxes so easily. it's almost as ludicrous as the "crisis actors" conspiracy theories. they must be smoking some good stuff or something. The G (talk) 05:17, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
The history of the 'public figure impersonation' conspiracy theory is a long and noble one; I've noted examples of this in the late mediaeval period. And the reasoning is basically the same; if we can say 'They' (be it a king, prince or elected politician) are 'not really' who they say they are it means they are illegitimate (and thus filters into the whole 'lawful rebellion' legal BS thing). It also would require well, a conspiracy because the 'inner circle' around the figure (the ones who'd know them best) would have to go along with the deception (and thus, need to be 'removed' too). KarmaPolice (talk) 12:59, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
probably easier to pull in the medieval period, it not having any kind of mass media where everyone with eyes can compare before and after images and the vast majority of the population had never set eye on their ruler let alone up close.
the man in the iron mask was one such example speculated upon by voltaire and formed the basis of the novel by dumas, while a more modern version had someone famously claiming to be anastasia, youngest daughter of tsar nicholas 2, somehow having survived execution and escaping russia with amnesia, dna finally putting that one to bed. and of course, paul is dead.
saddam hussein did have doubles and in the chaos of iraq during the invasion, shit can happen. him dying before he was offiicially executed is within the realms of possibility and not so crazy an idea. perhaps he was killed while resisting capture, or a us squaddie just plain murdered him when he was surrendering - the optics of that would have looked pretty bad - but some sort of trial was necessary to help with legitimising the invasion to the public so a double was put on trial and hung. not exactly likely, and the person executed as saddam didnt deny he was saddam at any point before his death and he did have quite a bit to say before the drop. pluasible, in the sense it doesnt require reptillians or ridiculous science fiction fantasy to be true, but not likely. its also possible that rumours of an early demise might have arisen if one of his doubles had been killed before saddam was captured and his death being reported before it was realised it wasnt him, but thats probably giving much credit to conspiracy theorists. still more plausible than to have the doppelganger still running around in place as head of state acting as the original with the risk of being exposed at any time with the gaze of the media on them 24/7AMassiveGay (talk) 22:11, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

"Atheists are anti-natalist"[edit]

I just saw a comment on r/antitheistcheesecake claiming that atheists tend to be anti-natalist. I have a very strong hunch that this is grossly incorrect, but I can't think of any actual arguments or evidence to refute it (preferably just setting the facts straight without dumping on religion too hard). Can anyone help me out here? Luigifan18 (talk) 15:56, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that atheists tend to be antinatalist? What argument takes you from atheism to antinatalism? If you intend to respond to them, you should either be able to provide evidence that they’re incorrect (but antinatalism isn’t that common, so it might be hard to find compelling evidence either way), or you should just ask them why they believe that and see how they elaborate their position. Assuming, as I suspect is true, that the total number of antinatalists is significantly lower than the total number of atheists (numbers that ‘’might’’ be available), then their claim seems obviously false, but on elaboration they might just mean something like “atheists are more likely to be antinatalists than theists”, which would be harder to find quantitative evidence on either way. Regardless, arguing about hunches isn’t going to lead to anything interesting in an online discussion. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 talk 17:38, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
It's Reddit. I wouldn't bother responding. Vee (talk) 17:41, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Agreed, though it's a sufficently interesting question in it's own right. I would hazard that the correlation is 'correct', but so is your hunch that it's incorrect. That it's not that 'athiesm' is anti-natalist (lets use this term in the wide definition, as in restrictive births not none at all) but that (at least) Abrahamic religions are 'pro-natalist'.
Consider it. They call consider life to be 'a gift from the Almighty', have their holy texts littered with pro-natalist propaganda. They oppose family planning in general and in the more extreme variants basically call for women to spend their reproductive years as baby-factories for 'the cause' a la Quiverfull/ISIS. Resources for the sprog? Don't worry; THE LORD shall provide! And if they die, they'll be in a better place. Even when it's not cultish, simply being religious makes a woman much more likely to have more kids and starting earlier (differing cultural norms).
Therefore, an agnostic/athiest person shall be away from those influences. And without the 'god tells you to' answer to reasons for spawning, this means the parent(s) have to answer the more gritty moral/economic/situational questions of having kids, how many and when. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:59, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Why, of course atheists are anti-natalists. Just look at atheistic China and their one-child policy! /s LongStylus (talk) 19:03, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
As a nation grows wealthier, there's a tendency for it to be less religious (Wealth and religionWikipedia). As a nation grows wealthier, there also tends to be a drop in fertility. (Income and fertilityWikipedia). However, it's a messy correlation which does not always apply. Thus, a highly atheist country like China (fertility rate: 1.7) has roughly the same rate as a highly religious country like Brazil (fertility rate: also 1.7).
Obviously, of course, this has nothing to do with "antinatalism" the philosophy; I'm guessing though that this is sort of where they got the idea to jump through that hoop. I also wouldn't bother with a Reddit group dedicated to nutpicking atheists, that is basically throwing emotive quips like "They'll go after your kids" and painting dumb stereotypes in the comment section. In the USA, medical reasons and financial reasons seem to top the list of why people don't want kids in the US, and there's a distinct set too worried about the future to have kids, y'know with climate change and whatnot. (The reasons certainly will change depending on which country you look at, but I bet some of those things are concerns elsewhere too.) So there's real problems to focus on if they actually cared about birth rates. Instead, we have a bunch of folks bitching on Reddit about those gosh darn godless nuts. "Never wrestle with a pig", as the phrase goes. BobJohnson (talk) 19:13, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
However, general fertility rates can hide variations. Like in Israel the fertility rate is 2.9 but this propped up by the 6.6 from the culty-fundy Haredis. (I'm personally scared these lot will ultimately destroy Israel). KarmaPolice (talk) 19:35, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
(Just noticed my link isn't to a proper RW page on them. I'll do something about them at some point, but perhaps someone better (ie has personal experience of them?) should at least start it?)
Abrahamic god has no trouble killing the unborn - it supposedly wiped out all of earth's population including every single one of them except for 1 small Family, and there are several cases of indiscriminate mass murder by "pillar of fire" or sword in the book of fairy tales. Just go back to them and point out their bulldust. Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 20:46, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
The only thing you can say about atheists is that they don't believe Gods exist. I wrote an essay on this a while ago. Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 20:50, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
There are no atheistic arguments regarding non-theistic topics. Countering the (mock) example of 'look at China's one-child policy', look at communist Romania's pro-natalist total abortion ban during the Ceaușescu era. Bongolian (talk) 22:05, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
The abortion ban was only the tip of the iceberg of all the insane shit Ceaușescu's regime did to try and bolster birth rates. Seriously, look it up. Shit was crazy. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 00:21, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

earth news[edit]

Congratulations Ratwiki for successfully identifying a valid argument.[edit]

I will make a more challenging example in the future. 8 of you are bad at logic. If the number starts to lower for the invalid answer I know some of you have changed your answer upon reading this post. I am judging you. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 04:26, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

The second more recent challenge has been added. This one should be easy - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 06:53, 1 December 2022 (UTC).
I added my own poll as well. Hope that's fine. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 13:00, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Was the weird capitalization and bad grammar in the reindeer one intentional? Spud (talk) 13:38, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
The ex falso seems to be throwing people a bit, it's not totally inversed at least, but most people now have it wrong. The capitalisation and grammar really seems to want to follow a logical form a bit too strictly for the natural language expression, 'No reindeer…' or 'All reindeer don't have…' would have been fine, no? Or if you really wanted to go for a categorical form '… reindeer are … ungulates' or something for something more syllogistic-seeming. It's just grammar nitpicking though. At least 3 people didn't see this post before still trying the first one apparently. Mirror's newer simpler one gives a nice contrast with OSD's second challenge, it's interesting to compare how many get the validity right on each. ConverginglyRational (talk) 14:54, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

On Drafts[edit]

A quick question - if you use RW's search feature, does it also search the Drafts category for pages? And if you're about to create a 'XXX page', will there be any warning/check whether a Draft variant exists? Lastly, what's the etiquette on creating alternative drafts for pages which already exist?

Wait, that's three questions... KarmaPolice (talk) 13:46, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

The default search behavior is restricted to mainspace articles, but you can include the draft namespace in searches if you use the "advanced search" feature. The software does not check for a draft variant. And, there's no restriction on creating a draft version of a page you want to rewrite — this has been done before. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 14:27, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
if you have a specific draft in mind and you want to search for that, you type "draft:[query]" in the search box. a sample list should automatically appear after the colon. oh, and it's not case sensitive. The G (talk) 18:10, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

This is interesting[edit]

https://apnews.com/article/health-california-covid-san-francisco-immunizations-a2654cad5153d7ddf3edda3cff0b2674

A naturopathic "doctor" is getting three years in prison for selling a fake COVID vaccine and giving out fake CDC vaccination cards. --Trans Zombie Queen (talk) 16:02, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Maybe she can use the get out of jail free card from her monopoly set. Cardinal Chang (talk) 21:15, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
I wrote about her (Juli A. Mazi) when she was arrested last year: Unusual homeopathic remedies#SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus. Bongolian (talk) 03:41, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

question[edit]

are there any female instances of Haggard's law? 2600:4040:475E:F600:B19D:E7A:74B5:81E8 (talk) 03:24, 2 December 2022 (UTC)