RationalWiki:Saloon bar
To do list • Vandal catcher • Stubs • New pages • Lonely pages • Dead ends • Filter log • All public logs • Articles for deletion • Duplicate articles • Brainstar candidate articles • Drafts |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
To do list |
---|
- - There are no pages marked for deletion
- - and 3 pages marked for demotion.
I CANT BRING MYSELF TO ROLE MY R'S
I'm from Europe, but unlike other people, I developed the tendency to basically pronounce a non-rolled Spanish r, instead of the same shit everyone else seems to be saying, and I just realised it wasn't normal. I want to pronounce Spanish correctly, however, and due to my accustomed r I just can't. I can't vibrate my tongue, and I can't not use my voice when trying to say r. When I want to get a very clearly defined r: I just pronounce my native r (which is just… an r) in a clear way. I always thought everyone around the world pronounces r like I do, but turns out many just don't. So how do I do this? I'm used to basically pronouncing the Spanish "r" in my native language (and I'm a monitory even there), but not "correctly" in Spanish, not rolled, and I can't stop using my damn neck when trying to pronounce the Spanish one. The double r and the simple r are both absolutely impossible for me. I can't even fathom the idea of making a sound solely with your tongue (isn't it going to break… like how do you just use your tongue? No voice, no lips, just the tongue). 80.187.114.96 (talk) 00:12, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
- This would be better asked on the Wikipedia Reference Desk or Reddit, IMO. 143.223.148.63 (talk) 02:49, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
- Try YouTube.[1] In my Spanish class, which was taught by a native Spanish speaker called it a 'trill', not a 'roll'. When you can say a short sentence with pero and perro, then you've got it: Pero no es un perro. ("But it's not a dog"). Though there is a difference between single and double r sounds, it's rare that the context does not make the meaning obvious even if the pronunciation is bit off. Bongolian (talk) 05:47, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
- @Bongolian Are you an English speaking person? Because I natively (even despite some of my people not doing that) speak what I looked up and found to be the "uvular trill". Basically (call me chauvinistic, idk) when I see the letter "r", I assume the only correct way worldwide of pronouncing it is the uvular trill, this sort of "non-rolled" r, as I see it. English and Asian languages are weird exceptions to me. And, to me, the Spanish basic r and double r are just variants of the "normal" r that are rolled/trilled, but with a different mouth positioning apparently. I probably should change this mentality, but I just CAN'T. My brain categorically REFUSES to comply to any new logic of the letter r. And I can't really stop using my damn voice. I basically never use only my tongue to pronounce a letter, and I am very protective of my tongue… why would I try to put it to pieces by flapping it around? 80.187.114.96 (talk) 11:03, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
- "R" is actually pretty complicated. There are at least two (probably more) ways of using it in the UK, and that's before you consider the US. If you get to languages like Russian then you have a back-of-the-throat "R" in addition to the trilled Spanish "R". But every language is almost certainly going to have sounds - both vowels and consonants - which are not present in your native language. It is not uncommon for new speakers to think that there is something "wrong" with the new language in that it requires them to learn these new sounds. I see that it is hard and frustrating for you to make the Spanish "R" - well, you just need to keep at it. (And it won't damage your tongue.)Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:25, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
- @Bob M OMG thank you SO MUCH! I finally did it (though with the help of a Spanish-speaking friend who explained to me how to correctly follow the internet instructions (I wasn't following them correctly when it comes to tongue positioning…). Now, I just need to be able to pronounce it in the middle of words (at the beginning of words it's easy, but especially when the simple r is in the middle of a word, I just can’t for now, but it’ll resolve itself anytime, I'm sure). Cheers! 80.187.84.136 (talk) 19:19, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
- Great. now you jus need to get "ñ" worked out and you are all set.
- In point of fact, I would say that it is much easier for English speakers to learn Spanish pronunciation than it is for Spanish speakers to learn English pronunciation.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 05:40, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
- I got the ñ and double l sounds figured out pretty quickly (with double ll I mean the very quick "jumping" on the letters, like very quick "die" or "dio", with y being that way too but less so. My Latin American friend told me many people have "bad" language use and insisted on teaching me that, so I'm thankful to them). 80.187.102.186 (talk) 16:37, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
- @Bob M OMG thank you SO MUCH! I finally did it (though with the help of a Spanish-speaking friend who explained to me how to correctly follow the internet instructions (I wasn't following them correctly when it comes to tongue positioning…). Now, I just need to be able to pronounce it in the middle of words (at the beginning of words it's easy, but especially when the simple r is in the middle of a word, I just can’t for now, but it’ll resolve itself anytime, I'm sure). Cheers! 80.187.84.136 (talk) 19:19, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
- "R" is actually pretty complicated. There are at least two (probably more) ways of using it in the UK, and that's before you consider the US. If you get to languages like Russian then you have a back-of-the-throat "R" in addition to the trilled Spanish "R". But every language is almost certainly going to have sounds - both vowels and consonants - which are not present in your native language. It is not uncommon for new speakers to think that there is something "wrong" with the new language in that it requires them to learn these new sounds. I see that it is hard and frustrating for you to make the Spanish "R" - well, you just need to keep at it. (And it won't damage your tongue.)Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:25, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
- @Bongolian Are you an English speaking person? Because I natively (even despite some of my people not doing that) speak what I looked up and found to be the "uvular trill". Basically (call me chauvinistic, idk) when I see the letter "r", I assume the only correct way worldwide of pronouncing it is the uvular trill, this sort of "non-rolled" r, as I see it. English and Asian languages are weird exceptions to me. And, to me, the Spanish basic r and double r are just variants of the "normal" r that are rolled/trilled, but with a different mouth positioning apparently. I probably should change this mentality, but I just CAN'T. My brain categorically REFUSES to comply to any new logic of the letter r. And I can't really stop using my damn voice. I basically never use only my tongue to pronounce a letter, and I am very protective of my tongue… why would I try to put it to pieces by flapping it around? 80.187.114.96 (talk) 11:03, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
- Try YouTube.[1] In my Spanish class, which was taught by a native Spanish speaker called it a 'trill', not a 'roll'. When you can say a short sentence with pero and perro, then you've got it: Pero no es un perro. ("But it's not a dog"). Though there is a difference between single and double r sounds, it's rare that the context does not make the meaning obvious even if the pronunciation is bit off. Bongolian (talk) 05:47, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
- Throat rolled "r"; try making the khkhkh sound in your throat like you are preparing to spit. Then relax your throat while doing it, and make the vocative sound (the difference between P and B or G and C)
- Front rolled "r"; you'll make a D sound, but stiffen all but the tip of your tongue. Go for something like the word "droll" if it was pronounced with a hard D instead of "jroll". It's ok to be forceful at first, you'll relax as you learn. CorruptUser 19:52, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
- And then there are the 'rs' of the Mac the Knife song in the 1931 film version of Der Dreigroschenoper. (Available on YT and elsewhere) Anna Livia (talk) 23:05, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
- I can only do it with a full breath, and an easy consonant. So I can roll it, saying 'fresco' but it's breathy and the only way I can do I it is with full lung. I can do it, but not naturally. I have to precede it if I want to, if I want to say 'muy fresco' I have to force so much air to start the roll Otherwise, I just sound like 'muy fuleresco.' But don't be disparaged, nobody but Spanish speaking mom's take pride in your ability to roll your R's.Torrent (talk) 09:08, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
- And then there are the 'rs' of the Mac the Knife song in the 1931 film version of Der Dreigroschenoper. (Available on YT and elsewhere) Anna Livia (talk) 23:05, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
Trump boat massacre
So recently Trump ordered an apparently illegal strike on an alleged Venezuelan drug boat. However, Venezuela alleges that the video of the strike in question was actually a deepfake. So, what's more pathetic? Bragging about committing a war crime, or bragging about committing a war crime you didn't actually commit? Antares (talk) 13:38, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
- There are at least some hints (nothing 100 percent confirmed) that Venezuela is actually becoming a narco-state[2] and their government is known for its own cosnpiracies. I'm not saying that Trump is telling the truth, but I wouldn't be surprised if Maduro is in fact the one that is actually lying. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 15:08, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, neither party here is a reliable narrator. The Trump regime, for its part, has changed its narrative about the strike at least twice now. Antares (talk) 15:11, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
- Indeed, if one side is obviously "bad" it does not necessarily make the other side "good".Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:19, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
- FWIW, the BBC doesn't think that the deepfake claim holds any merit. Antares (talk) 16:34, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
- I have heard some reliable experts in relevant areas of the law say that the attack was not justified (e.g., law of the sea pertains in international water, no indication that the boat was armed, drug smuggling is not a capital offense, the boat did not attack first), and amounts to state-sponsored murder. Bongolian (talk) 17:10, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
- FWIW, the BBC doesn't think that the deepfake claim holds any merit. Antares (talk) 16:34, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
- Indeed, if one side is obviously "bad" it does not necessarily make the other side "good".Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:19, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, neither party here is a reliable narrator. The Trump regime, for its part, has changed its narrative about the strike at least twice now. Antares (talk) 15:11, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
Gun Rights in the Industrialized World
In 1800, there was no ATF, or background checks, or anything remotely close to the regulations we have now. Guns were in nearly every household. Yet, gun crimes were more rare than today*. What did they have figured out that we didn't?
I suggest there's a different reason; Industrialization.
No, not Urbanization or anything like that, just the price of guns.
In 1800, a rifle would cost $200 in nominal dollars, in a time when skilled craftsmen were being paid $1/day. This meant that a middle class worker would need to save for years to purchase their rifle, kind of like buying a car. And if you weren't a skilled worker? It'd take even longer. So you had a system where people could only get firearms after already establishing their career and possibly their families, after they were already past the peak crime ages.
Today, we manufacture guns in massive factories for cheap; you can get a rifle for as low as $400, and cheaper for a handgun. You could purchase a gun with your very first paycheck from working a minimum wage job, without ever having established a career or skillset, before you are even out of high school. In this regard, the young and/or poor now have similar access to firearms that once required being middle class and/or adult. So it really shouldn't be surprising that gun crimes have become more common.
So my question becomes, how do we
- Return gun crime levels to a lower rate
- Allow honest, upright citizens to continue owning firearms
- Allow young, poor people to have same/similar rights/opportunities as the middle class
- The murder rate was much higher in 1800, but when you factor in modern medical care turning most murder cases into either assault or attempted murder, we actually have far more violence today than in colonial times
CorruptUser 17:55, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
- In many other countries of a comparable economic-social level to the US the number of major gun-crime incidents is *far less than the US* and far more newsworthy; some are politically inspired or done by 'the nutters.' (Crossbows, black-powder and other weapons are very minor) A measure of gun control is accepted.
- It may be what is reported in the news - but the number of incidents in the US seems to be much higher than in the past. Anna Livia (talk) 18:32, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
- Regarding guns, the problem currently for the United States *specifically* is that guns have become both a proxy for paranoia instead of a tool (gotta scare you so you can buy more guns!) and a symbol of masochism identity (not just the NRA type, the gangbangers tooo). Big cultural issues there.
- It's difficult to say how to fix this. Industrialization, yes, but I see the massively stupid amount of guns America has as a sign of consumerism specifically. In the music world, there's something called "gear acquisition syndrome" for folks who seem to spend more time acquiring shiny new music toys than actually making music. Likewise, "gun acquisition syndrome" seems to be a part of certain corners of gun culture. Welcome to American capitalism... gotta spend your paycheck, now!
- The above unfortunately prevents a sensible conversation to be had on "what guns should be for military / police, and what should be for civilians"? Most industrial nations tend to regulate (in some form) automated gun features more than the United States. Partially because yes, it's cheap to get massive amounts of firepower. Bad when derps acquire it to mass shoot for whatever reason, bad too for the criminals that use these for whatever reason. Even the United States has *some* regulation -- machine guns were "banned" (read: heavily regulated actually) after the Prohibition era, because apparently "gangs use these guns, folks" was a message that worked then, but not now. But, gun manufacturers gotta sell their guns... so here we are.
- The full answer to "return gun crime levels to a lower rate" IMHO lies with improving the United States policing overall, though. (Not really a gun thing fully, maybe a little but not as a whole.) There may be other factors, too. Homicide per capita if I recall actually peaked in the 1970s; the lead-crime hypothesis here suggests that even something as simple as environmental factors can contribute to homicide rates. 47.197.76.134 (talk) 18:40, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
- Another historical factor is the increasing lethality of guns: musket (ball and powder) < rifles/handguns with premanufactured bullets < revolvers < automatic/semi-automatic weapons < metal jacketed bullets. Even the decades-old US national ban on fully-automatic weapons has become quite weak, now that there are known ways of turning semi-automatic weapons into fully-automatic weapons. UK and Australia were able to clamp down on gun culture, so superficially, it would seem to be not insurmountable for the US to do so. I don't have much hope for that anytime soon due to the cultural divide that has persisted since the beginning of the nation. Bongolian (talk) 20:07, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
- The gun that gets most of the attention, the AR-15, was invented nearly 70 years ago. Guns haven't really gotten much deadlier since then. They've gotten lighter, which is another huge issue because child soldiers, but not really deadlier.
- But going back to my OP, how do we reintroduce the "filter" we once had on keeping guns away from irresponsible people, without basically codifying some sort of classism or other bigotries into our legal system? CorruptUser 02:45, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
- I would point out that in most of the "industrialized world" it's pretty difficult to get hold of a gun. The US is somewhat of an outlier.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 05:44, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
- I think one of the issues with American 'gun control' is that the 'anti' stock answer is primarily a technocratic one; 'ban assault weapons', 'magazine limiters', 'licencing' etc which side-steps the true crux of the issue - America has violence and anger issues. That while the BoN is right in pointing out the fetishisation of guns [GAS exists in my experience in every hobby I've ever seen from fitness to home baking] but the truth is that even if every American civilian gun rusted up overnight you'd just end up seeing loads of people attacking others with blades, bats, crossbows etc. Why? My two pence worth...
- Another historical factor is the increasing lethality of guns: musket (ball and powder) < rifles/handguns with premanufactured bullets < revolvers < automatic/semi-automatic weapons < metal jacketed bullets. Even the decades-old US national ban on fully-automatic weapons has become quite weak, now that there are known ways of turning semi-automatic weapons into fully-automatic weapons. UK and Australia were able to clamp down on gun culture, so superficially, it would seem to be not insurmountable for the US to do so. I don't have much hope for that anytime soon due to the cultural divide that has persisted since the beginning of the nation. Bongolian (talk) 20:07, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
- 1/Mental health crisis. Anger. Paranoia. Depression. Extreme stress. Poorly/non-treated disorders. Millions of Americans 'losing the plot' in a myriad of ways, then deciding that Weapon Of Gun is 'the solution'. Shooting the fuckers who 'made your life hell'. Or just yourself.
- 2/Drug/alcohol crisis. Often related to previous.
- 3/Societal stresses. Unemployment. Ill health. Poor/no housing. Even the most stable of mental foundations can crumble over decades of carrying a ton of stress/worry on your back [qv: Falling Down].
- 4/Owner irresponsibility. How many mass shootings was done by someone stealing a legal weapon from someone they know? Why the fuck wasn't those weapons locked away? But no, the 'ma fweedom' extremists shoot down any suggestion that they should be legally made to keep their pieces secure. They are harlots - demanding power [of gun] without any damn responsibility.
- Gun violence is a symptom of a sick America, not the cause. Treat the true causes and they will rapidly decline in number. KarmaPolice (talk) 08:59, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
- There is certainly an enormous difference between between most European countries and most US states as the map shows. For all the social differences, it is difficult from a European perspective, to imagine that the allegedly easy availability of firearms in the US is not at least partly involved.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 09:35, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
- Aye, the availability of firearms makes it easier to maim/kill so will capture some folks who'll balk at personally sticking with a blade but not simply pointing and pressing. As well as reducing mass shooter events. But I stand by my previous logic. Plus, we all know reducing guns is a political non starter.
- Gun violence is a symptom of a sick America, not the cause. Treat the true causes and they will rapidly decline in number. KarmaPolice (talk) 08:59, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
- Lastly, there are voices 'on the left' who are arguing (with some justification) that the rise of the New Order means it's time for us to arm up. And in a classic authoritarian move, Orange One wants to ban owners of a minority he hates. What minority is going to be the next to be disarmed, eh? And no, you instantly exclude yourself from the debate of you say 'that can't happen here'. KarmaPolice (talk) 11:02, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
- The thing is: when I compare List of countries by intentional homicide rate
vs. Estimated number of civilian guns per capita by country
... my casual observation suggests that poverty and inequality are far better predictors of homicide than gun ownership in itself. (I don't doubt that the ease of access of firearms in America causes issues, it's just not the only thing going on here.)
- Googling around, I found this document from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. This suggests the following factors for higher homicide:
- Development levels -- the lower the development level, the higher the homicide rate.
- Large young male populations, especially for those with low education and high unemployment rates. Criminal gang activity is attractive in this environment.
- Income inequality -- the higher the inequality, the higher the homicide rate.
- Gender inequality -- the higher the inequality, the higher the homicide rate.
- Legal weakness. A strong security and justice system that respects human rights. Weaker law leads to higher homicide rates.
- Many of these are uneven patterns. But, in general, the pattern seems right. Give young men good jobs, a solid background to succeed, and the ethos to temper the worst of the macho animal instinct... you'll see less homicides. If you wreck schools... turn the rule of law into a corrupt farce... have a society that benefits only an Elite Few... have Taliban like views of women... and have a large amount of angry young men... you get gun violence.
- While this only covers homicides, I bet tackling the above factors would help a lot of other aspects of crime.
- The thing is, compared to some developing countries, America's crime rate is not that bad. America stands out among "rich" countries, though. My "armchair guess" is that the biggest factor of the above that applies to America is inequality (which leads to many of KP's social ills). A secondary guess would be the elements of American law infected by systematic racism/classism etc... America tends to have "strong" law (we arrest lots of people!) that nonetheless is not as well trained as it could be, and also has a lot of "rules for thee not for me" elements. The later weakens American law considerably.
- Fix these things, and you'll probably fix a heck of a lot of crime (easier said than done I know). Of course, it doesn't help the situation when the ruling class loves to exploit racism etc. to get votes, reinforcing both the "inequality" and the "uneven law" elements. 47.197.76.134 (talk) 15:03, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
- I (for one) and not arguing that guns are the single source of America's bizarre murder statistics. For one thing there are (almost) always multiple causes for any social situation and for another there are other countries with equal or higher rates of gun ownership. Nevertheless - and I don't think anyone is arguing with this - having a shitload of guns on top of whatever other problems the US has does not seem to be helpful.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:27, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
- @KP, with regard to the alcohol/drug crisis, federal law already makes it illegal for illicit drug users to own a firearm, though the same is not true of alcoholics. Given that 50% of homicides involve either the murderer or victim being drunk, that's worth an update, maybe we could treat drunk gun-wielders the same we treat drunk drivers? I don't know exactly.
- Back to my original question, what's the best way to replicate the 19th century's filter of "must be the type of person capable of holding a steady job for years to own a gun", without either trampling on the rights of honest citizens or enshrining inequality into the law?
- There're obviously more than one possibility, I'm thinking something like "if the military would reject you, no gun". CorruptUser 22:03, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
- So people who have asthma, diabetes, or flat feet should not be allowed to own a gun?2001:67C:2628:647:32:804:0:162 (talk) 03:10, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
- Flat flooted people are allowed in the army, but I was thinking more like "failed the psych eval", not "too old". Like I said, I just want something that brings back the equivalent of "responsible adult that's well integrated into society" without codifying a class system based purely on wealth, sex, race, etc. CorruptUser 03:57, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
- So people who have asthma, diabetes, or flat feet should not be allowed to own a gun?2001:67C:2628:647:32:804:0:162 (talk) 03:10, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
- I (for one) and not arguing that guns are the single source of America's bizarre murder statistics. For one thing there are (almost) always multiple causes for any social situation and for another there are other countries with equal or higher rates of gun ownership. Nevertheless - and I don't think anyone is arguing with this - having a shitload of guns on top of whatever other problems the US has does not seem to be helpful.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:27, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
- The thing is: when I compare List of countries by intentional homicide rate
- Lastly, there are voices 'on the left' who are arguing (with some justification) that the rise of the New Order means it's time for us to arm up. And in a classic authoritarian move, Orange One wants to ban owners of a minority he hates. What minority is going to be the next to be disarmed, eh? And no, you instantly exclude yourself from the debate of you say 'that can't happen here'. KarmaPolice (talk) 11:02, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
- -I think we need to differentiate crimes involving guns and crimes caused by guns. I think drugs is an excellent example; they use guns as they are there -they'd still deal even if they didn't (qv UK). Our higher knife crimes can be seen as 'frustrated gun crime'.
- -'Oh but that's illegal' is a pathetic and stupid answer. But more importantly, America has no registers to look at, it does not deal with pieces not from a proper retailer, does not answer if they bought them 'before' and due to the supreme shittiness of your health system many millions go undiagnosed/treated. Result - the law it almost pointless.
- -Yes, 'being incapable with a firearm' should be a crime. And a quick check tells me it is in many places in America. This is where propaganda and peer pressure comes in - to encourage responsible gun ownership, similar to how drunk driving became both socially unacceptable and where folks would confiscate their keys etc.
- -In an ideal world, having gun licences would be a good start. Every 2/3 years, you reapply and after a quick medical and a couple vouching for you you're go in and do the mandatory gun safety course, reminding you as a responsible citizen you must keep your pieces secure etc. I would also put it into law that if someone steals your piece for a crime, you're liable too unless you can prove you were responsible re storage. KarmaPolice (talk) 09:45, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
- There is also a cultural issue (or several) - if most people consider 'guns (and crossbows, black powder weapons etc) are to be used in particular contexts (military, some police in some contexts, target practice, certain hunting, 'dis-armed if historical etc) by suitable persons (and (great-)grandfather's WWII weapon is kept in the attic and not mentioned) there will be much lower rates of weapon-related-violence than 'do them Yanks have Freudian-substitute issue?' Having shooter drills in schools ('and they do nowt about it' is seen as wrong on many levels inlarege parts of the rest of the world. Anna Livia (talk) 15:53, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
- -In an ideal world, having gun licences would be a good start. Every 2/3 years, you reapply and after a quick medical and a couple vouching for you you're go in and do the mandatory gun safety course, reminding you as a responsible citizen you must keep your pieces secure etc. I would also put it into law that if someone steals your piece for a crime, you're liable too unless you can prove you were responsible re storage. KarmaPolice (talk) 09:45, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
Our AI spambot friends
See RationalWiki:Technical_support#the_AI_spambots_again - David Gerard (talk) 17:29, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
French edition rename
Hello, I recently started a translation of templates (notably navigation sidebars) in French, and chose to call the wiki RationnelWiki in the French translations. I wanted to ask for permission to change RationalWiki to RationnelWiki elsewhere on French articles (including moving the page RationalWiki (français) to RationnelWiki. Also wanted to ask if I had the right to create my own template categories (already created Category:Modèles de barres de navigation for my French sidebars). Avionfoudingue (talk) 03:33, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
- "RationnelWiki" sounds a little weird. How about "WikiRationnel" or "RationalismeWiki"? New world (talk) 11:33, 6 September 2025 (UTC)


- @Avionfoudingue As a French speaking moderator and Board member, I expressly forbid you from unilaterally changing the name of RationalWiki in French. It is called RationalWiki in French, English and every other language written in the Latin alphabet. End of. Spud (talk) 12:28, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
- Pedantic point of order; if you're speaking as a Board member, surely you should be putting on your Board hat [tricorn?] instead? KarmaPolice (talk) 13:56, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
- @KarmaPolice If there were such a template, I would have used it.Spud (talk) 11:11, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
- Pedantic point of order; if you're speaking as a Board member, surely you should be putting on your Board hat [tricorn?] instead? KarmaPolice (talk) 13:56, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
- @Avionfoudingue As a French speaking moderator and Board member, I expressly forbid you from unilaterally changing the name of RationalWiki in French. It is called RationalWiki in French, English and every other language written in the Latin alphabet. End of. Spud (talk) 12:28, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
Anthropic's grand copyright theft proposed settlement
You may have heard that the generative AI company agreed to a settlement of a $1.5 billion total payment to authors that it stole copyrighted works from (it sounds like a lot but it's a drop in the bucket for these AI companies). The settlement still needs to be approved by the judge in the case. The settlement would work out to more than $3000 per author, which is substantial for potential beneficiaries given that many authors make very little from their books and because the proposed settlement appears to include "works", which means both books and journal articles are included. Most academic journal authors make $0 from their publication and no longer hold copyright once the article is published. If you've ever published a book, a book chapter, or a journal article. It's worth checking if you might be included in the lawsuit. The Atlantic has a database of works that were stolen, which is searchable by author.[3] If you find yourself there, the litigating law firm has a sign-up form for potential beneficiaries (i.e., potential class action members).[4] I was in the database for an obscure publication, for which I do not hold copyright. @David Gerard is in the database for two of his books. Bongolian (talk) 18:32, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
is it ethical to be a billionaire/ have billion dollars? etc
I’m curious to know what is the consensus on this topic is currently from this community. Ive been out of the loop for a while and have come across videos that make me ponder the question.Senxaur 13:16, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
- There is no ethical way to make a billion dollars. Antares (talk) 13:08, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
- I'm skeptical about the existence of a transcendental ethic. My opinion is that it depends on how the money was acquired (and I don't know the most common way to acquire a billion).
- If someone's fortune was acquired through political capture, crime, and rent-seeking, it's clearly unjust. On the other hand, if someone acquired their fortune in a, let's say (I hate that word) "meritocratic" way, that is, by providing goods and services that the population decided to pay for, I don't see any injustice (see my Essay:Greatest_economists_of_all_time#25_John_Bates_Clark), because they became rich by the choice of other people, who decided to give their money to them. There is still at least one more way to become a billionaire: inheritance. This is probably the most controversial of the three. I don't have the time or patience to write about it.
- It's also important to keep in mind that "just" doesn't necessarily mean good. For a long time, economists believed there was a trade-off between equality and efficiency, which would partly explain, for example, why Americans, despite being richer than Europeans, were becoming even richer, even if the catch-up effect
predicted that Europe should be growing faster. The trade-off probably exists, but it is far more controversial than previously thought when Arthur Okun wrote his book decades ago, with new studies arguing that inequality generates, for instance, political instability, which affects economic growth in the long-term. The cause of this instability is still unclear as far as I know. If it is caused primarily by envy and not by the rent-seeking mentioned above, it is perhaps fair to say that such instability would not be unethical.
- It's also important to keep in mind that "just" doesn't necessarily mean good. For a long time, economists believed there was a trade-off between equality and efficiency, which would partly explain, for example, why Americans, despite being richer than Europeans, were becoming even richer, even if the catch-up effect
- Finally, I would like to recommend an article, Mankiw's Defending the One Percent [5] and Stiglitz's book, The Price of Inequality, which address both sides of the debate. A Theory of Justice by John Rawls and Anarchy State and Utopia by Robert Nozick are also interesting reads on the subject, even if I don't like these two books as much as used to. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 13:24, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
- Becoming a billionaire involves some degree of exploitation somewhere along the line, which I consider to be inherently unethical. The billionaire running Amazon isn't the one actually delivering the packages and manning the warehouses, he just makes bank off their underpaid labor. The very existence of billionaires is itself offensive too. Elon Musk could give away most of his money and still be a wealthy man. The sheer inequality this implies is obscene. Antares (talk) 13:36, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
- Is capitalism inherently unethical?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 13:47, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
- (EC) I don't think that giving people jobs is unethical. There is, of course, a power imbalance between employers and employees, but institutions that protect the second group already exist. We don't live in the 19th century anymore. The relationship between employers and employees is much more blurred today, with both sides profiting from it. Saying that a group is "underpaid" is very difficult, you can see again my entry on J. B. Clark. As I said before quite a few times, there is indeed a strong case for a much higher minimum wage in the US.[6] Maybe there is also a case for better regulations due to the risks that some workers face, I don't know. But saying that there is some sort of exploitation in a mathematical sense is much harder. The rest of your argument was already answered in my first post. If you don't like how these people get rich (here we're assuming that they belong to the second group that I mentioned, which isn't truth as far as I know) then you can blame people for buying goods from Amazon. They would still be extremely rich even if their employees earned much more, don't you agree? GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 13:51, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
- For the record, as I said many times before, I do think think that the rich should pay more taxes, and these taxes should be used to provide goods for the poor. That's, in my opinion, a good way way to fight inequality. But that doesn't make labor relationships exploitative, and it isn't a good case against billionaires. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 13:58, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
- (EC) Putting it in another way. Do you think that Amazon's workforce would be better of without Amazon? We well never know for sure since we can ask Amazon to stop working and check how their former workers would fare, but usually people choose the best jobs available to them. If you want to improve their condition, giving them education, for instance, seems a better way. Whether we like it or not, the reason why people often choose their jobs, is because they can't find better ones. Also, I did say that there is a power imbalance, right? I didn't read your paper, but I think it is compatible with my argument based on the abstract. Apparently, they are talking about South Africa (a much poorer nation than the US and Europe), so maybe there these power imbalances still resemble 19th century capitalism much more. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 14:16, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
- Oh, wait. You removed the link to the paper. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 14:16, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
- (EC) Putting it in another way. Do you think that Amazon's workforce would be better of without Amazon? We well never know for sure since we can ask Amazon to stop working and check how their former workers would fare, but usually people choose the best jobs available to them. If you want to improve their condition, giving them education, for instance, seems a better way. Whether we like it or not, the reason why people often choose their jobs, is because they can't find better ones. Also, I did say that there is a power imbalance, right? I didn't read your paper, but I think it is compatible with my argument based on the abstract. Apparently, they are talking about South Africa (a much poorer nation than the US and Europe), so maybe there these power imbalances still resemble 19th century capitalism much more. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 14:16, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
- For the record, as I said many times before, I do think think that the rich should pay more taxes, and these taxes should be used to provide goods for the poor. That's, in my opinion, a good way way to fight inequality. But that doesn't make labor relationships exploitative, and it isn't a good case against billionaires. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 13:58, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
- Becoming a billionaire involves some degree of exploitation somewhere along the line, which I consider to be inherently unethical. The billionaire running Amazon isn't the one actually delivering the packages and manning the warehouses, he just makes bank off their underpaid labor. The very existence of billionaires is itself offensive too. Elon Musk could give away most of his money and still be a wealthy man. The sheer inequality this implies is obscene. Antares (talk) 13:36, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
- Finally, I would like to recommend an article, Mankiw's Defending the One Percent [5] and Stiglitz's book, The Price of Inequality, which address both sides of the debate. A Theory of Justice by John Rawls and Anarchy State and Utopia by Robert Nozick are also interesting reads on the subject, even if I don't like these two books as much as used to. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 13:24, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
Ok. For the record, I don't think that your argument is weak this time. Capitalism can be exploitative and it often is, but I think that this problem can be fixed, and ditching all billionaires doesn't seem to be the best solution. Disputing the ethics of the modern market economy is much easier than disputing its efficiency (even if the latter can also be done with good arguments, of course). GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 14:24, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
- All economic systems are 'exploitative' in the respect labour never gets 100% output from their labour. Some will need to be sliced off, if only for the capital fund for future investment, to support the retired workers, the sick etc. But folks don't see it this way normally - that it's only 'exploitative' if someone take an unfair slice. And that's where the debate comes in (when a fair slice becomes unfair).
- I will argue that it is almost impossible to earn 'fairly' a billion dollars. The chances of you being able to earn that much via labour alone is incredibly small which means our billionaire is mainly ear ning via holding of capital assets. Which most likely shall be administered via your behalf by faceless managers who shall be motivated to squeeze your RoR to be as high as possible (qv 'Jacksons Arm's, The Iron Heel). KarmaPolice (talk) 15:00, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
- Billionaires are to me more of a "symptom".
- I would argue, personally, that there have been some billionaires that are not any more exploitative than anyone else in the capitalism system. The large money came from a combination of (usually) novelty, hard work, and luck. In many cases there really was some true innovation going on. Yes, now in these enshitified times, there are issues. But much of them are due to the natural issues present in monopolies, which many of these billionaire owned companies are. (If we're going to reach for "good old days" yearns like MAGA does, why not "Make Trust-Busting Great Again?")
- Still, having an economic system that creates such a wide disparity between entrepreneur and ordinary worker however creates significant problems even with the innovation going on. So from my point of view, I'd rather focus on the disparity than focus on the net worth number.
- Presently in the US, the "high money class" has an outsized influence in political discourse, which is a big net negative. This is especially notable when said class produces propaganda promoting their interests, and especially if the propaganda is anti-science or bullshit economics. This was most famously seen with climate change denialism, which was rather obviously fueled by fossil fuel interests. Likewise, there is a direct correlation between the anti-vaccination movement and the US "wellness industry", which is now of a size -- ~$2 trillion -- far greater than legitimate R&D. The present anti-democratic kleptocracy musings of the money class are merely the natural conclusion of a class of people that are getting further and further disconnected from the "ordinary folk".
- The other problem is, the vehicle that produces this wealth -- the markets -- has become... shall we say... far more "speculative" and "casino like". Much of the *really* predatory industries that produce billionaires can be found in this sector; there may be innovation, but it's often of a "playing with numbers" variety that is of little use for the "ordinary folk". The wingnut welfare circuit producing high-money-class propaganda tried to obfuscate this, but it was this "casino-ization" of the real estate market that directly caused the Great Recession.
The financial industry is an important component of business, but I do share the Paul Krugman point of view that the number-juggling gambling portion, the one that got the big salaries, contributed much to inequality but little to the economy of the "ordinary folk". Today, we're seeing the end-game of this with cryptocurrency, a "fine tulip"
that, speculative nature aside, has proven to be a very attractive vehicle for the criminal element but is of zero use for the corner store.
- So, from my point of view, it seems to me like much of the "billionaire problem" would be corrected via a more progressive tax system and more financial regulation to taper the "casino" elements. I'm sure the wingnut welfare nuts will moan about those things, of course... 47.197.76.134 (talk) 16:35, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
- 'As they say' - whether you have 'enough money' or a billion dollars/other currency you can still live only in the present, eat one meal and wear one set of clothing at a time: sometimes the billionaireship lasts only until others enter the industry or the value is largely notional. (How much are the UK Royal Castles and the Crown jewels actually 'worth', and could the monarch sell them even if not constrained?)
- There is also Veblen's Conspicuous consumption - if you have much money you are expected to spend/donate etc (whereas we ordinary people are free to choose.
- The most ethical way of being a billionaire - acquire some hyperinflation currency/stamps (but the actual users of the money at the time did suffer) Anna Livia (talk) 20:07, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
- I take issue with the idea that billionaires are just a symptom. Billionaires bought red state legislatures to pass anti-union ("right-to-work laws"). Labor unions and labor rights are fundamental to functioning democracies, and billionaires of the entrepreneurial ilk are uniformly opposed to unions. Entrepreneurialship is often built upon various types of theft (stolen ideas, patents, or shoved-out founders). It's true that some billionaires are worse than others, but it seems that the more money one has, the more money one wants — and at any cost to others. Once there is a critical mass of billionaires, the oligarchy is formed and along with it economic inequality, opposition to democracy, and support for strongman rule that will keep them eternally in the comfort which they think they deserve. Category:Oligarchic escapes and paranoia are other symptoms of billionaires. Howard Lutnick,
currently Secretary of Commerce under the big rump, is an interesting case-in-point: mentored by the founder of Cantor Fitzgerald, had himself promoted to partner after the founder died, kicked out founder's family and installed himself as owner, wouldn't pay the families of his staff who were killed in the 9-11 attacks (even though his company Cantor Fitzgerald was merrily trading stocks throughout 9-11). Several scoundrels became billionaires after betting on the misery of others (credit default swaps) during the 2008 financial crisis. How did the crisis begin? Billionaires paid some lobbyists and Congressional reps to deregulate. Bongolian (talk) 04:49, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
- I am sure that billionaires will do all they can to rig the system to make themselves "better" billionaires.
- But isn't there a problem with this process? Wealth acquisition is to an extent a zero sum game. While wealth may be being created by some mechanisms I'm betting that it's not being created at the same rate that it's being hovered up by the mega-rich. If so, as they continue to get richer the poor, do indeed, get poorer.
- Then, at some point, there will be no one around with the money to buy iPhone's from Amazon or electric vehicles from megalomaniacs. When all the wealth is held by the top 10 percent or even the top one percent - won't the system break?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 09:38, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
- @Bob M I don't think that's actually happening. Check The Elephant Curve
if you want to see some evidence against the "zero-sum" argument. Some people think that Thomas Piketty's conclusions on his book on his The Capital in the 21st Century (i.e. the r > g dynamic causes wealth to grow faster than the economy, concentrating capital in the hands of a few) means that the rich are squeezing out the poor, but I think that he actually meant that the gap is widening, not that the economy is a zero sum game, but this conclusion has been disputed too.[7][8]
- The diagnosis that concentrate too much wealth leada to power and that this can distort the market system is something that even diehard libertarian economists studied, such as George Stigler and regulatory capture and James M. Buchanan and rent seeking. I don't think that their solutions would work very well to solve the issue, but they are still better than what most of the mainstream right seems to believe today. Turns out that being pro-market means being antibusiness too (I give all my Internet money to anyone finding a single quote of Adam Smith supporting businessman). GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 10:36, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
- Having said that, I would say that "the system" has indeed broken twice in American history, through these extremely rough timelines:
- A) At the end of the Gilded Age, for various reasons, the go-go capitalist mood broke. This led to the OG Progressive Era.
- B) At the end of the Roaring Twenties, for various reasons, the go-go capitalist mood also broke due to the Great Depression. World War II European fascism shenanigans then helped further neuter the fascist shenanigans of the American business bigwigs.
- I would say that the former is probably more comparable to the current climate than the later. We have a new shiny thing (information technology) that is producing comparable bubbles, busts, and oligarchs. Just like the new shiny thing back then, railroads. Finance (outside regulated boring areas, which thankfully do exist today) is getting awfully shaky now, just as it was then. And, just like then, politicians increasingly look bought and are serving corporate / oligarch interests, not of the people. 47.197.76.134 (talk) 12:37, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
- @Bob M I don't think that's actually happening. Check The Elephant Curve
- I take issue with the idea that billionaires are just a symptom. Billionaires bought red state legislatures to pass anti-union ("right-to-work laws"). Labor unions and labor rights are fundamental to functioning democracies, and billionaires of the entrepreneurial ilk are uniformly opposed to unions. Entrepreneurialship is often built upon various types of theft (stolen ideas, patents, or shoved-out founders). It's true that some billionaires are worse than others, but it seems that the more money one has, the more money one wants — and at any cost to others. Once there is a critical mass of billionaires, the oligarchy is formed and along with it economic inequality, opposition to democracy, and support for strongman rule that will keep them eternally in the comfort which they think they deserve. Category:Oligarchic escapes and paranoia are other symptoms of billionaires. Howard Lutnick,
- The most ethical way of being a billionaire - acquire some hyperinflation currency/stamps (but the actual users of the money at the time did suffer) Anna Livia (talk) 20:07, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
- I think folks are missing the real point of the issue; that this is a discussion regarding ethics. Now, if we accept the premise that 'money' is a kind of ration-ticket for resources and to some extent the amount of money in the economy is a finite sum [so a loose 'zero-sum game'] a billionaire is clearly holding a fuck-ton of ration-tickets in a society where a lot of people could really do with some more tickets. Now, it's argued that the billionaire helps in this by investing their ton of tickets into the production of more tickets, but this is at least partly obsolete; we no longer live in a 'ticket-short' world where the 1%'ers wallet was the main source of investment tickets. Even more importantly, a lot of those investment tickets go into either 'store of wealth' and/or 'rent-seeking' activities [real estate, stock market, IP, M&As, crony capitalism etc] which not only does not help in the increase of tickets being produced in 'the real world' but can hurt society by inflating the prices of stuff both people and business actually need [for example, property] as well as keeping the poor in that position by denying sufficient resources to be able to possibly bootstrap themselves upwards.
- Therefore, I will argue that unless proven explicitly otherwise, the top 1% are a net drain on the general economy. So this leads to the question; how much is 'too much'?
- Now, each country would have a different rating, but my rating for the USA is the absolute top limit of $20m. That this guarantees not just a upper-middle lifestyle for a couple in retirement and real estate/physical assets of about 1m [main home plus vacation home and furnishings] but also enough wealth to 'set up the kids/grandkids for life' [which I consider a natural desire] - that is private education, fully-paid college, a 400-500k home and a trust fund which would provide an modest eternal safety net for each.
- Anything more is just plain unnecessary. That once you go over a certain point in anything, money cannot buy more quality - they're just Veblen goods. That the law of diminishing returns always kicks in; difference between a £10 steak and a £25 is out of this world, the 25 to 50 considerable but less and so on to the point there is almost nil increase between a £100 one and the £600 one at the Savoy. But that's the point; you go to the Savoy not because it's '100% worth it' food/service/decor etc but because it appeals to the inner snob, that we can say 'we dined at the Savoy'. Art is similar; I love the painting 'The Boulevard Montmartre at Night'; I have a full-size print on my wall. Cost £200, all told. The original would cost me perhaps 10m. I'd enjoy the original more, but not 50k times more.
- But the truth is; those who go past the 'that's enough' limit by their own actions are usually driven by a combination of egotism and megalomania; that if they cannot personally live forever, they want to build a damn dynasty. That they want their names to join the podium of 'old money plutocrats', perhaps with half an eye on that most supreme of examples; the old British aristocracy [quite a few can trace their 'wealth lines' all the way back into the mediaeval mists]. But they know all about the 'Three Generation curse' and other examples of plutocrats who lost their wealth or just found it diluted to nothing down the line. Which in real terms means trying to rake up as big a fucking pile as physically possible, stashing it in as many different places as possible and do their best to cook up ways to guard it against taxes, stupid descendents and black swans.
- Which leads me to the question; is it ethical to allow a hereditary plutocracy to arise and embed itself so firmly that it can fuck about with any aspect of a nation's life they so desire? KarmaPolice (talk) 15:14, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
- I think the $20m limit is overstated. Creating trust fund babies, which this amount would enable, encourages aimless lifestyles, what amounts to a mini-plutocracy class. The "Veblen goods" that you mention (I presume you mean conspicuous consumption) is actually worse in some respects than Veblen described. Expensive wine tastes taste awful (or so I'm told). Having the original 'The Boulevard Montmartre at Night' on your wall would come with a mandatory free case of extreme paranoia, which the billionaire class are loaded up with. Large amounts of inherited wealth is not ethical because it fuels the oligarchy. If one accepts democracy as more ethical than most other forms of practical government, then oligarchy is clearly not ethical. Bongolian (talk) 20:09, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
- *shows cigarette packet*
- 1m 'Founding couple' house, small holiday home, personal assets.
- 2m Founding couple's retirement fund (100k a year for 25 years, @ 5%)
- 1m Contingency (gifts, charity, emergencies).
- 4m Total.
- Per kid/grandkid;
- .25 Early education, care.
- .25 College.
- .5 First home.
- .6 trust fund (30k a year @ 5%)
- 1.6m per person.
- Assumes reproduction rate of 3, so 9 persons.
- 14.4m 'for the kids/grandkids'.
- 18.4m Total assets.
- I think the $20m limit is overstated. Creating trust fund babies, which this amount would enable, encourages aimless lifestyles, what amounts to a mini-plutocracy class. The "Veblen goods" that you mention (I presume you mean conspicuous consumption) is actually worse in some respects than Veblen described. Expensive wine tastes taste awful (or so I'm told). Having the original 'The Boulevard Montmartre at Night' on your wall would come with a mandatory free case of extreme paranoia, which the billionaire class are loaded up with. Large amounts of inherited wealth is not ethical because it fuels the oligarchy. If one accepts democracy as more ethical than most other forms of practical government, then oligarchy is clearly not ethical. Bongolian (talk) 20:09, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
- (points out 20m was 'absolute limit', taking into account large family, one or more descendents being disabled etc).
- Would this create a load of mini-babies who'll coast through life? Sure. But it will also provide a decent trampoline upwards if any of the 2/3rd gen were desiring/capable of it. Or provide a cushion if any wished to take a low-paid but socially useful job, like in education, science, the arts etc. Money don't buy you happiness, but sure as hell a reasonable but not luxurious mortgage-free home and a lifetime modest stipend means that a lot of the money-related stresses should be clear without 'it going to their heads' [or becoming an oligarch class]. And from my experience, you'll always have some folks in this world who will 'coast' regardless of actual SoL. KarmaPolice (talk) 22:13, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
Are we witnessing the end of Social Democracy in Europe?
Government in France is collapsing. And of course, leading countries in Europe are in both societal and economical crisis since long now. Not surprisingly, more and more governments are preparing people for war. The obvious effect is that social welfare will be cut down in favour of military spendings, something that will only add to distrust at Liberal governments and values (a damage already done by Trumpist ideological insurgence) Alexk (talk) 01:55, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
- Social democratic countries were doing fine last time I checked. Governments come and go, but institutions remain. In my opinion, the main challenge that social democracy will face in the next decades will be dealing with a declining workforce. Immigration, of course, can fix this issue at least to some extent, but Europe doesn't seem to want immigrants, so unless we have a huge leap in productivity (no, I don't think AI will do that) or Europeans start having more babies (giving how pathetic were the results of spending 5 percent of your GDP in pro-natalist policies in Hungary I doubt that they will) some major cuts will possibly happen in the next decades, but that doesn't mean the demise of a very good system. Personally, I think that social democracy is, from an intellectual and political standpoint, in a much better position than 30 years ago. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 00:40, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
- Being the best-working system we have tried in the last century (with some bad examples, like Greece) doesn't mean it will be on the winning side (see Weimar Republic). Major cuts alone mean that established Socialdemocratic instititions in Europe will be striked from both Left and Right-wing populists, with nationalism already on the rise, capitalism entering its self-eating stage, and total war with Russia on the way.Alexk (talk) 01:55, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
- I think one of the key issues is that a lot of the 'social democratic' parties died as such some time ago; that being down to them morphing into Third Way/Neoliberal 'let's tinker about the edges' parties in the desire to court the votes of the well-heeled who like all people doing well for themselves, will shove a pick in the skull of those who threaten to spill their drink. So they latched onto managerial/technocratic solutions, hoping to improve things without spilling that drink. This became a kind of 'doom loop'; the more 'technocratic' the party became, the more it attracted technocrats, which by it's very nature became more and more suspicious of actual public participation in politics - that like everything else, they want everything 'neat' and 'managed'; a managed democracy where you only passively vote 'on the skill of the captain' and you're never bloody allowed to actually question the direction the ship is going. This became more lethal a loop as in many nations the 'mainstream right' either imploded or were hijacked by the populist/reactionary right, which drove the rightist technocrats into the 'leftist' party, which not just strengthened the technocratic lean but also shunted them rightwards. And because Third Way was at best a dubious ideology success-wise and is a total fail now, our technocrats usually spend their time trying to explain away poverty etc via graphs [which isn't new; David Lloyd George 120 years ago derided the British Conservatives as 'trying to feed starving men with harvest statistics'] which shows they are either disconnected to 'the real world' or worse, simply don't give a fuck of the human element. And why the rightists can [with some evidence] attack these parties as being 'the Establishment' [ie the party of the managers and technocrats who run most of the country] and harvest a lot of the discontent which traditionally was 'ours'.
- Being the best-working system we have tried in the last century (with some bad examples, like Greece) doesn't mean it will be on the winning side (see Weimar Republic). Major cuts alone mean that established Socialdemocratic instititions in Europe will be striked from both Left and Right-wing populists, with nationalism already on the rise, capitalism entering its self-eating stage, and total war with Russia on the way.Alexk (talk) 01:55, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
- Or for a TL:DR version; the mainstream leftist parties fucked up the day they decided that having a heart in politics was bad and having public participation in party politics was even worse. And herein lies the solution; that if they re-discover their hearts, that they actually start welcoming back the noisy, fractious and somewhat uncontrollable public participants [and accepting this every partial chaos as a feature, not a bug] and allow genuine two-way conversations to happen again, they will continue to lose ground on all flanks until they become an electoral irrelevance.
- Anyway, I *do* see several major productivity gains in the works for Europe. You're 100% right to be wildly suspicious on AI [and it's sibling, robots] but both do have their part to play. Computing power and LLMs can reduce humans in data-driven roles, while chatbots will cut the numbers of call centre workers and personal assistants. Jeeves the bot won't do your physical shopping for you, but there is no fundamental reason now why warehouses can't be much more automated than they are presently. And this isn't even taking into account the swathes of Euro economies which have not embraced previous waves of productivity gains; from computerisation to electrification, leading to the obvious solution of increasing capital density [for example, the UK per-head has a third less capital than Germany, and it shows in our SoL]. Other innovations will be more... contentious, such as making greater use of tech such as modular/flat-pack buildings, 3D printing, GM crops etc which threatens our 'traditional way' of doing things. Even simply suggesting that we [as a continent] consume less meat/dairy so that land can be used for more legumes [so we can become more self-sufficient and need fertilisers less] kicks up a shitstorm, esp in countries such as France where 'our food' is a political third rail.
- Demographics offers both challenges and advantages economically - and the latter is rarely mentioned. A stagnant population size means that there isn't a constant rush to add more homes, transport links, utilities etc [meaning the labour-force will be on a 'replacement of end of life' projects only, and thus smaller] or to constantly increase production of foodstuffs etc while older citizens consume less products per-head [clothing, furniture etc] which means less workers in these sectors. As for changing the birthrate; it's no secret how to do it, sociologists have known 'the answer' since the 1960s [the USSR was the first nation to show this issue] - that modern, industrial society which has economic output as it's core goal ends up throwing a ton of 'hygiene' factors which strongly discourage having children [or more children]. Hungary's attempts didn't really work because they were very biased towards who they wanted to have more kids [guess what, LGBT, the poor, foreigners, the unmarried or the womb being over 30 need not apply], a lot of it was loaded into loans [with some shit T/Cs attached], was draped with right-wing rhetoric and most importantly, didn't really answer any of those hygiene factors. [Interestingly, I have seen it argued that it was the reduction of teen pregnancies in Europe which finally pushed our birthrate under replenishment levels]. KarmaPolice (talk) 12:07, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
- That's an interesting point. Indeed, a stagnant population means that the government can spend less in housing, even on education and probably on many other things, and focus on healthcare, pensions, etc... And yes, I have little doubts that a smaller birthrate is better for the economy than teen pregnancies. By the way, how do you see the "guns versus butter" problem that our friend mentioned? GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 12:59, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
- Also, this is piece by Foreign Affairs is a very interesting take on a declining population.[10] While the author works for the American Enterprise Institute, and right-wing organizations are known for advocating for pro natalist policies (at least when it comes to while people) he argues that, despite the many challeges that a declining population means, the doomsayers are also wrong. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 13:09, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
- The current (and recurring) government crisis in France is definitely not an example of the European social democratic malaise that has become known as Pasokification
for the simple reason that Macron and his party are not and have never been social democratic, but are liberals of the social liberal/neoliberal variety.
- The current (and recurring) government crisis in France is definitely not an example of the European social democratic malaise that has become known as Pasokification
- Also, this is piece by Foreign Affairs is a very interesting take on a declining population.[10] While the author works for the American Enterprise Institute, and right-wing organizations are known for advocating for pro natalist policies (at least when it comes to while people) he argues that, despite the many challeges that a declining population means, the doomsayers are also wrong. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 13:09, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
- That's an interesting point. Indeed, a stagnant population means that the government can spend less in housing, even on education and probably on many other things, and focus on healthcare, pensions, etc... And yes, I have little doubts that a smaller birthrate is better for the economy than teen pregnancies. By the way, how do you see the "guns versus butter" problem that our friend mentioned? GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 12:59, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
- Demographics offers both challenges and advantages economically - and the latter is rarely mentioned. A stagnant population size means that there isn't a constant rush to add more homes, transport links, utilities etc [meaning the labour-force will be on a 'replacement of end of life' projects only, and thus smaller] or to constantly increase production of foodstuffs etc while older citizens consume less products per-head [clothing, furniture etc] which means less workers in these sectors. As for changing the birthrate; it's no secret how to do it, sociologists have known 'the answer' since the 1960s [the USSR was the first nation to show this issue] - that modern, industrial society which has economic output as it's core goal ends up throwing a ton of 'hygiene' factors which strongly discourage having children [or more children]. Hungary's attempts didn't really work because they were very biased towards who they wanted to have more kids [guess what, LGBT, the poor, foreigners, the unmarried or the womb being over 30 need not apply], a lot of it was loaded into loans [with some shit T/Cs attached], was draped with right-wing rhetoric and most importantly, didn't really answer any of those hygiene factors. [Interestingly, I have seen it argued that it was the reduction of teen pregnancies in Europe which finally pushed our birthrate under replenishment levels]. KarmaPolice (talk) 12:07, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
- Macron’s supposed interest in the “flexicurity” systems of the Scandinavian labour markets has always focused solely on the flexibility part (easy to hire/fire), but little on the accompanying security (relatively high unemployment benefits etc.), which is just one example of him not being a social democrat, but a liberal.
- That said, there has been a long crisis in European social democracy, but it’s varied and has had different result, from the marginalisation of previously strong social democratic parties in Greece and the Netherlands to significant decline, but not exactly wipeouts in Germany and France to the weird morphing of the Danish Social Democrats to something like a “moderate” version of the Danish People's Party, while regaining/retaining power, just like the Norwegian Labour Party has been able to regain/retain power. Not to mention that social democratic parties have done fairly well in Portugal and seem to have bounced back in Spain after being challenged from the left by Podemos/Sumar.
- The main weakening of Western/Norther/Southern European social democracy, i.e. those outside of the (former) Eastern Bloc, came with the societal changes in the 1970s and ‘80s and the subsequent surrender of key ideological points to the centre right by the New Labour inspired course changes in the 1990s and 2000s.
- The patterns in Central and Eastern Europe are different yet again, due to some of their social democratic parties springing from reformed, post Soviet, communist parties and their political developments being much different from the already diverse patterns in Western Europe. ScepticWombat (talk) 14:04, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
- - The key issue is that the forces of capitalism hate the idea of a 'static population' and an 'older population' because between them have echoes of turning the country into a steady-state economy [older people do not only consume a lot less 'stuff' but are also more resistant to fads/novelty which is a major factor in consumerist churn]. It would require a considerable change in outlook; that companies would have to focus better on developing genuinely better products than simply trying to trick them into buying crap, that market conditions would generally be very mature [as relatively few new consumers would be coming on-line] and they'd have to put more heed into actually training and retaining workers than their traditional 'don't need to do nowt, there's more where that came from' mentality which is riddled in the care, retail and logistics sectors [esp if Europe remains relatively hostile to external migration]. It's why the likes of the AEI are so 'pro bump'.
- -[non-paywalled edition]. Most of the points they raise I've already noted and generally speaking, that article cites the issues rather than proffering solutions [so is safe]. For example, a lot of that 'saved spend' on child education you mentioned will need to be ploughed back in to adult education - that we already need the capabilities to reskill/refresh older workers skillsets and if Europe's workforce is going to be even older and working older too. And socially there's 'challenges and advantages' too; on one hand it threatens to bake in an elderly perma-majority electorally [which could spell disaster] but on the other hand it might spur the making of more multi-generational co-living housing stock [thinkpiece] which can nail both 'childcare' and 'senior care' issues to mutual benefit.
- - In the general 'guns/butter' debate; I pick the third option - machines. That Europe probably could have afforded both if it wasn't due do the massive upshoot of national debt due to the bank bailouts and then Covid. So what we have to do is work to increase our capital stock to get growth at a higher speed than traditionally and therefore, better-placed to sort out our structural deficits. This appears what the Germans are attempting, though they do have the advantage their total debt ratios are still well below 100% - other countries simply do not have that 'breathing room'. What's more, Euro membership is a partial straightjacket; like we all learned when Greece hit the skids - it couldn't devalue and had austerity imposed on them from outside by technocrats who didn't really give a fuck about social cohesion or the fate of the Greek politicos who had to accept it. But if put into a either/or situation; it has to be the guns. The mid-east is falling to bits, the rusted tiger which is Russia is slowly chewing through Ukraine, it would only take one major event to send tens of millions of refugees tramping up to the Med and knocking on our collective door and America should be expected to be somewhere between at best an unreliable ally, at worst an actual adversary. We can either delude ourselves that some or none of those things are in fact true [and so continue to do nothing] or we face up to the plain fact there's no fucking point discussing our welfare systems etc if we find ourselves drift into a war with Russia, a bunch of far-right cretins take power across the continent and/or we find ourselves hamstrung due to lack of economic resources. KarmaPolice (talk) 16:57, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
- The collapse of the French government doesn't come in a vacuum: Macron called for new elections, when he had what could be called an implicit absolute majority. He lost said absolute majority. The left "won" the election (that's usually what coming first means). Now, he had two options of non-agression, or "coalition" or whatever: the entire left, from LFI to PS, or the far-right. He decided to name a minister from the LR party. The problem: LR + macronist alliance doesn't equal absolute majority. He needs more deputies. And so, in the name of "stability", the completely illegitimate and frankly not democratically elected Bayrou government was supported by the PS (the "social-democrats", …), the macronists, LR and of course the National Rally. Still, the only ministers came from Macron's alliance (already fairly liberal-conservative and centre-right since Darmanin was interior minister) and the traditional right-wing, LR. Of course, the "traditional right-wing" means very far-right leaning, to say the least, ministers. The true Gaullists from LR, with an understanding for the need for a providence state (the right-wing concept of social justice) that assures socio-economic equality, were not very involved. Macron needs to accept something: the left won, and the left isn't extremist, so he needs to name the prime minister the left agrees on (they lastly agreed on Lucie Castets as prime minister, but Macron named Barnier instead). Ok, let's say LFI is "far-left" to Macron: what about the other 3? The communists too? Ok, let's say the greens: oh, turns out Macron considers the greens far-left too. So Macron just wants a coalition with the Socialist Party and LR, and his supporters, which implements his politics. The problem: he lost the election. So this is sort of a problem now, this thing with calling elections and all for no apparent reason except creating chaos. Well, hey, the left apparently has a solution: letting it govern without Macron, but with a pact of non-aggression. You say no compromise is possible then? Well, a pact of non-aggression doesn't mean Macronists have to vote for left-wing legislation. They could just vote for the left's government staying in place, the left could avoid using article 49-3. The government won't last, you say? But that's the entire point of a pact of non-aggression. Why the left? Again, we have to remind people always, but the left came first, and therefore, in such a situation, has a little bit more legitimacy than the far-right (but Macron decided he prefers the far-right). So, there is a solution, why doesn't Macron try it (he only named LR and macronist governments so far)? Well, because Macron doesn't recognise he lost his own election, and therefore believes in possibilities (a minority government with no hope nor legitimacy, a hypothetical "grand coalition") strictly ensuring his politics (which lost at the last elections he called himself) continue. And then, he tells the French people they are "stubborn", he believes the opposition needs to "compromise". Compromise with the person trying to stay in power at all means? Really? How can you even do that? You tell Macron: "Here are alternative solutions to the debt crisis", and he calls you an extremist for not supporting his policies. He even managed to call the PS extremists during the last elections. So Macron is, in my opinion, a case which can't be compared to others. He is the principal representative of the "presidential monarchy", and the government collapse is linked to his behind cameras intrigues at the National Assembly. Also, today and on the 18th, fairly important (though, at least form my observations, seemingly not as important as the yellow vests) mobilisations took/take/will take place, against Macron, and the entire French left, from NPA (Trotskyist) to PS (social-democratic, centre-left) support the social movement. New world (talk) 14:46, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
On the shoot down of Russian drones by NATO forces
Any ideas what may come next?. Article 4 (consultation between allies) has been invoked and the drones were reportedly ones for reconnaissance, not equipped with warheads. Looks like Putin is provocating again given the number of drones, and I doubt Trump will do anything. Panzerfaust (talk) 13:36, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
- Whatever happens next there is no chance that NATO will activate article five over this. It might really have been a mistake by either Russia or possibly Belorussia.
- It seems that Poland needs to improve its anti-drone defenses though. It looks like around 23 flew in and they only shot down three or four - something like a 20 percent success rate. And with NATO's help. If the attack had been serious they would evidently been overwhelmed. They probably need to ask Ukraine for some training on that!Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 13:52, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
- Start worrying when Katyn (and the other missing soldiers) get mentioned in the Polish media. Anna Livia (talk) 16:13, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
- Putin tested Trump - and [so far] he has failed the test. Let's show the Orange One's response on Lies AntiSocial;
- Start worrying when Katyn (and the other missing soldiers) get mentioned in the Polish media. Anna Livia (talk) 16:13, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
- “What’s with Russia violating Poland’s airspace with drones?”
- Trans: I am a slightly deaf/senile old man who does not actually believe what I am being told. Chances are, even if you speak louder/slower I still won't believe you.
- “Here we go!”
- Trans: If done in flesh, this would end with either an eye-roll or sigh. I love Putin, and those nasty wussy Poles are slandering him again.
- Message to Euro capitals. 'Take note; Trump doesn't have your corner. Fucking back down over Ukraine or else.' KarmaPolice (talk) 16:51, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
- He does indeed sounds like a confused old man in the first part of the post. But I think you are over-interpreting the second, "Here we go" part. It's just the confused old man still rambling. Obviously, though, what he ever subsequently does will be claimed by him to be whatever the "Here we go" was supposed to mean. It's the usual trick of throw all the shit at the wall and then claim that whatever sticks was the plan all along.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:23, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, the last bit could mean something anything everything or nothing. But judging from the fact he did absolutely fuck all afterwards and knowing as we do the supreme man-crush he has for the Bloody Czar it's not outside the realms of possibility. KarmaPolice (talk) 21:57, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
- He does indeed sounds like a confused old man in the first part of the post. But I think you are over-interpreting the second, "Here we go" part. It's just the confused old man still rambling. Obviously, though, what he ever subsequently does will be claimed by him to be whatever the "Here we go" was supposed to mean. It's the usual trick of throw all the shit at the wall and then claim that whatever sticks was the plan all along.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:23, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
- Message to Euro capitals. 'Take note; Trump doesn't have your corner. Fucking back down over Ukraine or else.' KarmaPolice (talk) 16:51, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
- If Putin was sending a message it was answered with extreme prejudice. It reminds me of the joke about two guys running from a bear. One guy says "I don't think we can outrun it," and the other replies, I don't have to outrun the bear,...." You don't run if you can fight. Don't forget, the EU is full of angry white men who don't speak Russian.Zatoichi (talk) 18:57, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
Revolution in Nepal
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/sep/10/nepal-gen-z-protests-corruption
The government of Nepal has been overthrown. This should be a sign to the Trump regime that people won't tolerate corruption. --Trans Fem Agenda 15:58, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
- Well, this episode unfortunately does provides lessons on what Elite Autocratic Wannabes should *not* do. As in:
- Don't cut off social media like the Nepalese elite did. Just mold and shape it, via outrage bait propaganda / bots / etc. Russia shows you how to do it right!
- Don't take thuggery *too* far. Although it is difficult to figure out "how far is too far"; many authoritarian states get away with massive amounts of state-sanctioned violence and thuggery. Nonetheless, it is clear that the police killing 19 protesters on September 8th (and injuring many more) just made things worse for the Elite. Far worse, in fact.
- Nepal is a "hybrid regime", which is an ostensible "democracy" that has authoritarian features to keep the Elite in power, such as election rigging, media intimidation, the suppression of political opposition, a non-independent judiciary, widespread corruption, etc. Basically what the Republicans under Trump want to be! (Although Nepal is (by a fair bit) more authoritarian and corrupt than the Trumpsters at this point.) A "hybrid regime" though is the most vulnerable type of government to coups, at least according to the Wikipedia article on Coup d'état.
Something for those "democratic backsliding" Republicans to chew on, I suppose...47.197.76.134 (talk) 18:42, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
- If Trump continues down the road he is going then revolution could come to the United States. I can see an armed uprising in the future. --Trans Fem Agenda 20:21, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
- They won't 'chew on it' because they have zero self-reflection, real knowledge of history and think 'all libruls' are very weak/cowardly and won't fight for anything. Alas, this [in my book] increases the risk of major political violence because they have zero respect for their enemy - they think they'll never, ever bite back. KarmaPolice (talk) 22:01, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
- If Trump continues down the road he is going then revolution could come to the United States. I can see an armed uprising in the future. --Trans Fem Agenda 20:21, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
- What Greek leftists have to report: "A pro-monarchist nationalist movement is violently couping against a pro-Maoist government. Smells like Colour Revolution."Alexk (talk) 23:40, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
- Isn't the current government lead by Marxist-Leninist CPN (UML), who don't get along with the Maoist opposition party CPN (MC)? Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 05:13, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
- While there have been pro-monarchy protests in the past in Nepal, I don't see a whole lot of "pro-monarchy" about this in the news so far. (The current Wikipedia article mentions a little bit but it does not seem like the focus.) "From afar via news articles" it seems like a very disorganized, chaotic mob movement.
- The only name I've seen floating around as a "representative" of the mob in a few articles is the mayor of Kathmandu, Balendra Shah,
who is an independent. But my perception is that him being "representative" is stretching things considerably. 47.197.76.134 (talk) 13:16, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
- Isn't the current government lead by Marxist-Leninist CPN (UML), who don't get along with the Maoist opposition party CPN (MC)? Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 05:13, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
Also - the Niccolo Machiavelli quote from The Prince about it being 'better' to do one big act against a person than many little ones. Anna Livia (talk) 09:40, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
Question
I want to start hacking at every use of the word 'anti-Semitism' and revise it to 'antisemitism'. If I were to manually do this, would it be controversial or disruptive to any end? To (talk) 16:24, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
- I had the category renamed as such before, & put the reasoning on the category talk page. At worst it would flood the recent changes with edits. Chillpilled (talk) 16:27, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
- Even the Michael Coombs page still has some there. Can't edit it out though, lol. To (talk) 15:03, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
Charlie Kirk Dead
We are not sure until a death certificate gets made, but if he's truly dead, then I feel bad for his family. ResurrectingDeadLinks (talk) 20:27, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
- I think most of us can separate our views of his views (and others) from sympathy/empathy towards the family. Anna Livia (talk) 23:12, 10 September 2025 (UTC
- I saw the video, and there's no way he lives through that. Won't miss him, but I doubt anything good comes out of this. Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 20:44, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
- Seems like it's been confirmed (っ◔◡◔)っ ♥ Natsuki Marx ♥ (talk) 20:48, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict-he was apparently confirmed dead right after I first tried to post this) I'm pretty sure I saw the fencing response, so I'm fairly sure he is dead.-Flandres (talk) 20:49, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
- It's been confirmed. Apparently he was answering a question regarding gun violence at the point he was shot. I don't care this is ghoulish, but I've not seen this level of irony since my fundie dickdead of a cousin had a fatal heart attack while haranguing/lecturing a group of people about eternal damnation and the afterlife. KarmaPolice (talk) 21:53, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
- That's not irony. The killer planned to attack during a gun question.Whattheheck (talk) 19:02, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
- I posted to the talk page as the event appeared on the BBC page - the death happened shortly thereafter.
- It's been confirmed. Apparently he was answering a question regarding gun violence at the point he was shot. I don't care this is ghoulish, but I've not seen this level of irony since my fundie dickdead of a cousin had a fatal heart attack while haranguing/lecturing a group of people about eternal damnation and the afterlife. KarmaPolice (talk) 21:53, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict-he was apparently confirmed dead right after I first tried to post this) I'm pretty sure I saw the fencing response, so I'm fairly sure he is dead.-Flandres (talk) 20:49, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
- Seems like it's been confirmed (っ◔◡◔)っ ♥ Natsuki Marx ♥ (talk) 20:48, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
- The claimed suspect has been released - how soon before the conspiracy theories start? Anna Livia (talk) 23:12, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
- It's already begun. Trying to find some real juicy words on X. Even ones calling for the DNC to be declared a terrorist organization or for it to be dissolved. In all honesty, all this is doing is creating a martyr on the Right. Anything similar to this or the Trump shooting, or worse, and there is going to be little reconciliation between the parties.Patty Pat 23:23, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
- Welp, I think this may just be a big enough deal to overshadow the Epstein Files saga2001:67C:2628:647:35:402:0:207 (talk) 00:29, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
- It's already begun. Trying to find some real juicy words on X. Even ones calling for the DNC to be declared a terrorist organization or for it to be dissolved. In all honesty, all this is doing is creating a martyr on the Right. Anything similar to this or the Trump shooting, or worse, and there is going to be little reconciliation between the parties.Patty Pat 23:23, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
- The claimed suspect has been released - how soon before the conspiracy theories start? Anna Livia (talk) 23:12, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
- 2 months ago: Trump and other Republicans mock Democrats after Minnesota lawmaker killings. So, Utah Senator Mike Lee, how does it feel now it is your state?
- It is shitty that Kirk got murdered. I definitely don't want to see this sort of thing. However, I have zero sympathy for Kirk; the horrible gun / conspiracy culture that Kirk helped amplify in America; his cynically malicious use of American Christianity as a vehicle for such; and the Othering game Kirk (and many of his ilk) played then and plays now. Kirk enriched himself by playing with the fire of fueling American fascism, and Kirk paid the price of playing with this fire. "Fuck around, find out" as they say. (And this applies no matter what the ideology of the murderer is, which is unknown at this time.)
- I have no idea where things go from here or how to minimize the presently increasing political violence (at least practically and politically speaking). It would be nice if those who are in Charlie Kirk's "paradigm space" realize that a culture of violence just makes things worse for everyone, as proven today. From what I see, though, this ain't happening. The amplified us vs. them rhetoric from certain shithead figures continues, turned up to 11. (Even if they in reality this heated rhetoric puts themselves in greater danger, too, like everyone other political figure!) So it goes. 47.197.76.134 (talk) 01:20, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
- The outpouring of prayers worked as well as always. Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 03:01, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
- Though I am not a sociopath, my left-wing sense of humor awoke when I heard the report of the shooting and I smiled, until I heard that it was likely fatal. When I heard Kirk was dead, I wanted to vomit. I didn't like his politics, but in America he was entitled to say what he thought. He didn't deserve to be killed. The fact that I did not support his political opinions bore no relation to my ability to feel regret for his death. The far right now rises to the narrative that liberals and democrats are responsible for political violence. I would not be surprised for a right-wing conspiracy to eventually transpire. I understand that Kirk's relations with Nick Fuentes were so bad that Kirk's security wouldn't allow Fuentes to approach him at public gatherings. I think Fuentes accused Kirk of "betraying Trump." This is not evidence of such a conspiracy, but it does suggest it is unsound to believe that only a left-winger would want to assassinate Kirk. Zatoichi (talk) 03:29, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
- There's billions of videos of the uncensored shooting on watchpeopledie, from tons of cell phone captures. The shooting occurred during an argument about how big an issue trans mass shooters are, not even making it up. It happened in the middle of that specific argument York re (talk) 05:26, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
- Never liked the man but no one should go like this. TheNFLGuy (talk) 01:27, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
They have shooter drills in US schools; they shoot politicians; apparently a leading cause of death in children is 'playing with guns' etc etc.
How soon will gun laws be introduced -'Blowing in the wind my friend.' Anna Livia (talk) 09:47, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
- I also saw the uncensored.video, and that is the truth of gun violence. Yeah, Charlie Kirk has rhetoric that encourages gun ownership over fighting gun violence. Yeah, Charlie Kirk has rhetoric that calls out 'empathy' as libtarded in and of itself. So no, I will not mourn Charlie Kirk or really care about his family. It doesn't really matter what I say about gun control, I'm staunchly in favor of all rifles being registered to a gun club, but this is going to go sideways from a real middle ground. Suffer the little children, I am as close to an antitheist as it gets by fore I go bothering other people about their wasted beliefs, but I have no sympathy for a man who advocated so heavily for this exact reality. It's obviously not, what I as a fucking wildly left, avowed peacenik, and just, always against the death penalty. I don't want to live in a world where Charlie Kirk, as abhorrent as his rhetoric is, I don't want to live in a world where people use violence as a means to enforce rhetoric. I saw the uncensored video, I saw Kirk DIE. It's awful, people will tell you not to, but you gotta look it in the face, you gotta know what it looks like. Kirk was not a good force on humanity, but this action is fucking incorrect. Torrent (talk) 10:26, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
- Well said. Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 10:31, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
- I kinda marble mouthed a opinion, so rather than editing before a response, I do want to clarify. Christian Dominion politics are really stupid, and that's a real reason I despised Charlie Kirk. Torrent (talk) 10:49, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
- I also saw the uncensored.video, and that is the truth of gun violence. Yeah, Charlie Kirk has rhetoric that encourages gun ownership over fighting gun violence. Yeah, Charlie Kirk has rhetoric that calls out 'empathy' as libtarded in and of itself. So no, I will not mourn Charlie Kirk or really care about his family. It doesn't really matter what I say about gun control, I'm staunchly in favor of all rifles being registered to a gun club, but this is going to go sideways from a real middle ground. Suffer the little children, I am as close to an antitheist as it gets by fore I go bothering other people about their wasted beliefs, but I have no sympathy for a man who advocated so heavily for this exact reality. It's obviously not, what I as a fucking wildly left, avowed peacenik, and just, always against the death penalty. I don't want to live in a world where Charlie Kirk, as abhorrent as his rhetoric is, I don't want to live in a world where people use violence as a means to enforce rhetoric. I saw the uncensored video, I saw Kirk DIE. It's awful, people will tell you not to, but you gotta look it in the face, you gotta know what it looks like. Kirk was not a good force on humanity, but this action is fucking incorrect. Torrent (talk) 10:26, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
Putting aside all moral considerations, there is a big problem with a world in which your political opponents get shot. The problem is that your political allies might be up next. This is not a good development.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 10:52, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
- is that not also some kind of secular moral consideration? You don't kill people for disagreeing with you, or rather, You just don't fucking kill people. What extra weight must that carry? I already heard today 'Oh yeqh, the peaceful and tolerant left' like, I'm not tolerant of this, why the fuck am I, as a full on Charlie Kirk hater for a decade now supposed to act like he was a good guy? but I've known kirk for a decade longer than a lot of these people just now finding out that a 'public speaker' got shot and he had a family. The US is radicalizing very slowly, but as I warned here about January 6th, I'm reading the tea leaves again, it's going to be stupid and bad when the pot boils again, centrism is the frog, the water is boiling. People who don't know Kirk's history will get glazed and not like this at all. People who are avowed Christians will not understand this as anything other than an attack on Christianity. I am going to say, South Park made fun of Kirk, which broadened his notoriety. Anybody who knew Kirk from 2012 on would have done this a decade ago. This is most likely dorkass reactionary bullshit from a kid who is terminally online. a long range shot doesn't come from an anti gun leftist. Torrent (talk) 11:17, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
- I somewhat agree with Torrent on this one; that 'being murdered' doesn't automatically whitewash you. In these cases, it's best [in my opinion] to damn them with faint praise, such as 'sympathetic feelings to his wife and two young kids, neither of which will remember him. This is a warning sign of what happens when you have professional bigoted jerkwads going about stirring up hatred against different groups irresponsibly.'
- Anyway, I think there's major risk of him being not just whitewashed, but also puffed up too. I don't think we was important enough for folks to do half-flags etc. He wasn't an elected official. He wasn't the head of a genuinely massive [people-wise] org. Nor was he breathtakingly brilliant/innovative. Or had been on the scene long enough to really cement a unique legacy. He was [as our own page says] a second rate pseudointellectual who found a gravy-train/cock-massager by going about 'debating' students [perhaps the least-skilled demographic re: debating tactics/BS detection], trolling university campuses [and bullying them with 'fwee speech' arguments to get in if blocked] and then parading himself in Dominionist echo-chambers like he'd gone into 'the belly of the beast' and due to the grace of THE LORD and his own brilliance came out to tell about it. I know how orgs work; it's quite easy to 'build a large national org' if you have enough money to do that [and Turning Point have many secretive sugar daddies]. Plus, the average size of an American college is something like 6,500 students, so if you can scare up 0.5% of them to join your org [which wouldn't be hard as it seems about 10% of Gen Z adults are Dominionists], that's like 32/33 members - then allowing to set up 'chapters all over the country' which can then be used as flying crowds to be deployed when needed [where the money is the lubricant ensuring it all works right]. At best, 'Turning Point' only built itself off of the pre-existing white MAGA-Fundie students in the university system who were already feeling 'isolated' and 'suppressed' because they were outside of their fundie bell jars [unless they were at an actual fundie college too, obs]. Ie: Kirk was already preaching to the choir. The fact he was young and 'a good debater' [sic] meant the old farts who rule the fundie world saw him as a means to 'get down with the kids' so they signed him up and found the daddies. That's actually really important because 'being a commentator/speaker' became their full time job while their 'librul' opponents simply don't have the funding to do similar [again, this is one of the key advantages of the right; in lieu of daddies 'we' must donate a lot more to orgs so they can hire more professional organisers/speakers/propagandists]. KarmaPolice (talk) 12:48, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
- Sadly, it seems that various mainstream media outlets have already begun to whitewash Kirk’s reputation by portraying him as simply “a controversial debater” with this BBC obituary being just one example. I chalk this up to yet another example of the pernicious effects of “both sideism” masquerading as journalistic neutrality and objectivity that has plagued certain sections of the media landscape for years. ScepticWombat (talk) 13:27, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, in "mainstream media", you are fired if you even hint that Kirk's rhetoric played a role in his murder.
- (This is a great example of why the only people that watch cable news these days are 65+ year old farts. There is a lot of bullshit on the Internet, but also a lot of independent outlets that do a hell of a lot better job covering the news than print or television, and won't wimp out at this sort of thing.)
- Fox News talking heads, meanwhile, are calling for war and revenge. So it goes, and we don't very much about the assassin yet! The only thing we know is that the person is "of college age", "blended well into the campus environment", and used a high-powered bolt action rifle. Meaning: from my perspective, there's more than a decent chance that the assassin profile is not what the permanently enraged MAGA crowd imagines in their head... 47.197.76.134 (talk) 14:55, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
- Talking of 'old farts', heard some Clinton-era throwout [didn't catch his name] who let the GBeebies presenter to peddle the line 'it's all the left's fault because they hate free speech' and then did the usual mealy-mouthed lament about how 'that we need to work together' and bitching about those 'radicals' who didn't give arse-licking eulogy for Kirk. Then went on about how 'both sides worked together during Sept 11th' but utterly forgetting how partisan it became soon after what with the Patriot Act, the Iraq War etc. Oh, and he totally ignored the fact when that that Minnesota politco was killed 'the right' was nastier.
- Sadly, it seems that various mainstream media outlets have already begun to whitewash Kirk’s reputation by portraying him as simply “a controversial debater” with this BBC obituary being just one example. I chalk this up to yet another example of the pernicious effects of “both sideism” masquerading as journalistic neutrality and objectivity that has plagued certain sections of the media landscape for years. ScepticWombat (talk) 13:27, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
- Anyway, I think there's major risk of him being not just whitewashed, but also puffed up too. I don't think we was important enough for folks to do half-flags etc. He wasn't an elected official. He wasn't the head of a genuinely massive [people-wise] org. Nor was he breathtakingly brilliant/innovative. Or had been on the scene long enough to really cement a unique legacy. He was [as our own page says] a second rate pseudointellectual who found a gravy-train/cock-massager by going about 'debating' students [perhaps the least-skilled demographic re: debating tactics/BS detection], trolling university campuses [and bullying them with 'fwee speech' arguments to get in if blocked] and then parading himself in Dominionist echo-chambers like he'd gone into 'the belly of the beast' and due to the grace of THE LORD and his own brilliance came out to tell about it. I know how orgs work; it's quite easy to 'build a large national org' if you have enough money to do that [and Turning Point have many secretive sugar daddies]. Plus, the average size of an American college is something like 6,500 students, so if you can scare up 0.5% of them to join your org [which wouldn't be hard as it seems about 10% of Gen Z adults are Dominionists], that's like 32/33 members - then allowing to set up 'chapters all over the country' which can then be used as flying crowds to be deployed when needed [where the money is the lubricant ensuring it all works right]. At best, 'Turning Point' only built itself off of the pre-existing white MAGA-Fundie students in the university system who were already feeling 'isolated' and 'suppressed' because they were outside of their fundie bell jars [unless they were at an actual fundie college too, obs]. Ie: Kirk was already preaching to the choir. The fact he was young and 'a good debater' [sic] meant the old farts who rule the fundie world saw him as a means to 'get down with the kids' so they signed him up and found the daddies. That's actually really important because 'being a commentator/speaker' became their full time job while their 'librul' opponents simply don't have the funding to do similar [again, this is one of the key advantages of the right; in lieu of daddies 'we' must donate a lot more to orgs so they can hire more professional organisers/speakers/propagandists]. KarmaPolice (talk) 12:48, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
- They really do have no fucking clue. He was the prime example of why the 'establishment Democrats' are being eaten alive. Ever-so eager to be 'moderate', 'reasonable' and 'crossing the divide' regardless to what 'the opposition' are actually standing, their political rollerskates get caked in shit as they follow them into the swamp [and then bit we're 'extreme' by not following them]. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:43, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
Welp, Bomb Threat at DNC HQ in DC. It's going to get worse before it gets better, isn't it?Edit: looks like it was fake CorruptUser 19:23, 11 September 2025 (UTC)- Did you think otherwise? MAGA is going to weaponise this. At very least we're going to see lots of police attention being re-directed even more to investigate 'far left organisations'. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:26, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
- People concerned this will lead to some mass repression of organized leftists, despite the shooting being lone wolf, seem to have missed that effective leftist political parties were banned from US ballots or otherwise systemically oppressed over a half century ago, with people having to swear oaths against left-wing parties, and their leaders imprisoned, partially under laws specifically designed to do so from Wilson and FDR. By the late 1970s "left-wingism" had taken a hard turn toward social issues no capitalists feel particularly threatened by, and the most prominent 1960s left-wing activist with at least some class consciousness killed themselves in the 1980s. Since then it's just been a parade of Democratic Party lobbying groups that have barely anyone in them outside major cities. There's hardly anyone organized to oppress at this point, it's mostly be symbolic if there was some repeat of all that. Almost entirely what is left is just anger from random, often non-partisan people toward this country's lurch toward psychopathy and selfish indvidualism. York re (talk) 19:47, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
- MAGA will be writing the definition of 'far left' via a weaponised DoJ etc. And as I've seen them label Biden, Harris, Pelosi as being 'far left' etc your optimism is on shaky ground. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:57, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
- If it turns out that the shooter wasn’t a clear cut leftist, let alone the kind of “deranged, woke Marxist” the wingnuts are fantasising about, the MAGA crowd will either invent some conspiracy theory of “the sky is actually green” level of delusion to make him one anyway or they’ll just ignore the shooter’s actual motives and background while continuing their persecution complex rhetoric and depicting themselves as an embattled and excluded minority, tyrannised by “the left”. Both approaches would basically follow the pattern of the MAGA reactions to the Trump shooting, as they started out being the former, then mainly switched to the latter.
- MAGA will be writing the definition of 'far left' via a weaponised DoJ etc. And as I've seen them label Biden, Harris, Pelosi as being 'far left' etc your optimism is on shaky ground. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:57, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
- And I totally agree with the conclusion that a lot of the “establishment Democrats” are completely deluded in their “let’s just work together” nonsense, as well. Nor do I expect any of them to highlight the disparity in the GOP reactions to this shooting and the Minnesota assassinations either, due to both these Democrats’ obsession with “politeness” vis-à-vis the GOP and out of their bizarre fear that calling out this GOP hypocrisy would be to “politicise” the latest shooting (as if the GOP isn’t already hard at work doing exactly that, just in the service of some quite different politics). ScepticWombat (talk) 19:58, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
- RE: Karmic's statements on Biden/Pelosi etc. "MAGA will be writing the definition of far-left". They can define things all they want, including calling the sky orange, but if the shooter was a leftist and there is an arrest of Biden, Harris, and Pelosi, (which would be wildly unpopular and deranged) that would not be "persecuting organized leftists", I maintain there isn't such a thing to oppress outside a small handful of Democratic Party lobbying groups in major cities. York re (talk) 04:53, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
- That is silly, in what world? "MAGA will be writing the definition of left" is already happening. Nancy Mace blamed democrats, called them leftists and said there's no reason to talk about republicans, and I honestly don't care. Democrats are maybe left of republicans? MAGA is fascist, who is persecuting politicians on either side of the aisle? Why is this a biden/Pelosi conversation? I am going to ignore this and encourage you to add a new topic, because this is strange. Torrent (talk) 08:52, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
- From my perspective, in this situation, political leaders and media figures should be playing different roles. Barack Obama issued a tweet deploring political violence and praying for Kirk's family. Nothing wrong with that. Being the "adult in the room" is part of the leadership role. At the same time, there has been a lot of media articles whitewashing in the media Kirk's role in spreading conspiracy theories, undermining democracy, and attempting to censor-by-mob-pressure and bully opinions Kirk disagreed with. Of this, I disagree with the "mainstream media" ethos. I know there's a "speak no ill of the dead" philosophy among some, but to me, it is irresponsible to not acknowledge Kirk's outsized role in creating the inflamed culture that likely helped fuel Kirk's assassin (whatever culture that was, the chances are good IMHO that some hot pocket bullshit on the Internet fueled it.) You don't have to go overboard, but you don't have to downplay his role with mealy-mouthed phrases like "provocative opinions".
- I do think that the pundits, politicians, and other figureheads right now aligning themselves with the "RAHR LET'S GO TO WAR WITH THE LEFT!" are... well, being just stupid reactionary jaw jaw-ers, as usual. Personally, I actually don't think this assassination will change much at this time. From what I see, ordinary folks (regardless of what they feel about Kirk) already deplore this sort of political violence. Meanwhile, the people that are foaming at the mouth urging for a war with the left (actual ideology of the perpetrator notwithstanding)... already were foaming at the mouth at "the left", and have been for years, if not decades. Before the Kirk assassination, this lot was foaming at the mouth at some black guy who allegedly murdered a white girl a few weeks ago... and then, of all things, a fuckin' Cracker Barrel logo redesign. So the perpetually angry crowd has a new subject to get angry about. What's new there? Keyboard warriors will foam at the mouth on social media, probably a few will be nutty enough to commit violence. That's already the current situation.
- What's truly disgusting with this current environment is that multiple Republican politicians -- the folks that in theory should be acting like "adults in the room" -- have degraded to the level of the keyboard warrior slobs. I mean, as much as I disagreed with the GOP politicians like Dubya on back, one difference between the GOP then and now is that Dubya never publicly would have had the foam-in-the-mouth reactionary anger that some of the MAGA-verse politicians have today. (But that's a consequence when one sets up propaganda networks to keep the rubes perpetually angry. The rube anger ended up swallowing the political party whole.) 47.197.76.134 (talk) 12:56, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
- - Thing is, it's not 'politeness' the old Dem/centrist farts are doing - you're perfectly capable of politely giving a 'reasons you suck speech' without a trace of personal attacks etc. It's a kind of warped sense of politeness, in which it is 'wrong' to cause offence or upset to anyone. I'm going to blame this on what I'll call an 'entitlement culture', that MAGAs believe whole-heartedly that they have the right to never be upset/triggered/contradicted/made to feel stupid/uncomfortable etc and our dumbarse 'centrists' bend over backwards to cater/reinforce this [ironically, they have the same disease they criticise a lot of the left having]. I am actually sure some actively weaponise this; in the same manner abusive partners do - that the moment they get any pushback it's time to get LOUD AND ANGRY and then blame the other party for 'look what you made me do!'. It's like a political codependency; that our farts now unconsciously see a major, perhaps their sole job now is to stop the right-wing blow-ups and to moderate their utterly shitty behaviours.
- - Yeah, Kirk/Shapiro's strategy for 'debating' is basically, intellectual exploitation. They're hitting up uni campuses etc for the exact same reason shitty guys trawl student bars for dates - they're looking for inexperienced women to fuck/fuck over because it's so much easier. And would we be okay with that situation, hmm? Their whole debating style is also shit; a combo of Gish Gallops and throwing out of stats - I have a couple of relatives who 100% believe that 'discussing issues' with others is like this. It's not, because that style is not much more than 'statements of position'. A genuine debate [a la 'this is my truth, tell me yours'] never really convinces the other participant of the rightness of the other, but it can help to understand how they reached 'their truth'. It's why one of my main tools is that of 'lexical semantics' - repeatedly making them define particular words ['woke', 'entrepreneur', 'feminism', British' etc] to ensure we are in fact discussing the same thing.
- - I think our new red link doesn't get how authoritarian systems develop - growing over time, not a flip of the switch. Now, the New Order has managed to great success cow the mainstream media, Corp America, academia, the civil service and foreign 'allies'. But; they have not yet [as far as I can see] managed to cow the American people themselves. That they retain the 'democratic habit' of free speech and political activity. Time for salami attacks. No, we cannot go from 'attacking Commies' to 'arresting Biden' overnight. But what we do is nibble away slice by slice; push the Overton Window smaller and smaller.
- Pick the furthest slice. Denounce as 'far left', 'extremist' and so on. Watch as our centrist farts trip over themselves to dissociate. Plant stories about how bad they are in the tame media. Create a whirlwind of smoke, whataboutism and JAQing off. Start spinning the screws; make the 'costs' of remaining in the group [or continuing with actions like protests] go up. Rent-a-mob counter protests. Encouraging social ostracism. Make them worry about losing job etc if they remain. Increasing police harassment. Hit with repeated 'investigations'. Suspend org's banking services. Make them pay for the policing of their protests. Don't need to ban it, merely make it so marginalised and hated [say like with the Communist Party USA during the Cold War] and riddled with police agents it's utterly neutralised. Then rinse and repeat on the next target.
- The totally insidious thing about this is how it warps the public's behaviour outside of the targeted groups. After a few examples of how protests were aggressively put down by police, you grow wary of showing dissent. Once you see the bruised face of an acquaintance after 'they fell down the stairs' with the police after they spoke out, you grow tight-lipped. When you hear of incidents where whole parties were arrested for 'anti-state activity', you grow suspicious of people you cannot vouch for. As you hear of people losing their jobs for 'political activity', your public and private 'faces' will diverge more etc. Already, there are reports that minorities are becoming more concerned about attending 'No Kings' protests because they fear they will face ICE retaliation, while more academics are losing their jobs because they are teaching things which the New Order doesn't like. KarmaPolice (talk) 14:42, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
- So, the connection to Fuentes' Groypers is solidifying.
The shooter appears to be a Groyper. Zatoichi (talk) 18:24, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
- Plausible but by no means conclusive, he was some subtype of gamer. Groypers are just a particular type of political gamer. Bella ciao is popular among games outside groypers. Slav squat meme was posted in 2018 before any political association, the birthday costume could mean anything. It's also plausible he's a right-winger, but tons of right-wing tendencies hate supposed facsists. Right now I'm going with "unintelligible/individualized/other", like Crooks. Most people don't fall neatly in political boxes. York re (talk) 19:13, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm seeing some leftie communities jump to the "groyper" or MAGA conclusion -- I think that's really, really hasty. Mind you, you can't rule that out that this guy was a groyper, but the only thing I can say for sure is that he seemed to be a gamer and he used some phrases popular in troll culture. I think it's safe to say that he was way too online. (Did he realize that only a small sliver of folks would recognize shit like the OWO bulge "copypasta" crap?) My guess also is "doesn't fit a neat box" politics too, but it's not a confident guess. We'll see.
- What *did* happen was that the assassin ended up being a white dude from a good old Mormon Christian Republican household. This was not the
skin colormental image the reactionary pundits had in mind, and seems to have quieted the "I WaNT tO Go To WAR WITH THE LEFT soooo baaad!!" pundits down some. (I think Megyn Kelly tried some weaksauce shit about his one semester in college radicalizing him because colleges turns you woke or something... pretty pathetic outrage bait, Megyn.) - I'm sure that the perpetually outraged culture war folks will learn nothing from this and move onto the next outrage shortly. 47.197.76.134 (talk) 20:35, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
- Plausible but by no means conclusive, he was some subtype of gamer. Groypers are just a particular type of political gamer. Bella ciao is popular among games outside groypers. Slav squat meme was posted in 2018 before any political association, the birthday costume could mean anything. It's also plausible he's a right-winger, but tons of right-wing tendencies hate supposed facsists. Right now I'm going with "unintelligible/individualized/other", like Crooks. Most people don't fall neatly in political boxes. York re (talk) 19:13, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
An effective idea for gun control in the US
https://engc.us/club-info/membership
Let's start here, membership to a gun club. Not a militia, not an exact insurance policy, but if you can get pulled over driving in the US and not have up to date license, registration, or insurance, you can get in trouble. Not haul you off to jail trouble, like driving a car irresponsibly (i.e. drunk driving) but driving a car is accepting inherent risk, and wince we can't regulate whether drivers are responsible or not, we require by law extra protections to prevent property damage or personal injury, because misuse of a half ton hunk of metal running on 200 horses worth of power will fucking obliterate anything unlucky enough to cross its path. Do people need cars? Yes.
So now, we've got the question of gun ownership. Do you have to register or tag your guns? No. Are you allowed to buy any gun for any reason if your person hasn't been flagged? Yes. are you required to have a gun safe? No. Are you required to pass a gun safety test? No.
Do not get me wrong, I have been around gun nuts and have fired guns with them, a majority really care about gun safety, but this isn't about that, this is about what we do when shit goes sideways.
So let's move on to gun registration. If you want to own certain gun modifications, like a suppressor, you have to register the suppressor to a gun club. Now, I'm not of the opinion that people would be committing quieter gun crimes if suppressors were free market no regulation, and I understand they don't 'silence' the gunshot as in movies. However, I do think modifications to guns should be registered and given to a broader, communal oversight. The same for rifles, if you want a hunting rifle, register with a gun club, log your use. I mean, I don't believe in a practical application as a perfect solution. Would every really care? Would they log all of it? That's not exactly important, it's forcing these lone wolf shooters into a slightly larger community that also enjoys guns and says 'what are you doing with your gun?' And of course people can lie and go commit atrocities, but they will have to commit harder to the lie, which is a deterrent, and it would be easier to find them.
Treat guns like we currently treat gun modifications like suppressors, which are like the nun chucks of the late 80's, just, not a real problem, the real problem is adjacent. It's not going to end gun violence, but it would make a difference. Torrent (talk) 09:32, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
- fucking make a federal fund for gun clubs to run as a social service. Every single one would be socialized, I don't care, pay these assholes to keep their guns in check. Torrent (talk) 09:45, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
- '...And that, students is how the Democrats in Congress were tricked into getting the state to fully fund and organise the paramilitaries which Trump Sr used to institute the New Order. The 'Gun Clubs' were almost immediately entirely dominated by devoted MAGA members, who then used it to deny arms to anyone who was not a firm Trump supporter. With ATF forces working to disarm as many 'unAmerican' people as they could locate, the 'Red Hats' were used to intimidate, attack and on occasion abduct during the final free elections of the Republic. Once the MAGA majority was installed in Congress, it passed the 'Restoration of Law Act' which granted the paramilitaries official powers as 'reserve ICE agents'. Now granted official status and up-armed with military grade equipment, the 'Red Hats' were the backbone of the mass, bloody crackdowns which the military had refused to do 'on a matter of honour'...' KarmaPolice (talk) 12:25, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
They shoot politicians, there was the Incident of Trump's Ear, they shoot kids by the classroom and nothing is done, and there are people who put gun ownership is their right above all else. #What if anything# will change their minds (insofar as the activities of what is in their skulls can so be defined)? Anna Livia (talk) 12:41, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
- That is a really strange way of looking at it. The right to form a gun club wouldn't be political, it would be a form of beauracracy. Nobody would be able to hold a political stop on a gun club. Torrent (talk) 10:29, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
- Pray tell who is currently politicising the bureaucracy? What plan called for doing that? KarmaPolice (talk) 10:34, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
- Okay, so, it really only takes one person to form a gun club. It's a registration process. In theory, which is how you get bullshit through all beauracracy, you could still have a gun club of one, you just have to register it. I don't think worrying about the nuts denying arms to people is a fair slippery slope argument, and you can just say Donald Trump. I'm aware of project 2025 but it doesn't include gun reform. I'm putting forward shit that is already in place and suggesting expanding it, not saying remove the second amendment or let fascists hoard the guns. I'm saying a gun is a tool to explicitly end life. It is insane that it is not treated as such in regulation and privilege. I don't know where you're getting this idea that all gun clubs would be militant right wing and refuse ownership to anyone left of them. Torrent (talk) 10:53, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
- Maybe you misinterpreted my "pay them" comment. Pay them cost to administrate, not to expand or activate or anything. Don't pay For their guns or their ammunition, that's not what I mean, I mean pay them to keep that shit in check. or don't pay them, it's not like I'm writing actual legislation here, I want something done to make US gun reform happen, if you have a better solution, Take Maslow's Hammer from my hand It's been so bad for so long, I'm open for any better suggestions Torrent (talk) 11:28, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
- Are you REALLY so naive as top think that it wouldn't BECOME political? It would be a classic authoritarian move..... and right now the authoritarian movement in the USA is a fascist cult of personality..... Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 00:05, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
- I don't know what part I enjoy more [as in the dark 'laugh or you'll scream' type] with the OP's naivety...
- 1/ The fact they started this topic a week after Trump openly asked about trans people being allowed to own firearms. What, he's only Just Asking Questions, is he? How many fucking times does he 'just ask questions' on something and then get it, even if he's not fucking supposed to? [In a clear stopped clock case, the NRA actually vowed to fight that].
- 2/ The idea that 'just because it was not mentioned in Project 2025 it won't happen'. Shall we all form a circle and start chanting 'It can't happen here' in the hope if we shout loud enough it becomes true? Or more productively, can you tell me why it won't happen here? Who is gonna stop him, eh?
- 3/ The fact they have clearly not read the precis of Project 2025 [which actually raises the question of how do they know #2?] which literally states how they want to fire loads of career bureaucrats [who are to some extent apolitical and have their own seniority system, tenure etc] and replace them with a highly politicised MAGAcracy which shall do the Orange Nero's bidding whatever the fuck it is [with the added bonus of being able to utterly cripple any non-MAGA in power].
- 4/ The fact they seem to be utterly unaware of the Others the average MAGA-hat [who shall be our friendly bureaucrats registering our mandatory gun clubs] loathes - minorities, LGBT, immigrants, 'libruls' etc. I think [for example] blacks have a very good reason to suspect your 'Gun Club Law' shall be yet another method of trying to disarm them in the guise of 'gun control'. Oh, what about the stated desires to label Antifa 'a terrorist organisation'? I could easily see a situation where any person who ever expressed support for, attended a rally/protest for or donated to as being deemed 'unsuitable for gun club membership'. Hmm, you tell me; what kinds of people attended those protests?
- 5/ That in most states you need to get a licence/permit to open/operate a gun club. Or a gun store. If the state govt has already been captured by MAGA, I'll just make sure none of the 'wrong sort' get licences. Or close the ones which do exist How? Oh, we'll find totally BS but legal methods to deny, just like they do with abortion clinics. Nothing like a buttfuck of legal hurdles to close 'em down [for example, closing an abortion clinic on the argument it's hallway were not wide enough for a full-laden crash cart plus medics despite the fact they'd never bloody need that]. Other methods is fucking about with zoning, getting business insurance or the good old 'nod and wink' so nobody rents to you the property to operate.
- 6/ That 'paying them to administrate' will be effectively putting every gun club in the country into the Govt payroll. How much would it actually administer? Who knows, but it would be a very easy way to put a couple of pure MAGA-hats onto their books just so they can spend all their time doing shitty MAGA-stuff on the taxpayers coin. I have an idea, why don't we subsidise 'gun safety training' through these clubs? No, it won't be paramilitary training at all!
- 7/ In nationalising all the gun clubs [basically], you've now turned gun club managers into the 'firearms doorkeepers'. Whoops, due to all the previous it's all been MAGAfied now. Sure, a few 'true believers' will allow Others to own, but most won't. Want to join? Oh, there's no formal rules... but I would like to 'check' your social media, get two MAGAs to vouch for you and know you're a firm 'Bible-believing Christian' too.
- 8/ By making club membership mandatory for gun possession and the above, you've automatically made millions of Americans criminals and shockingly, most shall be otherwise legit folks who just unable to find a club which wasn't controlled by a MAGA-hat or some kind of right-wing loon. Incidently, you've now created another excuse to raid any property containing people you don't like - suspicion of illegal firearms. And you've created another justification for police harassment via repeated Terry stops, mainly on the basis you are an Other. This does mean that to a major extent, you've disarmed/criminalised one side of the conflict. Does this ever bode well?
- Pray tell who is currently politicising the bureaucracy? What plan called for doing that? KarmaPolice (talk) 10:34, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
- That is a really strange way of looking at it. The right to form a gun club wouldn't be political, it would be a form of beauracracy. Nobody would be able to hold a political stop on a gun club. Torrent (talk) 10:29, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
- And that is even before we chat about the technical details why this is pointless. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:32, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
- You guys are speaking as if this isn't something I've talked about since 2011. I talked about this with Obama politics, first Trump, Biden, second Trump. It's naivety? Fine, hold your guns so tight to your chest that you accept suicides and wacky kid gun violence, because you think that absolute bullshit about guns keeping you safe. I'm sorry, are you going to protest and bunker down like the Bundy family? You're predicting a world that doesn't exist. I'm talking about maintaining gun ownership with a higher regulatory standard. Do you really, REALLY think your fucking slippery slope concerns are not already happening, for one, and for two, wouldn't kinda be allieviated? The fucking Terry stops are.gonna happen, what, are you gonna pull your iron to stop it? Do the 'already Maga' gun stores refuse to sell to anybody? Is it actually a world where gun ownership is blanket necessary? I'm not saying some people don't need real self defense options. And I refuse to believe the narrative that minorities like trans people go shooting simply by virtue of being trans. But does gun ownership stop gun violence or government overreach? I think you're wildly NRA pilled if you think that's an argument. When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. When you have a hammer, you want to use it. Of course it's a problem that police shoot unarmed victims, that the government has guns and is entering all conflict as if everyone has guns. The government has weapons and a force that you aren't going to stop with a Beretta, you're not the punisher, who is being naive here? Two guns in conflict is at best a suicide pact that says 'I'll take one before you take me.' You think you have all these reasons, but they amount to fuck all and don't protect anyone from anything. Guns are a tool used to kill whatever you point it at. That's fucking heavy, you're scared they will point them at you, that's reasonable, but what the fuck do you think the threat is? Where do you think it's coming from? The idea of pointing a gun back at the government is going to do... What? They will bring more guns, they can just do that. Torrent (talk) 09:47, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
- Let's say a trans person registers themselves to their own gun club, pass a test that requires competency and knowlege, like getting a driver's license at the DMV. The government might monitor them unfairly, as if that's never happened, but they would have the documented right to purchase any gun they want that couldn't be denied by a trans hating gun shop owner. And to buy a gun without passing said test, you would have to be registered under somebody who has passed and registered, it's NOT THAT COMPLICATED and it's NOT RESTRICTIVE which is why I don't care if it's, I dunno, tax exempt or incentivized to keep gun club administration basically free. If we're accepting guns as part of American culture, you've got not clue who you're arguing against. Can you get over your shit just a little bit? I know the current administration is bad, but what do we do, Batman thinking ass, oh yeah get your gun Karma, hug it tight because I'm coming for it, fucking moron. Torrent (talk) 10:31, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
- And of you're wondering why I'm completely ignoring your 'overnight criminal' argument, it's because it is stupid. Torrent (talk) 11:00, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
- -Do not assume for one second that just because I tore your suggestion into bits that I am some defender of the status quo [or worse, really love guns]. I personally have repeatedly advocated for gun licencing [akin to a driving licence], enshrining duties into responsible gun ownership into law, close the various loopholes [such as the gun show one] and so on here on the SB. So you're basically attacking a straw man here.
- And that is even before we chat about the technical details why this is pointless. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:32, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
- -If you think gun shops don't deny service to particular folks [outside of the mandatory ones], then you're a fool. They don't need to give reasons either. The only exception is regarding a protected class [race, gender etc] but c'mon, boy prove to the nice judge that I refused service because you're a [redacted]. And as you can't x-ray my skull, you can't. And there's many damn ways I can make your shopping experience really uncomfortable without actually refusing service if you 'don't fit with Us' [this is often seen in many hobby/niche zones; the classic being the 'dank, horrible-smelling comic book store with a huge collage o'tits on the walls guarded by Comic Book Guy']. It's why quite a lot of 'non-traditional' owners prefer to deal through either a) big companies, b) online or c) travel long distances to go to a store which they do feel welcome at [though a few also do this to make sure the local Dale Gribbles don't know they are packing.]
- -You seem to miss my main criticism of your suggestion; in that with the current political situation it would be ludicrously easy to subvert this into ensuring that loyal MAGAs remain armed while their opponents are disarmed. "Two guns in conflict is at best a suicide pact that says 'I'll take one before you take me.'"? As most MAGA-hats desire to continue living, that is actually a rather effective deterrent - that it is quite possible that if they whipped up a little pogrom that some of their intended victims fire back and the resulting firefight ends with them on the ground with a round directly through said hat and into skull. And in times of deepening dictatorship, yes that's a deterrent too; in some cases it will be the make/break for say, cops rounding up Others ['this ain't fucking worth getting shot for'].
- -I don't own a firearm. I do have a certificate, though. If that doesn't make sense, that's because I'm in the UK and we have very strict rules on firearms. I don't advocate for loosening said laws, though; because the UK situation is wildly different than in the USA and generally 'the system works'. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:30, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
- So, maybe, I'm not telling you gun ownership would be different. I mean, is that really what we're paring it down to? A guy who has a license for a gun but no reason to have one versus a guy who thinks you should have a license for a gun, because generally there is no reason to use one that couldn't be registered as sport or home defense? What the fuck is this wacky turn? I already understand your argument, that gun control in the US would be stupid right wing power control, and I disagree, as someone in the US who actually talks to right wing gun nuts. I have fired guns with them, for fun, which, I mean, is the scariest thing about guns. They are fun. They are easy. Point, pull the trigger, and something eats your will. A gun is not a toy, and not a casual tool. It's not like I'm saying you should license a tennis racket, and you're saying you are licensed but not an owner. Fucking wild that you are telling me, somebody who wants licensing prior to ownership, that I'm not seeing the bigger picture. My city, my own high school, has been victim to gun violence similar to the high profile shit that is now making this a conversation and not just the ramblings of somebody concerned for their own community. Guns do not stop gun violence, Gun violence is the most fatal form of violence, kids using guns, it's not hard to come to the conclusion that, and I can not believe you said it like it didn't matter, but let's get some licensing on these tools. Torrent (talk) 09:34, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
- -I firmly believe that if the state is going to regulate/control something, it should do it itself, not foist the burden on private entities. Because they do not have much incentive to do it well, especially if lots of costs are involved.
- -I don't own a firearm. I do have a certificate, though. If that doesn't make sense, that's because I'm in the UK and we have very strict rules on firearms. I don't advocate for loosening said laws, though; because the UK situation is wildly different than in the USA and generally 'the system works'. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:30, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
- -Any proposal for firearms regulation in the USA will have to be '2A compliant', as in respects that ownership is a right, not a privilege. In that anyone can own one or a hundred without having to say why.
- -Lastly, I argue that America has an violence issue, not so much a firearms issue. That folks have gotten fixated with the inherently technocratic solutions (gun control, magazine limiters, assault weapons ban etc) rather than what I will term 'medical solutions' aka the bate of violence is a societal disease which needs to be treated. A good example of this to have at each school a trained person who's job is to spot yellow/red flags for a person who could be a real risk and getting them help even before the person themselves realises how close they've gotten to the 'despair event horizon'? KarmaPolice (talk) 10:34, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
KarmaPolice (talk) 10:34, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
Fascism is a mental health condition
Some common patterns of an unhealthy individual:
- - Paranoid and convinced of great conspiracies frustrating their attempts, which is often required to combat their own general lack of efficacy.
- - A seeming inability to function without constant conflict since it is the only way of relating to others that they understand or seem prepared to engage in.
- - A tendency to over-exaggerate the harms they have suffered so that they can then cyncically over-react in retaliation to others
- - violent outbursts and an inability to moderate their emotions that often creates a further lack of efficacy.
By comparison:
- - Fascist rhetoric and thinking is almost always conspiratorial, engaged in cherry-picking and confirmation bias, that is almost neurotic in it's ability to see "threat" in everything from gay men existing to full blown "jews control the world" antisemitism. This is despite many members of fascist organisations being alcoholics and drug addicts abusing cocaine etc. Often their life is a fucking shit show BECAUSE they're a coke-sniffing nazi, not because of immigrants.
- - Fascist movements and countries tend to be obsessed with their military, often to the neglect of many other parts of society... and if all you have is a bag of hammers... then all your problems tend to get treated like nails,
- - Standard for all sorts of abuse on both a personal and international scale is that acts of cruetly are usual preceded by the perpetrator positioning itself as "the victim" so it can justify ever more bombs, bullets, punches, whatever. Israel - Palestine, Russia making out to be some poor victim of the international community, never admitting that it's just a power-hungry machine at the stage.
- - Both for fascist groups and nations they often frustrate their own attempts by being too violent too early and being outted as extremists who the public largely dislike. The dangerous ones are the one's that can keep their mask on and not go "mask off" by throwing the nazi-salute "too early".
I genuinely think there is something here in that the dysfunctions of fascist society often mirror the dysfunctions of its hard-core adherents. Maybe I'm full of shit though? I'd appreciate people's thoughts on it even if they don't buy it,
Tikitime2 (talk) 17:42, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think "mentally ill" is a good way to describe "fascism".
- The core of this sort of authoritarianism usually ends up following two principles at the "rube level". There are others, but an awful lot derive from these two:
- A) Us vs. them. There is an Us. There is an Other. We are good. We fear other.
- B) Fear. Only strongman can save us from Other, who is enemy.
- Sorry, these are very human traits. That even includes if you add element C, Hope, the "Mystical/Symbolic Thingy Also Will Help Save Us From What We Fear" part, which often is a pretty decent chunk of "fascist" style authoritarianism. I would never describe Fear of the Unknown as "mental illness" by any means. (I would say that this is even the default instinct of most animals, humans included).
- A better word, perhaps is..."uncivilized"? Human civilization has tended to do *much* better when it is working together and ignoring superstition, stereotype, and closed-minds, compared to eras when the later dominated thought. 47.197.76.134 (talk) 18:50, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
- I'm talking specifically about fascism, I know this is a very strange thing for a rationalwikian to say but I don't actually feel like "authoritarianism" is really meaingful. It's too broad to really explain any particular political ideology including fascism. The traits can arguably be seen in liberals as much as they can be in socialist and in fascists. Like the concept of an "in-group" is inherent in ANY form of politics and libertarians are just as prone to indulge in great-man hero worship as anyone else.
- I think Fascism has a certain disordered characteristic precisely because it is (to used nakedly marxist terms) often a tactical alliance between the petit-bourgeois and the lumpen-prole. The "privilleged" Nigel Farage's leading along the coked dealing football hooligan fans of Tommy Robinson et al. It is often the most chaotic people in society in some of the most desperate conditions being manipulated by some of its most cynical and careless.
Tikitime2 (talk) 19:54, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
- To partially paraphrase a weirdo sci-fi author, Fascism and Communism are immune disorders. When too many people are excluded from society for weirdness of varying degrees, you get socialism, and when the weirdos take it too far and implement a purity spiral, you get communism. When boring normies react to the weirdos you get populism, and when they take populism too far they get fascism. You need both the normies and weirdos, and socialism and populism, in a sort of balance. You have to make society include everyone capable of producing, but you also gotta let society produce. When
- So no. Fascists are not mentally ill. That's Communists. Both are dangerous for different reasons, and should be opposed. -CU 24.186.106.204 (talk) 20:22, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
- Gee It's almost like human brains are biologically hardwired for repressive dictatorships2001:67C:2628:647:32:504:0:1F6 (talk) 21:47, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
- Kinda, yes. People care about safety, their next meal, getting laid, than they do their other rights. Many people are "natural slaves", in that they don't want to make important decisions for themselves because it's overwhelming. "The government that governs best is that which governs least" isn't possible because the vast majority of people are not 115+ IQ high-agency Liberal/Libertarian types who just want to live and let live. CorruptUser 23:45, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
- "Communists but not fascists are mentally ill" and "most people are natural slaves" are both wild-ass statements to make. Antares (talk) 01:54, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
- 1) Many, not most. Something being natural is not the same as being good. It's the duty of society to protect people from falling into slavery, because it ends badly for everyone.
- 2) The Far Left has worse overall mental health than the Far Right. CorruptUser 06:40, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
- "Communists but not fascists are mentally ill" and "most people are natural slaves" are both wild-ass statements to make. Antares (talk) 01:54, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
- Kinda, yes. People care about safety, their next meal, getting laid, than they do their other rights. Many people are "natural slaves", in that they don't want to make important decisions for themselves because it's overwhelming. "The government that governs best is that which governs least" isn't possible because the vast majority of people are not 115+ IQ high-agency Liberal/Libertarian types who just want to live and let live. CorruptUser 23:45, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
- Gee It's almost like human brains are biologically hardwired for repressive dictatorships2001:67C:2628:647:32:504:0:1F6 (talk) 21:47, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
- No. Just no. The far-right has a very clearly defined ideological tradition, with a vocabulary taken from biology and fundamentally capitalist ideals taken from the traditional right-wing, in order to promote their racist and communatarian ideas. They believe that their "community" is the only "people" that exist, while in democratic-republican thought there are no "white" or "black" or whatever communities, and religion is irrelevant to public affairs. In a functioning republic, there is one unified people, one national community, and no so-called "true people", which is something the far-right can't cope with (that's why they are fundamentally dangerous for any republican form of government). Consistently, in Western Europe, there has been a tendency to "exclude" the historical nazis from humanity, to see them as "insane". In truth, they were, on the contrary, very much like you and me. This is why it's so scary to think that what seems to be "normal" human beings have the mental capacity to commit such atrocities simply for such vane concepts as "race" and "nation". To understand what's going on now and what has been going on for a long time with the far-right, you need to ask "why", not "how": to the nazis, just like to our modern managerial class, by the way, human beings are simply numbers in competition with each other. Violence, weapons, virility, all of this is part of this ideal of competition. I suggest you read the work of the French historian Johann Chapoutot, a specialist on these questions who explicitly states the danger of calling the historical nazis "crazy", and who makes parallels with modern neo-liberalism. You are right that there is always a certain conspiracy to it, though: "Jewish" finances, the "deep state", freemasonry, would supposedly be "effeminate" forces that "weaken" the "nation" (the community the far-right party supports: in the case of, let's say, National Rally, it's the Christian-white "community", which would represent the only real French "people" according to them). Once you are surrounded by enemies everywhere, all violence becomes justified: the "menace" to the country is the justification for breaches of human rights and deportations (of "only 'illegal' immigrants" of course, whatever that's supposed to mean. To the far-right, it means all immigrants, as they think of them all as dealers and criminals and rapists and assassins etc.). The far-right ideology is centred around the group, its "cohesion" and the supposedly "natural" competition (encouraging force and masculinity) between groups. The problem supposedly are the minorities and hidden conspiracies which endanger the groups cohesion and force: due to the supposed "mortal menace" of the group, persecutions up to genocide (as we all know) would be justified to them. Nazis were/are not crazy, they are still present in our times: The idea of human "work force" as a material good is taking back shape. After the fall of the Weimar Republic due to economic liberalism, after WW2, at least in France, a politic of solidarity was installed by the joint Gaullist and communist provisional government of the French Republic (1944–1946), which continued roughly until the presidency of Valéry Giscard d’Estaing in the 1970s, when things started to change again in favour of a liberal ideal which today wants to remove the reforms of the National Council of resistance and the provisional government. The ideas of the far-right are still very much present, and we shouldn't be too confident that we're safe from another regime similar to the ones of the 1920s and 1930s. New world (talk) 00:04, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
- Paragraphs?
- I also have a firm dislike of fascism, but looking at the list above it would not be difficult to simply flip it around and then claim left-wing positions are signs of a mental disorder.
- For example:
- Unable to identify conspiracies leading to a lack of efficiently.
- A desire to avoid conflict resulting a failure to resolve issues.
- And so on. I won't continue as It would me entail writing bizarre things I don't believe. But you get the idea.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 06:37, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
- @CorruptUser well that's understandable since far-left movements are disproportionately populated by people likely to have been traumatised and generally suffer ill mental health. See Trans-people, rape-survivors, people with disability, queerness or anyone non-white. My case is not that mental health is "better" on the left but rather that fascism itself constitutes the symptoms of a mentally unwell individual. As far as the left and mental health is concerned... well a hospital is full of injured people, that doesn't mean hopsitals cause injuries or that hospitals "are" injuries. Correlation not causation in that case.
- @Bob I'm not sure that flip works quiet so well as the left is not nearly as homogenous as the right is. Huge qualitative differences between how anarchists, marxists (even maoists vs dengists for ex), and social democrats think where-as the difference between various flavours of far-right is usually more a difference of preferred degree of violence (except maybe anarcho-fascism). For example: some left wing groups are notoriously and unhelpfuly combatative and some left wing groups are naive almost to the point of smugness. So that kind of monolithic understanding is especially limiting. Then again, you do get some particularly weird variations of fascism too I suppose? So maybe not as homogenous as is sometimes assumed?
- @New world I agree with your characterisation of fascist ideology and don't think it is particularly contradictory to mine. My aim here is not to "other" it from "healthy liberal politics". I see liberalism and fascism as essentially co-symbyotic. Liberalism is the politics of managing and facilitating capitalist society, which produces inequality and wealth accumulation. This creates economic insecurity, status anxiety and resentment among those at the bottom. + lobbying creates a politic situation where everyday people experience liberal democracy as corrupt, indifferent or un-responsive to their core needs. Add to that that privately owned media that tends to be (for obvious selfish reasons) largely anti-tax & regulation, ensuring progressive politicians have to fight uphill in battles which they will lose more often than win because of the resources stacked against them. Meaning the core issues that are causing the anger (failures in health policy, crumbling infrastructure, spiralling costs of living, enviromental degradation) are rarely addressed to a sufficient enough degree that will disarm the fascist cause.
- Capitalism produces the social and economic conditions that lead to fascism. It is one of the neurosis that develops as liberal society is torn up by the system it defends. That doesn't mean anyone has to suddenly adopt some tankieish love of the USSR or whateverthefuck btw and I think it's perfectly understandable to say "I can see that capitalism and democracy may actually pretty uncomfortable bed-fellows... but holy shit the thought of 20th Century style revolutionary leftism also terrifies me." Tikitime2 (talk) 11:50, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
- French Revolution doesn't really scare me, neither does French social model, nor the reformer Robespierre, nor the reformist-revolutionary socialism of Jean Jaurès (which dominated/dominates the French left since the beginning of the 20th century). If by "revolutionary leftism" you mean state communism, that would have scared me 50 years ago, but today, not. It doesn't seem like it's going to come back anytime soon (let's see when Trump invades Venezuela how big that menace is today. My estimate — it's as small as the centre-left will be in twenty years). Oh, and, when talking about the URSS, never forget that Western Europe basically betrayed/abandoned Gorbatchev, leading to the current regime (installed by great democratic that was Yeltsin, liberator of Russia and friend of the west, as any 1990s journal will tell you). The revolution of 1917 doesn't scare me either, as it had potential to create something great, but the usual opportunists took control, at the head of them Staline. Generally, I find the "necessary" link between capitalism and republican democracy to be total bull****. "Liberal democracy" is called a republican regime, and the republican form of government isn't necessarily exploitative. In a very French way, I admit, I don't know that much (nor am I currently planning to learn) about the rest of the world, but: the French model of the "social republic" and the French left's republican socialism are an alternative model to the authoritarian and anti-republican (and often undemocratic) ways of liberalism. Socialism isn't necessarily the orthodox Marxism that argues for "dictatorship of the proletariat" (the defining characteristic of the far-left: here, the far-left is openly calling for one "community" to dominate over other components of the people), it can just be nationalisations and an alternative project leading to an auto-gestionary organisation. Another important component of republican socialism is, well, the republic: a more direct democracy, with an emphasis on referendums and protests, needs to take shape, through a citizen revolution (different from the socialist revolution), mixing demonstrations and elections. Once you insist on your ideas and get a couple of academics on board, you can achieve what France has achieved at least in name so far: "France is an indivisible [me: later defined as meaning the country has no communities, but only one people], democratic [meaning the sovereignty of the people and not whatever "liberal democracy" means], laic [me:meaning the separation between religion and the state, and the freedom of consciousness of the youth of the republic by prohibiting religious symbolism at schools], and social [me:a principle ensuring free school, free and public healthcare, and a tax system ensuring everything which is taken by the state gets reinvested into public infrastructure and solidarity] republic [me:a republic: a system of the four aforementioned principles, including but not limited to the democratic principle]", first phrase of first article of the French constitution(s), beginning of the deceleration of the right of man and of the citizen. So democracy and capitalism aren't necessarily a good fit. New world (talk) 13:30, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
- You do realize that the French Revolution pretty quickly became a murderfest, right? If you are the type to think Revolutions are nothing to be scared of, when it comes time to line people up against the wall you aren't going to be one of the ones holding the rifles... CorruptUser 14:12, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
- Before the revolution which brought Europe republican ideals (what—are you going to claim that without France, the United States would have brought those? Not that they weren't a fairly upright republic at that time, anything else would be an anachronism, but never would history have been better without the revolution), people were literally living under feudalism and were being tortured by the king for simple "blasphemy". Tortured. And across the hundreds of years of that torture, that's a lot more deaths than the revolution brought. It was, and this is the consensus among French historians, by the way, the necessary change to France, which at the time (not today) wasn't going to come without violence. Oh, but if you would have been there, the king would still reign over France probably. Yes, very obviously the first republic was far superior to the ancien régime, and very obviously it isn't a "failure" of the revolution if the anti-republican Napoleon (a precursor of the later Boulangist far-right under the 3ed republic and even today's French far-right ideas) wouldn't have taken power and reestablished monarchy through a coup d'état. Also, while the level of violence is obviously not comparable to that of very authoritarian regimes, I highly suggest you to participate at an important protest in France: if you're unlucky, like I was once, you might get serious injuries, if you're lucky they will throw tear gas at you, your children and your wife (if the family is there) for no apparent reason other than "somewhere a person threw some object at a car—the car was clearly endangered and in need of protection" (they literally always use "protecting objects" as an excuse, even if the "danger" is a bottle of beer or something). They (the CRS) beat up tourists, working people and high schoolers and university students without distinction, they literally throw tear gas in front of pre-schools and elementary schools, and in cases like these, protesters sometimes decide to fight back. But no, I, like most other protesters in France, don't support a violent revolution, but a peaceful, citizen revolution through pacific protest and voting urns. New world (talk) 15:11, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
- "the far-left is openly calling for one "community" to dominate over other components of the people" @New world I'm not really sure if that is actually true. I feel that has been largely over-blown by the projections of nervous liberals who see the dictatorship of the proletariat simply as a dictatorship of revenge. And france has all the same problems as everyone else does under liberal-capitalism as far as I can see. Though I might be misinterpretting you? Tikitime2 (talk) 18:27, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
- Oh, France has many problems, but it also has a solid social system built on a very integrated ideological framework (it's present in schools, universities, politics, cinema, literature, etc.). I'm not trying to say France is perfect, but, at least compared to Germany, the United States or any other Anglo-Saxon country, we have indeed (no matter how much the far-right complains about it) a left-wing subculture of which French leftists are proud of: in France, calling our system "socialist" isn't an insult if done by a leftist. Tell me another european country where that is the case? (All I can think of would be the Scandinavian countries, but I feel like they have had a big move rightward). France has immense racism problems, and yet one of the most diverse populations in Europe. In other countries, they still insist on Muslims converting to the "Leitkultur" (which France sort of does too, but in a different manner, without telling Muslims they have to convert to Christianity, for example). Useless "naturalisation" ceremonies for new citizens, unrestricted economic liberalism and the absence of opinion plurality (they call everyone else "populist conspiracy theorists", yet the result of their politics will be a coalition with the far-right anyway) are fairly new. While France has horrible views on societal issues, on social (socio-economic) issues it isn't that much off from what the left wants. And when I say we want social justice, I mean: most other European countries' populations want policies considered basic and not discussable in France. All this to say: we (French leftists) have reason to have some hope, and our country definitely has potential to represent a humanist, non-aligned, and social voice in the world, independent of the United States, Russia, and the US-vassal Germany. Not like the Spanish, German or any other European left is nearly as influential as the French one is. On your other point: "Far-left" is only "far" (extremist) if it is anti-republican (unless you use the vague definitions some sensationalist media use, where the far-right becomes the "populist right" and the populist leftists would necessarily be "far-left"). Extremism=anti-republicanism, at least in democratic republics, and, at least here, being against the republic means you don't respect its principles and its culture: the far-left want to put one "community" (the proletariat) over others. At least for now, that just isn't going to work, and I doubt it ever will, but it's not like you're fundamentally "extremist" is you supported it in the 1930s: Léon Blum (PM of the Popular Front) was a revolutionary Marxist and didn't bring much harm, quite to the contrary. So I guess you have a point there. New world (talk) 19:25, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
- "the far-left is openly calling for one "community" to dominate over other components of the people" @New world I'm not really sure if that is actually true. I feel that has been largely over-blown by the projections of nervous liberals who see the dictatorship of the proletariat simply as a dictatorship of revenge. And france has all the same problems as everyone else does under liberal-capitalism as far as I can see. Though I might be misinterpretting you? Tikitime2 (talk) 18:27, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
- Before the revolution which brought Europe republican ideals (what—are you going to claim that without France, the United States would have brought those? Not that they weren't a fairly upright republic at that time, anything else would be an anachronism, but never would history have been better without the revolution), people were literally living under feudalism and were being tortured by the king for simple "blasphemy". Tortured. And across the hundreds of years of that torture, that's a lot more deaths than the revolution brought. It was, and this is the consensus among French historians, by the way, the necessary change to France, which at the time (not today) wasn't going to come without violence. Oh, but if you would have been there, the king would still reign over France probably. Yes, very obviously the first republic was far superior to the ancien régime, and very obviously it isn't a "failure" of the revolution if the anti-republican Napoleon (a precursor of the later Boulangist far-right under the 3ed republic and even today's French far-right ideas) wouldn't have taken power and reestablished monarchy through a coup d'état. Also, while the level of violence is obviously not comparable to that of very authoritarian regimes, I highly suggest you to participate at an important protest in France: if you're unlucky, like I was once, you might get serious injuries, if you're lucky they will throw tear gas at you, your children and your wife (if the family is there) for no apparent reason other than "somewhere a person threw some object at a car—the car was clearly endangered and in need of protection" (they literally always use "protecting objects" as an excuse, even if the "danger" is a bottle of beer or something). They (the CRS) beat up tourists, working people and high schoolers and university students without distinction, they literally throw tear gas in front of pre-schools and elementary schools, and in cases like these, protesters sometimes decide to fight back. But no, I, like most other protesters in France, don't support a violent revolution, but a peaceful, citizen revolution through pacific protest and voting urns. New world (talk) 15:11, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
- You do realize that the French Revolution pretty quickly became a murderfest, right? If you are the type to think Revolutions are nothing to be scared of, when it comes time to line people up against the wall you aren't going to be one of the ones holding the rifles... CorruptUser 14:12, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
- French Revolution doesn't really scare me, neither does French social model, nor the reformer Robespierre, nor the reformist-revolutionary socialism of Jean Jaurès (which dominated/dominates the French left since the beginning of the 20th century). If by "revolutionary leftism" you mean state communism, that would have scared me 50 years ago, but today, not. It doesn't seem like it's going to come back anytime soon (let's see when Trump invades Venezuela how big that menace is today. My estimate — it's as small as the centre-left will be in twenty years). Oh, and, when talking about the URSS, never forget that Western Europe basically betrayed/abandoned Gorbatchev, leading to the current regime (installed by great democratic that was Yeltsin, liberator of Russia and friend of the west, as any 1990s journal will tell you). The revolution of 1917 doesn't scare me either, as it had potential to create something great, but the usual opportunists took control, at the head of them Staline. Generally, I find the "necessary" link between capitalism and republican democracy to be total bull****. "Liberal democracy" is called a republican regime, and the republican form of government isn't necessarily exploitative. In a very French way, I admit, I don't know that much (nor am I currently planning to learn) about the rest of the world, but: the French model of the "social republic" and the French left's republican socialism are an alternative model to the authoritarian and anti-republican (and often undemocratic) ways of liberalism. Socialism isn't necessarily the orthodox Marxism that argues for "dictatorship of the proletariat" (the defining characteristic of the far-left: here, the far-left is openly calling for one "community" to dominate over other components of the people), it can just be nationalisations and an alternative project leading to an auto-gestionary organisation. Another important component of republican socialism is, well, the republic: a more direct democracy, with an emphasis on referendums and protests, needs to take shape, through a citizen revolution (different from the socialist revolution), mixing demonstrations and elections. Once you insist on your ideas and get a couple of academics on board, you can achieve what France has achieved at least in name so far: "France is an indivisible [me: later defined as meaning the country has no communities, but only one people], democratic [meaning the sovereignty of the people and not whatever "liberal democracy" means], laic [me:meaning the separation between religion and the state, and the freedom of consciousness of the youth of the republic by prohibiting religious symbolism at schools], and social [me:a principle ensuring free school, free and public healthcare, and a tax system ensuring everything which is taken by the state gets reinvested into public infrastructure and solidarity] republic [me:a republic: a system of the four aforementioned principles, including but not limited to the democratic principle]", first phrase of first article of the French constitution(s), beginning of the deceleration of the right of man and of the citizen. So democracy and capitalism aren't necessarily a good fit. New world (talk) 13:30, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
- Capitalism produces the social and economic conditions that lead to fascism. It is one of the neurosis that develops as liberal society is torn up by the system it defends. That doesn't mean anyone has to suddenly adopt some tankieish love of the USSR or whateverthefuck btw and I think it's perfectly understandable to say "I can see that capitalism and democracy may actually pretty uncomfortable bed-fellows... but holy shit the thought of 20th Century style revolutionary leftism also terrifies me." Tikitime2 (talk) 11:50, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
- Let's suppose that fascism is a mental condition and is added to the DSM. OK. Then what? It is a chronic pathology of human society that appears to be contagious. This step would do nothing to solve the problem of fascism, because people with clinical disorders, apart from phobias, do not recognize they have a problem. So, you can't make them better, there are too many of them to incarcerate, and even if you did, they occur naturally and would replace themselves in society. See, the trouble with fascists is, if you try to correct them they will try to kill you.Zatoichi (talk) 19:31, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
- @Zatoichi Viewing fascism through the lens of mental health rather than politics is not about simply getting it listed in a medical manual. It is about getting an accurate understanding of how to reproduces, its effects on society and how to treat it. I'd argue A LOT of really ineffective interventions intended to strengthen our democratic culture to combat fascism in recent years failed to understand the fundamentally pathologic nature of the fascist worldview and ended up pursuing a course of action that actually played to fascist strengths.
- The Internet, TV and Radio were all hailed as tools of progress that would advance human compassion and understanding and all of them either fell short or ended up exarcerbating misinformation. IMO they made the fatal assumption that simply more information would result in more rational and compassionate politics. In this tradition a lot of internet platforms have tried to tackle far-right sentiment by hosting these rational debate/discussions (Jubilee) that often had the intention of hearing out very right wing individuals and then present them with alternative perspectives in the hope of creating more converts or at least vaguely "contributing to the discussion".
- But when you work in a therapeutic setting with someone who has severe paranoia or PTSD, you typically aknowledge that the emotional distress is real while helping them to see that... their husband is NOT going to kick in the door/they're not all recording you. What you don't do is tell them is that their fears, anxieties or frustrations are rational. When people treat fascism as a political phenomenon instead of some sort of neurotic state of antisocial dysfunction they legitimise it far more than it deserves. The fascist use the aknowledgement of "yes fascist group X's fears have a grain of truth to them unfortunately but" as legitimisation and then simply tune out what follows. I think the failure of many well-meaning liberals to understand fascism as a contagious force that reproduces itself through irrational impulses that in large enough quantities will completely negate honest dialogue, has meant they have put far too much stock in reaching out. Though I know I'm FAR from the only one to have made this point. Tikitime2 (talk) 17:23, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
- Fascism is not the term that I would use for the mental aspects phenomenon; this is a fuzzily defined political system that often happens to takes advantage of what I called "Othering" above to secure its power. If you look to the social sciences... "other" happens to be a term used from a philosophical standpoint,
at least if the Wiki classification is correct. Another term is in-group and out-group,
used in psychology / sociology. The term for what happens to out-groups at their most extreme is dehumanization.
So this type of stuff had been studied and there's names for it and you'll even find papers on people trying to figure out why people are this way.
- The thing is, as I see it, everyone pretty much has some in group / out group ideas in their head to some degree. It just so happens, of course, that some of the "far right" frame "liberalism" (of the American social kind) as "mentally ill", too! In group / out group in action from "both sides"! So... who's right here? "Them"... or "us"? As far as I see it... neither. This us vs. them compartmentalization is a very human trait -- not a rational trait at all, as you say, but animal instinctual. The heavier Othering certainly has negative effects on society, so I think that "minimizing dehumanization" is an absolutely great goal to strive for. But throwing around phrases like "mentally ill" at one political side alone will yield no progress here, methinks.
- People who have heavy dehumanized outgroup paradigms certainly are susceptible to propaganda that exploits such. I think this is the real issue when it comes to "fascism" or many other authoritarian systems... on the "using the Other" part, it's not a mental illness, it's a crass exploitation strategy to get the rubes to support something that ultimately often is against their interests. 47.197.76.134 (talk) 18:46, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
- I'd just like to mention that “the Other” is used as a legitimate anthropological concept in research pertaining to pre-Hispanic societies in the Americas and to the misunderstandings of Spanish writers: in this case, there are two or three "others" for western, incl. Latin American, researchers today (1. 16th century westerners from Spain, different from today's west. Example: the Spaniards of that time were not yet familiar with the decimal system. 2. Pre-Hispanic American societies, and 3. the specific cultural area studied, example: Mesoamerica, central Andes, Isthmocolombian area). 80.187.82.156 (talk) 21:42, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
- Fascism is not the term that I would use for the mental aspects phenomenon; this is a fuzzily defined political system that often happens to takes advantage of what I called "Othering" above to secure its power. If you look to the social sciences... "other" happens to be a term used from a philosophical standpoint,
- But when you work in a therapeutic setting with someone who has severe paranoia or PTSD, you typically aknowledge that the emotional distress is real while helping them to see that... their husband is NOT going to kick in the door/they're not all recording you. What you don't do is tell them is that their fears, anxieties or frustrations are rational. When people treat fascism as a political phenomenon instead of some sort of neurotic state of antisocial dysfunction they legitimise it far more than it deserves. The fascist use the aknowledgement of "yes fascist group X's fears have a grain of truth to them unfortunately but" as legitimisation and then simply tune out what follows. I think the failure of many well-meaning liberals to understand fascism as a contagious force that reproduces itself through irrational impulses that in large enough quantities will completely negate honest dialogue, has meant they have put far too much stock in reaching out. Though I know I'm FAR from the only one to have made this point. Tikitime2 (talk) 17:23, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
Good news: California is finally going YIMBY after all these years (at least tosome extent)
Housing was one of the very few policies that IMO the GOP was better than the Dems (that didn't make them good, their disdain for public housing is also one of the reasons why America faces such a huge housing crisis). According to the LA Times, the project is in Newsom's desk.[11] This can be indeed a great moment. Also according to the LA Times:
Residents fear the zoning changes would alter single-family communities and force residents into competition with developers, who would be incentivized under the new rules to purchase properties near transit corridors.
This sort of reasoning is pretty much why I can't tabe NIMBYism serious. No one is forcing residents to move or sell their houses. They can keep them. The reason why people usually sell them after zoning changes is because land prices rise. Hardly a bad deal for them too. I'm not saying that these policies changes are perfect, but they are probably a step in the right direction. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 18:44, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
- thank. goodness. this is long overdue. The G (talk) 04:10, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
- However, there are risks of 'densification' (which will be the net result of loosening zoning rules). Suburbs were invariably not built with the infrastructure (road quality, sewers, power lines, parkland) to take significantly heavier loads, and most are not designed to support 'different styles of living' ('burb apartment blocks need to be 'walkable' etc) and most importantly we are increasingly appreciating the ecological benefits of them (habitats, cooling heat zones etc). There is a big danger (as seen in the UK) where the Powers That Be think all they need to do 'to sort the housing crisis' is to allow denser builds. No, that's just the start. KarmaPolice (talk) 08:31, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
Blocking and automatic TPA removal
Why do admins of the site automatically remove talk page access (TPA) when blocking? I understand why for obvious vandalism accounts, but I'd recommend to avoid immediate removal of TPA for edit filter blocks, disruptive editing (that isn't necessarily vandalism), and anything that would have a reasonable portion of block reviews accepted. With the current system of automatic TPA removal, you can't really appeal a block and you are forced to wait it out (sometimes not an option) or evade the block. 2A02:6EA0:D33B:6282:0:0:0:13 (talk) 01:12, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
- I have never as a mod either seen or done any immediate block of any account which was not an obvious spammer, vandal or banned user socking. All other bans go through the procedure which gives the accused full 'right of reply' and said banning then goes to a vote. KarmaPolice (talk) 08:35, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
- I tend to block only if I happen to be first in the queue (stupid names etc).
- As some people may not understand the nature of RW/have a weird sense of humour/English is not their first language etc perhaps there could be 'a comment from the relevant RW spokesperson(s) as to what the issue is', a block for a short time for said persons to reconsider what they do, and if they misbehave thereafter then a more permanent block? This would require minimal extra work. Anna Livia (talk) 11:32, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
- I look forward to our IP editor providing a handful of examples. I guess it's possible they exist - but claiming a thing happens frequently is less convincing than demonstrating it happens.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 13:42, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
- It might be an idea to leave the mod page (or something) with the lowest level of permissions so if something does go wrong the blocked one can make a sock and appeal it. But methinks this is a convo that should be left to mods to decide. KarmaPolice (talk) 16:52, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
- I look forward to our IP editor providing a handful of examples. I guess it's possible they exist - but claiming a thing happens frequently is less convincing than demonstrating it happens.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 13:42, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
Are there "levels" or "kinds" of knowing or is it more an "either or" thing?
Sparked by some guy on a spirituality forum that argued that knowing is limited and I said nothing is beyond knowing because then how would you know it to be so.
He argued there are kinds or levels to knowing and used the ocean as an example where one can have an experience of it but not know it. But to me that's defining knowing as knowing every detail about something and we don't do that. We usually refer to knowing OF something not it's entirety, or some identifying aspect of it.
There was also some bit about experiencing a quantum field or the galaxy but not really knowing it, I can't really remember.
But to me you either know something (or a fact) or you don't. There isn't really a level or kind to it, you either do or don't. They said the experience of pure love is beyond knowing but my response was "if you didn't know what it is or was like then how could you know you achieved it"? It's either you do or you don't know. If you want to extend that to knowing everything about something then you could argue that we don't know, but even then that's still having knowledge of particulars, it's not a level or kind thing. You do or you don't.
I guess I'm wondering if that's true, because to me it just seems more like a semantic game he was trying to play just to make what seemed like a point.47.5.66.54 (talk) 23:13, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
- If his explanation involves "experiencing a quantum field or the galaxy but not really knowing it" - then you would probably be better off ignoring him.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 05:42, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
That sounds about right from what he told me, at least that was my first impression.47.5.66.54 (talk) 04:24, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
- We have a page on the woo-woo type of other ways of knowing. As far as science goes, one can think of levels of knowing, roughly bottom to top: 1) I read and understood this concept from a quality media source. 2) I have college training in the general subject and I read about this specific subject. 3) I read and understood the subject in the original scientific papers. 4) I'm a professional in the field and I've published about this subject. Bongolian (talk) 05:28, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
- To actually engage with the point raised: it is possible to question whether you can "know" anything with a hundred percent certainty. In epistemology it is often claimed that knowledge is a subset of belief. But then we are left to ask - why do we believe anything?
- Evidently that takes us to the question of how much evidence we have - because this is what informs our belief. And with better evidence we are more justified in our belief and are in a better position to claim that we "know" something.
- So I would disagree with our IP editor about knowledge being binary, but I certainly wouldn't follow the quantum woo rabbit hole which someone seems to want to open for him.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 10:37, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
- There may be a variety of kinds of knowing, but I don't know how you can understand them if you have not already experienced them. Every kind of knowing that you are capable of producing should already be familiar to you. If there are any others, you will never know about them through direct experience.Zatoichi (talk) 02:29, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
- Knowing is the application of meaning to information in context. All information and its context can be reduced to binary. A digital representation of a photograph can be reduced to a group of binary numbers, but looking at that aggregate number doesn't give us the knowledge of what it would depict when rendered as a graphic. This preparation for rendering is a way to put the group of binary information in context. Knowledge of the photograph is generated when someone looks at it and applies meaning to it. Meaning is potentially infinite, so not only are there 'kinds' of knowing, there are an infinite amount of kinds.2A0D:BBC7:0:0:F816:3EFF:FE65:992F (talk) 07:41, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
- You can have more or less confidence in the evidence you have. You can have more or less detail in your information. But while the quality and confidence of what you know may vary enormously - that doesn't mean that there are "an infinite amount of kinds" of knowing.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 07:58, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
- man, we can only know what we know. If that is your description of your experience, then I have been cruel to write you off. I think there is an argument that I had when I was young, how can I see the color red and know it is the same color that everyone else sees? Some people are red/green colorblind, but must accept red is a color that is different from green, seven of they can't see it themselves. You're asking for a color that doesn't exist, and I remember your upbringing, and I know it's gotta be hard to live in a less than magical world. The magic is your ability, the spirit is your will to use your magic, and the afterlife is the least important thing. Just do your best with your time, try to do it better every day. Don't save anything for a second life. People will care about you, don't be so.caught up in your search that you forget to care back if possible — Unsigned, by: Torrent / talk / contribs
- You can have more or less confidence in the evidence you have. You can have more or less detail in your information. But while the quality and confidence of what you know may vary enormously - that doesn't mean that there are "an infinite amount of kinds" of knowing.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 07:58, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
- Knowing is the application of meaning to information in context. All information and its context can be reduced to binary. A digital representation of a photograph can be reduced to a group of binary numbers, but looking at that aggregate number doesn't give us the knowledge of what it would depict when rendered as a graphic. This preparation for rendering is a way to put the group of binary information in context. Knowledge of the photograph is generated when someone looks at it and applies meaning to it. Meaning is potentially infinite, so not only are there 'kinds' of knowing, there are an infinite amount of kinds.2A0D:BBC7:0:0:F816:3EFF:FE65:992F (talk) 07:41, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
ASIC accreditation
I was updating the Louisiana Baptist University and Seminary article. I updated it because LBU has ASIC accreditation. ASIC is known to accredit bogus schools such as Atlantic international University. This makes me wonder why LBU didn't try TRACS accreditation. It would make more sense. --Trans Fem Agenda 15:40, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
You know shit is bad when...
Karl fucking Rove is the voice of reason.
Related question; where do you Americans now get your news from now? If I was in your country, I wouldn't really trust mainstream/domestic news outlets now. KarmaPolice (talk) 11:21, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, even Tucker Carlson of all people was calling out Pam Bondi. MAGA gotta speedrun into fascism though, and the MAGA / Project 2025 folks really need their Horst Wessel
propaganda figure to fuel their Cultural Revolution.
- My general opinion of American legacy news has always been rather low (particularly for non-American news), but these days it is in the toilet. The US government run agencies in the past (PBS / NPR / VOA) have been better, might still be. But sadly I avoid these sources now; if they haven't cracked yet, I fear that they eventually will...
- Now, I do still consider many American weeklies pretty solid... as well as the wire services (AP / Reuters)... there's only so much time to news, though.
- So for me, it's largely British stuff for the daily international feed. BBC is my primary source. A little "look over the shoulder" at sources like The Economist and The Guardian here and there, too, when appropriate.
- I also follow a few choice Internet feeds, especially if they give more succinct daily summaries and aren't too chatty / repetitive (a *big* problem with Internet news sources, I've found). Two of them feature historians to help add perspective to the present (electoral-vote.com and Heather Cox Richardson's Letters from an American). The others are Paul Krugman's Substack for a Krugman-y economics perspective (and pundit-ing, but more for the former); and G. Elliott Morris's "Strength in Numbers" Substack, as I feel that he's carrying on with the deep dive poll data analysis angle that Nate Silver started with 538, and abandoned to become a bad take Twitter pundit. 47.197.76.134 (talk) 12:50, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
- Well, VOA is dead. Note that the last news they posted on their site is dated March 15th of this year. You can still get the BBC World Service via SiriusXM, but well, how long until they drop underwear'?
- Of the three Brit sources [well, I am a Brit...] I would say the Economist is going to be the most solid. The BBC has it's own biases; the main off the top-of-head being 'false balance' [though not as bad as it used to be]. Beeb has the advantage that it's one of the very few media orgs which has an organic 'global reach' of reporters, while others have a dependence on AP/Reuters [which can be hit by MAGA-censorship]. All three have the bonuses of not being privately owned. The BBC is a govt-owned [but 'hands off'] corp and the other two are trusts. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:20, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
- It's tough to come up with something that: A) is a daily source (the Economist is ostensibly a weekly, though articles are published on the web daily); B) is in English (because I sadly suck at foreign languages); C) and covers the entire world reasonably well, not just the home country (this rules out most American legacy dailies). Al Jazeera is the only contender I can think of off the top of my head at the moment, and I'm "more attuned" to The Beeb's bias than Al Jazeera's bias. Also, The Beeb wins on RSS feed curation (at least when I set them up, the Economist has nothing useful to me, and the Guardian is way too chatty). 47.197.76.134 (talk) 13:41, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
- However, all this makes me wonder 'does it matter much?' That if the majority of the Big Public are getting their news from the increasingly censored mainstream [or worse, social media drek] it doesn't matter that much if the 'intellectuals' are still getting decent news from other sources. In fact, it might help cement in the New Order because as the two 'narratives of the world' diverge, the ability of said intellectuals to persuade the Big Public will become harder and harder ['what you say about America's standing worsening? The networks tell us Trump's put us right on top again!' etc] and in response, MAGA can [and most likely, will] paint the 'consuming of foreign news' as vaguely unpatriotic or something.
- It's tough to come up with something that: A) is a daily source (the Economist is ostensibly a weekly, though articles are published on the web daily); B) is in English (because I sadly suck at foreign languages); C) and covers the entire world reasonably well, not just the home country (this rules out most American legacy dailies). Al Jazeera is the only contender I can think of off the top of my head at the moment, and I'm "more attuned" to The Beeb's bias than Al Jazeera's bias. Also, The Beeb wins on RSS feed curation (at least when I set them up, the Economist has nothing useful to me, and the Guardian is way too chatty). 47.197.76.134 (talk) 13:41, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
- Of the three Brit sources [well, I am a Brit...] I would say the Economist is going to be the most solid. The BBC has it's own biases; the main off the top-of-head being 'false balance' [though not as bad as it used to be]. Beeb has the advantage that it's one of the very few media orgs which has an organic 'global reach' of reporters, while others have a dependence on AP/Reuters [which can be hit by MAGA-censorship]. All three have the bonuses of not being privately owned. The BBC is a govt-owned [but 'hands off'] corp and the other two are trusts. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:20, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
- The big question is what they do regarding sources intended for 'elite' audiences. To some extent, it don't matter one jot if we get force-fed ProleFeed, but it does if you are say, in the upper ranks of business, finance, military etc. We already know they don't give a fuck about either science or governmental efficiency but well, businesspeople and financiers rely to a major extent having access to reliable, timely data and reportage. KarmaPolice (talk) 15:49, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
- As a comparison... I don't think America is anywhere near a China Great Firewall scenario, but it's worth exploring that just to see how "elites" operate there.
- For access: My "general impression" there was that as long as you toe the party line, there was some degree of "tolerance" of the ways to bypass the "Great Firewall" blockades. But this automatically separates people (at least, Internet consumers) into "haves" / "have nots" category, and probably is an irritant even among the "elites" if the block impedes on business. (Not quite "elite" level, but from a programmer perspective, I know that in the 2010s Github was blocked. This irritated China IT. From what I understand, it is not universally blocked anymore, only select pages that try to use Github to bypass China censorship.)
- Regardless of access, the impression I have is pretty much *all* news sources in China are "massaged" by the government. There is no free speech. The top "for the business" daily seems to be Caixin, and it perhaps has a little more leeway/flexibility in reporting than, say, China Daily. But it is hardly free of "the government tentacle". I don't know what China business people think of this situation, unfortunately! (I wouldn't be happy personally.)
- Now, I do consider the Chinese authoritarians, as shitty as they are, to have far more intellectual rigor than the MAGA. That's the interesting thing about this current "authoritarian movement" in the United States: it seems like MAGA is going out of its way to elevate charlatans, conspiracy theorists, and failed trust fund babies. Sure, they are all mostly elite by net worth, but they are the upper class twit sect that is far from elite in intellect. I don't think they give a rats ass about "reliable sources for making decisions", frankly. Trump wouldn't be fucking with the Fed or doing stupid tariff moves if he cared about this sort of thing. Will this anti-intellectualism currently really dominating the GOP hurt the US in the long run? Probably, unfortunately... In more ways than news (look what's happening in science and education for instance... does anyone seriously think that someone fueled by PragerU could compete with anyone who got educated in an actual school?)
- Right now, as an example, I do consider the Wall Street Journal to be tainted by MAGA enough to where (yet another British source!) I would trust FT far more personally for business / financial news. (Not that the WSJ hasn't pushed back on Trumpism some, but...) 47.197.76.134 (talk) 16:41, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
- The big question is what they do regarding sources intended for 'elite' audiences. To some extent, it don't matter one jot if we get force-fed ProleFeed, but it does if you are say, in the upper ranks of business, finance, military etc. We already know they don't give a fuck about either science or governmental efficiency but well, businesspeople and financiers rely to a major extent having access to reliable, timely data and reportage. KarmaPolice (talk) 15:49, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
- The Verge, Wired, ProPublica, The Nation, Rolling Stone, The New Republic, and The Intercept are all pretty good. Some independent journalists who's works I'd recommend include Marisa Kabas, Ken Klippenstein, and Taylor Lorenz. Antares (talk) 21:41, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
- NBC is still fine for now. As are AP News, PBS, and NPR, all three of which were targeted by Trump. Chillpilled (talk) 00:34, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
- I was very unpleasantly surprised when I tuned into my national broadcaster’s (Danmarks Radio, DR) latest, in-depth coverage of the Charlie Kirk murder. It’s radio/podcast branch devoted the entire hour of its weekly, flagship, foreign affairs programme to the topic and it was the most egregious example of both sideism and mealy mouthed glossing over Charlie Kirk’s actual attitudes I’ve heard for a long time.
- The programme is headed by a journalist who has covered the US for decades but clearly has a hard time adjusting to especially what right wing US politics look like in the present and seems to keep trying to dream himself back to the good old days of the Bushes and Reagan.
- Despite enumerating a lot of the recent examples of political violence in the US, the entire panel managed to avoid mentioning that the overwhelming majority of cases in which a clear, political motive can be identified, this violence originates from the (extreme) right.
- The host also rattled off the demographic statistics indicating that the US is moving from a white majority to a white plurality and then blithely asked “How does this threaten whites in the US?”. Not in a way that signalled that this might not actually be a real threat, but as if the supposed threat merely had to be spelled out.
- Now, this guy is definitely not a right winger himself, but it shows how severe the centrist brain rot and both sideism can so totally blind someone so as to not see that they’re actually using white suppremacist talking points.
- One of the guests, another long time foreign correspondent covering the US, also used the distrust of journalists as an example of a divided US. However, he completely failed to distinguish between the general right wing conspiracy theories about the “liberal bias” of the “mainstream media” and the one specific example he gave, namely that of anti Trump demonstrators in Washington DC. Anyone thinking for five minutes without their centrist brain rot cap on would realise that an anti Trump demonstrator would be completely reasonable in checking whether a journalist is from, say, Fox News, considering the risk that they might be shopped to Trump’s masked goon squads and black bagged off the street.
- This correspondent then went on to claim that “the extreme wings” of the Democrats and GOP are both better at fundraising for primaries than the “moderates”, something I think will come as a bit of a surprise to the left/progressive wing of the Democrats.
- Another guest, who covers the US from a deeply conservative part of Tennessee, then made the bizarre claim that Biden’s big fault had been caving to the “extreme left” of the Democrats, rather than bringing the country together through “moderation” (again, this will probably come as a surprise to the progressive Democrats).
- Quite apart from the whitewashing of Kirk’s own legacy and attitudes, the programme even quoted a source speaking favourably about Andrew goddamn Tate as if his attitudes were just completely normal with the only caveat being that “his personal life was not worthy of emulation”(!) None of the guest presented any counter or context explaining what Tate’s ideas actually consist of, likely leaving any listener not already in the know with the impression that Tate is just some sort of “crisis of masculinity” thinker that tries to give back some self esteem to bewildered young men.
- The programme also used the example of the “coming together” of the US in the wake of the murder of Martin Luther King as a contrast to current reactions without apparently having bothered to even check Wikipedia’s section on reactions to that murder, which shows that there was neither unanimous grief nor condemnation.
- All in all, it was a depressing and baffling display of just how incapable of dealing with, explaining and even covering actual events professional journalists can become, when they insist on centrist both sideis as they key framework for everything. ScepticWombat (talk) 12:37, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
- Conversely you'll find that a lot of never-Trumper Republicans have turned out to be more genuinely antifascist than almost the entire Democratic Establishment, which is just insane to me. How is Bill Kristol able to meet the moment but Ezra Klein isn't? Antares (talk) 18:51, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
- Because there is one (or more), immovable issue to stop that NeverTrumper joining the club (family survivor of fascism? Minority in family? Genuinely loves freedom/democracy?). That if they are still holding out now, the anti-MAGA caucus should accept them as an honest ally. So what if they think Reagan was god? America is now fighting for the right for Americans to debate and choose fairly/publicly the future of the country and it's direction without fear or favour.
- Conversely you'll find that a lot of never-Trumper Republicans have turned out to be more genuinely antifascist than almost the entire Democratic Establishment, which is just insane to me. How is Bill Kristol able to meet the moment but Ezra Klein isn't? Antares (talk) 18:51, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
- All in all, it was a depressing and baffling display of just how incapable of dealing with, explaining and even covering actual events professional journalists can become, when they insist on centrist both sideis as they key framework for everything. ScepticWombat (talk) 12:37, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
- One thing I did notice was Tucker Carlsons addition. I read It as someone who fears that MAGA was constructing the infrastructure of dictatorship and feared that 'libruls' could manage to win control of that and promptly do a 'Commie' Project 2029 with zero guard rails left to stop them. Mr Carlson, are you saying you fear that the shit you've been peddling for aeons is not wildly popular? That MAGA may lose even a election slanted in their favour?
- Speaking of which, another failure of foreign media is that of 'stovepiping' aka giving zero context to what's happening. A good rare example of someone not doing this is Simon Marks; that he gives us more vibes and examples than 'just the facts' - and he has repeatedly stressed that 'guard rails buckling', MAGA capture of state, election fairness in doubt, internal stresses rising (he is one of the very few mentioning No More Kings etc) while repeatedly saying 'the America I knew is dying, if not dead' (it helps here that he lives there, which Wombats commentator might not).
- Which can explain a lot of foreign commentators; America as-was had been a staple for 50 years plus. It takes us time to 'mentally adjust' - for example, it took us a decade to twig that Putin wasn't just a another conservative president of a democracy. KarmaPolice (talk) 09:29, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
- My impression of many of these neocon media folks, who were in the circle of those who Rationalwiki used to call "very serious people" club, and who turned Never Trump, is that it is indeed the authoritarianism that pisses them off the most, along with perhaps a rejection of the anti-intellectual, anti-science climate of the Republican Party and Trump's crude and crass cult of personality political style. Most of them -- folks like Kristol, Jennifer Rubin, George Will, and whatnot -- represent a demographic that used to be a reliable Ronald Reagan Republican voter, but have slowly half-migrated over to the Democrat bloc (if perhaps a bit uncomfortably, as they might not fully buy full-throated progressive politics yet). Namely, the urban, high-educated "professional" class.
- The GOP hasn't quite adjusted to this shift yet -- at least, I think that their strategies to try and "nudge-rig" the vote are stuck in the 1980s. It indeed used to be that the "high information vote" leaned Republican, so Republicans had the advantage in non-presidential election cycles. This is no longer quite the case -- it seems like the Democrats now have the "upper hand" amongst the "high information voter" crowd. Yes, there are still a sizable minority vote bloc to play vote rigging games with, but such "light", tinkering vote rigging is just going to piss off the high information voters even more, who see right through this shit.
- (And to be fair, the Southern Strategy style propaganda machine ended up being the GOP's most successful "vote rigging" strategy of all. But at a very high cost. Especially from a long term perspective, when one considers how Trumpism is destroying America's reputation and its position in the world order... its internationally respected institutions such as the US's colleges... and internal social structures such as the American church. All that's worth it to the rubes to stick it to a couple of trans female athletes or something, eh? And all of this is worth it to the ruling class because they get power and tax cuts, eh?) 47.197.76.134 (talk) 15:33, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
- I think you've nailed It - all coming back to the old line 'Any man who is still a socialist at age 40 has no head' and the Voice Of Reason when asked why someone impertinent idealistic kid why they quit being a radical ('I grew up').
- Which can explain a lot of foreign commentators; America as-was had been a staple for 50 years plus. It takes us time to 'mentally adjust' - for example, it took us a decade to twig that Putin wasn't just a another conservative president of a democracy. KarmaPolice (talk) 09:29, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
- That these people became Republican because they logically heard the arguments and through reason and debate concluded they were (generally) correct. That they are disgusted that what passes as 'Republican' now because not just that it's anti-intellectual but openly and loudly lauds ignorance and incompetence. That it's ability to stand toe-to-toe with Democrats has declined to almost nothing ('if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left' - Thatcher) because MAGA ideology has almost nil logic or facts underpinning it. In that they are deliberately trying to make the whole country a safe space because all they have is bile, lies, distractions, sleight of hand and nonsense. In that it cannot win arguments with the electorate; instead it has to cheat. That it shows zero of the traditional 'conservative' values, such as honesty, hard work, self reliance, respect for others, trying to be an upstanding/reliable member of the community etc.
- KarmaPolice (talk) 20:50, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
- Well that was quite a romantic drinking of the kool-aide. You seriously suggest that "honesty, hard work, self reliance, respect for others, trying to be an upstanding/reliable member of the community etc." are 'traditional (american) conservative values'?? Honesty? Really? Forgot about watergate, iran-contra, WMD, Swift-Boat Captains for Lies, etc.?? Hard work?? Sure, conservatism has always been the choice of Big Labor (I'm being sarcastic). Watching your stock portfolio grow must be gruelling...Self-reliance?? Yah that must be why 'trad' conservatives lobby relentlessly for the elimination of regulation, corporate bail-outs (welfare), the privelige of not paying any taxes. If that's self-reliance, why does the government have to make all those things happen for them? Respect for others? Sure, as long as they're white christian men - necktie required. Trying to be an upstanding/reliable member of the community? By recruiting neighbors and fellow parishiners to your ponzi scheme, I guess. Seriously though, you're getting posturing mixed up with reality. Yes the neo-conservatives have always claimed to be upright members of society, because that's the brand. But they don't actually do anything for communities, they just say they do, mainly by existing (Broken Windows Theory and all that..)
- The Never Trump neocons were simply supporters of the previous heirachy, that's all. They believe Trump stole the nomination from Jeb, and his insults to McCain were inexcusable. That's where they're coming from, nowhere else. And Karl Rove is obviously a member of that group. So no, I'm not going to let you get away with whitewashing the reputation of 'traditional conservatives'. They're loyal, I'll give them that, but that's all they are. Anyone sitting in the bleak desert of non-MAGA conservatism has chosen loyalty to a bygone ruling dynasty over brown-nosing the orange pumpkin.2A0D:BBC7:0:0:F816:3EFF:FEC7:9BC8 (talk) 08:41, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
- And the previous hierarchy was *far* more aligned with the norms of "the business class" / the "college educated class" / white collar / whatever you want to call it than Trumpism is today.
- Yes, the Never Trumpers often loved the "no-regulation" ethos of neoliberalism / neoconservatism. You think Trumpism slots easily with this view, with all the "dumbest trade war in history" tariffs and forays into state capitalism? It doesn't. I mean, from my point of view, Trumpism is also doing a really good job of separating "libertarians who truly believe in limited government" vs. "faux-libertarian fascists who only believe in no rules for themselves"
- I do suspect that both the authoritarianism and racism / anti-immigrant / etc. of Trumpism is a motivating factor, to various degrees, of the Never Trump crowd. Obviously even in Reagan's time, there were plenty of "dog whistles" and "dirty politics" shenanigans, so I suspect a big part of the Never Trumpism shift also is just how blatant, brainless, and crass Trumpism is.
- Basically, the "Never Trumpers" are part of a broader shift over the last 50 years: as the Southern Strategy worked its wonders, the "business" / "white collar" class shifted towards the Democrats, while the white "blue collar" class shifted towards the Republicans.
- It is interesting to me is that many of the Never Trumpers have "bent left" and adapted more centrism oriented viewpoints compared to their previous often full-on neoconservative stance. Shows some the "power of the group ethos" I guess. 47.197.76.134 (talk) 14:48, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
- I think that some of the 'neocon-lib right' have drifted left partly because (gah!) evidence has swayed them. For one example, how the 'libertarian era' of the internet gave us the Big Tech giants avoiding all responsibility while more and more revelling in their powers to utterly manipulate our societies. This simply was not an issue back in the days of Bush Jr (though never expect them to admit they were ever wrong on those things).
- The Never Trump neocons were simply supporters of the previous heirachy, that's all. They believe Trump stole the nomination from Jeb, and his insults to McCain were inexcusable. That's where they're coming from, nowhere else. And Karl Rove is obviously a member of that group. So no, I'm not going to let you get away with whitewashing the reputation of 'traditional conservatives'. They're loyal, I'll give them that, but that's all they are. Anyone sitting in the bleak desert of non-MAGA conservatism has chosen loyalty to a bygone ruling dynasty over brown-nosing the orange pumpkin.2A0D:BBC7:0:0:F816:3EFF:FEC7:9BC8 (talk) 08:41, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
- I think one of the key differences between old conservativism and rightist-authoritarianism is 'respect for law' - esp property rights. That basically, the former has It while the other does not. That a rich person could oppose the ruling party with zero risk of harming their business holdings or wealth. Authoritarian economics invariably becomes filled with a capitalist class in which 'success' does not come from entrepreneurship, hard work or founding of new concerns but of sucking up / proving loyalty to the ruler and in return, getting handouts etc of existing assets taken from those out of favour with the regime.
- I'm not saying these NeverTrumpers were not at times ignorant (willingly or not) of how they hardly lived up to the 'values' they professed to believe in but by this point any which have not 'made peace' with MAGA can (I feel) be assumed to be not full of BS and humbug. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:35, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
So is Charlie Kirk's killer Gryoper or Leftist
![]() |
---|
People are pointing to him having a trans roommate and the language he was using etched in those bullets. I honestly stopped caring. 203.37.238.233 (talk) 03:07, 19 September 2025 (UTC)Sick_of_this_shit.
|
- What a stupid way to label people. Kid was 22, raised in a conservative Mormon cop household, and probably thought, in the impatience of youth, it was time to make his impact on the world. I'm sorry, but in the wake of the Michael Brown killing in Missouri, I heard people say protesters should be shot in the street like the dogs they are. That's something people around this kid probably said in his formative years, nobody who talks about tolerance and understanding of would see their kid at 22 take up arms. So it's a stupid conversation, is he a groyper or a leftist, fuck off. He is not a representative, he's a young man who did something heinous. I don't doubt he was maybe motivated by groypers, leftists, and completely whack ass conservative societal pressures that he probably learned are kinda bullshit. But I don't think he learned to grab a gun and shoot from leftists, even if that's where he started to lean. At 22, I was an existentialist and deist, at 25 I was a nihilist and atheist, I am currently an absurdist and antitheist, this guy doesn't represent an ideology, that is such a fucking opportunistic weight to add to this heinous event. Torrent (talk) 05:54, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
- Just because he's been charged does not make him the killer. The police actually had two other suspects before the current guy. (One of them, that appears to be some random dude off his rocker who started yelling at the scene that he was the killer, is a wonderful demonstration of how the cops may even have great reason to suspect someone while still being incorrect.) We have court trials for a reason. The police obviously didn't arrest him for no reason, but this must be proven. That said, the primary suspect obviously appears to be at least somewhat left wing. The proposed evidence to the contrary is unconvincing. Chillpilled (talk) 06:21, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, if the official MAGA definition of 'leftist' was used, the majority of people in the world are (because Reagan/Thatcher are 'centrists'). However, as there has not been huge amounts of 'ideological evidence' yet, my growing theory is that this was a case of 'Nihilistic Violent Extremism' in which the shooter was more motivated by personal hate for Kirk as a person than pure politics (similar for a lot of school shooters). It also needs to be the roughly the same non-ideology which motivated the two Trump shooters. Assuming that this guy did It, naturally. KarmaPolice (talk) 09:04, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
I hope you all have these moments in your life
I went to the smokers' patio at my job, it was raining. I don't go out there to smoke, I go out there because everybody there is better at socializing, and fresh air is good. There are some cheap umbrellas stationed next to the patio door. I was standing under the doorway awning, a lady had her bag and umbrella, and got a little juggly at the door, asked me if I could hold the umbrella. So I did.
"Awww, (Torrent) is holding a hello kitty umbrella!' The implication is I'm a little girl, but my mom, sister in law, her sister and my niece actually like hello kitty, And I'm a big strong man, so I said
"Any time, I'm at least 3 apples tall" and one person cracked up so I said "You should see the underwear I've got on" and this guy, just lurking, usually makes insulting jokes about everyone says "Psh, hoity toity, (Torrent) is wearing underwear, ooh lah lah'. It was the first time I've seen such a clever and vulnerable joke out of the guy. He had it in him the whole time.
I snorted, and when we were working together later, he fucked up, and I said 'I'm glad I'm not the only guy who forgets a step now and again." And he told me "There's probably 73 ways to fuck up, and i bet I've done 72 of them' Old army guy.
I think, what I'm trying to say is, I am comfortable in my self, and a part of that lets other people joke without consequence. I've known a million people who would hear me say 'my underwear' and just pile pointless on a self effacing joke, I already made fun of myself, your worst is not better than mine. This improvised joke about wearing underwear at all being the hoity toity thing to do, implying he was not wearing underwear, which is as obvious He is wearing underwear as obvious I'm not wearing panties, objectively, the funniest followup that could be made.Torrent (talk) 09:47, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
- Mind you, it's Smurfs that are three apples tall. Ms. White (Her full name is Kitty White, she's British, and an aspiring pianist-- according to Sanrio, who should know) is five apples tall. She towers over those little blue guys. Kencolt (talk) 20:18, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
- Uncle's privilege, I don't really have to know. But if I ever catch those Smurfs, I'ma be looking like https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Karason Torrent (talk) 09:12, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
The people complaining about people saying "What about Gaza" is fair in hindsight but when they say stuff like what about the Congo, Sudan, Somalia, etc. there doing the exact same thing.
Now this might sound confusing, but I saw this video like a week ago: https://www.tiktok.com/@yoelandmari/video/7549367203758345502.
Now before you say anything else this video is one of my pet peeves people who complain about people giving a shit about Palestine but not places like Congo, Sudan, Somalia, Etc. But not talking about those places before and giving a shit to them so they cannot give shit about Palestine. This comment rebuttal's this well: "Not gonna lie this is a crazy take. Bc everyone that I’ve seen posts about Palestine, has also posted about Sudan, Congo, Somalia, and Yemen. But that just might be the people in my circle who post about Palestine they also post about the rest. But the intention with posting about those issues that US is already directly involved with and funding is to show that this is where our money to going to, mass murdering families and children. Idk don’t you think at least the US should pull money out of those international conflicts and put our money where our mouth is. I feel like Americans should at less decide where their taxes and money goes to. Charlie Kirk even said that Isreal is ethnic cleansing Palestinians. He demanded for transparency in the epistien case, for the full release of the files completely unredacted. He was literally going against Trump and Bibi in his final moments. Also the US is always seeming to bomb and start conflict with countries with resources they want for financial gain. Wtv but I just don’t understand when people from those countries take refuge in America and they rightfully so, criticize and speak out against our government and that makes you people upset.. isn’t that the whole point of democracy. We’re supposed to push our government to listen to us. They work for us..? Idk anymore". 1.43.239.16 (talk) 09:31, 20 September 2025 (UTC)Why_Just_Why.
- Also paragraphs. And don't delete comments.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:12, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
A fundie school worthy of an article
This unaccredited Christian College boasts an Archeology program. It is apparently located at a strip mall in New Mexico. --Trans Fem Agenda 17:46, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
- It looks like a scam operation, like Trump University. But unlike TU, at TSU the victims will probably never come forward to protest as their motives would not have been venal. The WP article probably has most the readily available information. Their Linked-in profile claims 11-50 employees. AI search result: less than 25. Very likely less than 11. For contrast an AP investigation found TU had at least 107 employees. I wonder if TSU is still at the "who cares" stage of existence. Their "executive dean" is alleged to be conducting archeological research in Jordan. The "University" may be a scam to finance his "research." Zatoichi (talk) 23:23, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
- There is a similar fundie school that boasts an Archeology program- Veritas International University. Unlike Trinity Southwest University, VIU is accredited by TRACS. It is also worthy of an article. --Trans Fem Agenda 12:49, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
- Or maybe don't make more crappy stubs on missional but non-noteworthy topics. 143.223.148.64 (talk) 15:05, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
- This may be worthy of a paragraph in the Fundie school article, but it doesn't look like it is worthy of a dedicated article. I've already started merging several other stubby similar articles into the Fundie school page since they've been sitting around for ten years or more with no substantial improvement. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 21:42, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
- Remember there was a troll years ago obsessed with fundie colleges? Coincidence?
143.223.148.64 (talk) 22:35, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
- Remember there was a troll years ago obsessed with fundie colleges? Coincidence?
- This may be worthy of a paragraph in the Fundie school article, but it doesn't look like it is worthy of a dedicated article. I've already started merging several other stubby similar articles into the Fundie school page since they've been sitting around for ten years or more with no substantial improvement. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 21:42, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
- Or maybe don't make more crappy stubs on missional but non-noteworthy topics. 143.223.148.64 (talk) 15:05, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
- There is a similar fundie school that boasts an Archeology program- Veritas International University. Unlike Trinity Southwest University, VIU is accredited by TRACS. It is also worthy of an article. --Trans Fem Agenda 12:49, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
To be honest, this guy’s obsession with campus rape at fundamentalist schools is creepy. 96.71.114.113 (talk) 15:35, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
AfD starting to get a serious advantage over CDU/CSU in Germany…
That'll teach the German "middle" (classical right) a lesson on how not to treat plurality of opinions. The political culture there has moved so much rightward that it's probably to the right of most of the Anglo-Saxon world (except the USA). In France, our PM is literally being forced to go back on some points of the authoritarian neo-liberal Bayrou budget (while keeping and distracting from the most brutal parts), while in Germany, which doesn't have half of the French social state (not even a really universal public insurance), they too debate on the "sustainability of the social state" (after spending a ridiculous amount of money on the military to warmonger). New world (talk) 10:38, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
- I see it as part of the job of the 'mainstream right' to always question core 'mainstream left' assumptions, like the size/shape of the welfare state. Just like it is the job of them to question back the ideas that capitalism is always good and the elevation of finance over everything else. KarmaPolice (talk) 11:17, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
- Love being in the generation who came of age during the resurgence of 20th century far right authoritarianism in every country simultaneously. This time it looks like it can't be stopped.OrangeFlavorAid (talk) 11:58, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
- One interesting wrinkle from a Europe perspective is that there seems to be an emergence of a "softer hard right" in some quarters which maintains the xenophobic policies and "traditional values" shit of the populist right, but is softer on the whole burn-the-institutions-to-the-ground thing you saw with the hard right in Europe in the 1990s, and is a wee bit less dogmatic, a wee bit more practical, and a wee bit less full on authoritarian. Giorgia Meloni is a great example of this sort of figurehead.
- My impression from this Economist article is that the AfD is still in the burn-to-the-ground stage. The Economist thus believes that this limits the AfD's popularity to where it has always done well -- namely, the former communist bloc and poorer and/or more rural areas. We'll see if The Economist view is right, I suppose. 47.197.76.134 (talk) 16:07, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
- Eh, with National Rally it's mostly just pretend, they adopted the exact opposite strategy to what the US-Republican Party adopted: they try to be the most "mainstream" looking politicians ever, but they sort of fail at that when looking at their electorate and speeches. I honestly don't know what happened exactly in Italy, but so far the projects National Rally has been able to pass (immigration law voted with macronists in 2023 and severely undermining the century old right of soil for acquiring citizenship, to the benefit of the right of blood) have not been very "moderate". The AfD has been moving in the opposite direction (so much that National Rally "distanced" themselves from the AfD as a PR stunt to attract "moderate far-right" voters). Höcke is starting to take control of the party through various intrigues, and it's scary. But it's not like the "moderate" parts of the party are better—they are basically ultra-liberals who want to do a Milei on Germany. New world (talk) 16:21, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
- Love being in the generation who came of age during the resurgence of 20th century far right authoritarianism in every country simultaneously. This time it looks like it can't be stopped.OrangeFlavorAid (talk) 11:58, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
Not yet. They are currently tied in the polls: https://dawum.de/Bundestag/#Umfrageverlauf Äxl (talk) 07:22, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
- There are so many problems with the current immigration system in most Euro countries that I can sympathize with the people voting for AfD, Marine Le Pen, Geert Wilders, etc etc. It's not the right thing, but I understand it. Almost none of the people ordered to deport from the EU actually get deported because the Euro Human Rights Commission prevents it. There are migrants that really do just get free housing and benefits while not working, ever. There's a massive gender imbalance in the migrants that have come. Women are getting harassed at rates not seen 20 years ago.
- The thing is, all of these problems are fixable with only a few reforms, they've been fixable for decades, but none of the parties have the will do it. So yeah, I understand why some Euros would be attracted to the "no immigrants at all" parties. CorruptUser 21:43, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
- The problems are being exaggerated, @CorruptUser, and sending back criminals is definitely not the method. They are now in the country and you can't just decide to send them away. The truth: defending the popular classes today means defending the immigrants ("defending immigration" means absolutely nothing, it's a natural process which shouldn't be "debated"). They are the new popular classes, it is obvious that crime rates are in the majority linked to this fact: Immigrants might statistically commit more crimes in some countries, but that is because of their socio-economic status. These people had to leave because of things they don't control: if you want to talk about "fixable" problems, fine, but those problems concern Western Europe's foreign policy (preventing immigration by assuring better living conditions worldwide), not internal affairs. The only legitimate "problem" with the European handling of immigration would be what countries take what people. Merkel's way of playing humanist was ridiculous, as Germany didn't have the necessary equipment to handle the amount of people coming into the country. The solution: instead of harassing the Greeks, how about forcing all those little fascos in Eastern Europe and our deer Mister Valls in France to take their fair share so that every country of the European Union participates in the humanist effort. New world (talk) 12:08, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
- That there are people who think "you can't just decide to send them away" is exactly why a lot of people want far stricter rules and vetting of migrants in the first place... CorruptUser 16:11, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
- Why is it that centrists always rush to "understand the right" but only chastise and rebuke the left? Antares (talk) 07:06, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
- Because everyone already understands the Left CorruptUser 16:35, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
- This is why definitions are important: "understanding" the right when you're right (or "centrist") is fine but nonsensical, understanding the left (including radical) is fine, understanding the far-right (extrême-droite) absolutely isn't. Extremism is the fundamental rejection of the republican principles (laicity, democracy, indivisibility, and social politics), which only the revolutionary (far-)left and communatarian (far-)right do. The latter two are therefore extremist (and figures of the radical left aren't). Hence, establishing an equivalency between, to take the example of the USA, Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump is completely ludicrous and dangerous for the Republic. New world (talk) 10:24, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
- Because everyone already understands the Left CorruptUser 16:35, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
- Why is it that centrists always rush to "understand the right" but only chastise and rebuke the left? Antares (talk) 07:06, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
- That there are people who think "you can't just decide to send them away" is exactly why a lot of people want far stricter rules and vetting of migrants in the first place... CorruptUser 16:11, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
- The problems are being exaggerated, @CorruptUser, and sending back criminals is definitely not the method. They are now in the country and you can't just decide to send them away. The truth: defending the popular classes today means defending the immigrants ("defending immigration" means absolutely nothing, it's a natural process which shouldn't be "debated"). They are the new popular classes, it is obvious that crime rates are in the majority linked to this fact: Immigrants might statistically commit more crimes in some countries, but that is because of their socio-economic status. These people had to leave because of things they don't control: if you want to talk about "fixable" problems, fine, but those problems concern Western Europe's foreign policy (preventing immigration by assuring better living conditions worldwide), not internal affairs. The only legitimate "problem" with the European handling of immigration would be what countries take what people. Merkel's way of playing humanist was ridiculous, as Germany didn't have the necessary equipment to handle the amount of people coming into the country. The solution: instead of harassing the Greeks, how about forcing all those little fascos in Eastern Europe and our deer Mister Valls in France to take their fair share so that every country of the European Union participates in the humanist effort. New world (talk) 12:08, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
New book written by correspondent of centre-right Figaro journal reveals Macron wanted National Rally to win the 2024 elections
Wally Bordas, a correspondent of the traditional right-wing (occasionally far-right now too since 2024) journal Le Figaro, usually considered the right-wing equivalent of the centre-left Le Monde, claims that Macron's plan in 2024 was for the National Rally to come to power… He literally made phone calls to the National Rally to help them against La France Insoumise… Apparently, the very light "blocking" situation since 2022 (no absolute majority thanks to the leftist alliance coming second, but a fairly implicit alliance between macronists and the classical right LR) and the subsequent situation at the European elections pushed Macron to try let National Rally govern to show that they only bring chaos. All of this from a centre-right to occasionally far-right/National Rally-friendly journal… here it is. The situation very clearly resembles that of Hindenburg in the 1930s… The left alliance stopped these plans from happening though, and now Macron is in a real blocking situation as long as he doesn't do compromise. He tried with the far-right, but now he considers them unreliable and wants to give concessions to the left (but, hey, naming a leftist PM like you do in a coalition where the left has more representation isn't in his agenda apparently). New world (talk) 21:21, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
Compare and contrast
George Orwell - 'War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength'
Donald Trump [12]
What would Orwell say of the Donald? Anna Livia (talk) 18:40, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
Its the Rapture today
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/rapture-happening-tomorrow-pastor-claims-180138800.html
So today is the Rapture. How many idiots believe this? --Trans Fem Agenda 10:40, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
- This has been the cause of some serious psychological torment on my mind over the last month. Patty Pat 14:59, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
- Really weird how a rando South African "preacher" that I literally cannot find any spec of Internet history on leapt out of nowhere to become the latest poprapture craze. From what I can tell, the source of the video is a reasonably long running "CENTTWINZ.TV" YouTube channel, run by two South African Internet influencer / preacher / minor actress types, that gets modest, but not huge, views. Adding to the weirdness is that my first impression is that this YouTube channel is not the typical hellfire damnation Jesus most Rapture "prophecies" comes from, and more like an Oprah Winfrey-ish lifestyle / touchy-feely oriented thing. 47.197.76.134 (talk) 15:24, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
- Is this the right place to make a rapture/raptor joke? Koafox (talk) 17:43, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
- The crapture is the day-after event when one realizes that one was shat upon by a false prophet. Bongolian (talk) 18:03, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
- Maybe the rapture did happen but only a handful of people were worthy. And there are always as few people who disappear on and given day. So how could one test for raptured or disappeared?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:04, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
- Crappo. My last day on earth, what did I do? Clearing the large clothing repairs/alterations pile, cleaning leather goods for winter and then spending £75 on tiles for the bathroom... KarmaPolice (talk) 19:11, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
- Maybe the rapture did happen but only a handful of people were worthy. And there are always as few people who disappear on and given day. So how could one test for raptured or disappeared?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:04, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
- The crapture is the day-after event when one realizes that one was shat upon by a false prophet. Bongolian (talk) 18:03, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
- Is this the right place to make a rapture/raptor joke? Koafox (talk) 17:43, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
- Just imagine he benefits if it did happen - the USA could become a civilised country again - you could have affordable health care, minority rights, and just a general benefit from having fewer arses-holes around!! 19:50 UTC on 23rd right now - leaving it to the last minute I guess..... Aloysius the Gaul (talk)
- Since it's South Africa, the big thing brought up in the OG video was there would be no World Cup 2026 due to, y'know, the tribulation and all. Ohnoez!
- South Africa's GMT+2 though, so from my point of view, this "prediction" needs to happen in about an hour and change.
- (Dear future prophet scam artists: for greater success, *always* put your doomsday predictions far past when you die, because you can milk it for all it is worth with you are alive, and never have egg on your face when the prediction fails, as they all do. Bonus points if you fuzzy up the language your "visions of the future" to the point where it can predict everything and nothing.) 47.197.76.134 (talk) 20:54, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
- I am seeing plenty of memes on social media. If the Rapture is real, can I get free stuff from people who ascended to heaven? --Trans Fem Agenda 21:23, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
- Yes and no. It's all about how many do ascend to heaven. If it's only a few, chances are the 'ascendees' will be simply treated as dead and stuff distributed accordingly. And the normal machinery of govt etc will continue to function. However, if 'too many' people vanish but also 'not enough', you'll face the spectre of an orgy of 'taking' because the machinery has split apart but there's still too many folks about. KarmaPolice (talk) 22:43, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
- Heads up heathens! YOU can help out with the rapture. Act NOW!Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 05:50, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
- It's been awhile since I read Revelation, but wasn't the folks left behind meant to suffer through oceans of shit, due to it being the End Of Time®? In that case, euthanising them might be the kindest of options... KarmaPolice (talk) 08:39, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
- Can't remember. But even so - "We will come round and take care of your pets after the rapture" is probably an easier sell than, "We will come round and kill your pets after the rapture"!Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 10:34, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
- And you can be much more smug when they come and ask for them back.... Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 22:40, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
- As the RW Rapture article points out, the Biblical justification for the fundie "dispensational premillennialism" Rapture is actually very shaky. The justification for this bullshit isn't even found in Revelations (of which I personally side with the scholars who see it as code for Roman time events, but never mind that), it's based of of a small snippet of 1 Thessalonians. My half-joke/half-truth about this la-te-da is that it's a bunch of malarky John Nelson Darby
came up with after severely injuring himself falling off a horse.
- Generally, I see Rapture obsession as a sign of supercilious idiocy, that you are somehow a chosen one, and certainly not those gosh darn evil Other who will suffer when The Time Comes for their... otherness, I guess. Now, the Bible has numerous versus tut-tutting the self-righteous. But never mind those inconvenient verses in modern Christianity, eh? 47.197.76.134 (talk) 15:02, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
- Can't remember. But even so - "We will come round and take care of your pets after the rapture" is probably an easier sell than, "We will come round and kill your pets after the rapture"!Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 10:34, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
- It's been awhile since I read Revelation, but wasn't the folks left behind meant to suffer through oceans of shit, due to it being the End Of Time®? In that case, euthanising them might be the kindest of options... KarmaPolice (talk) 08:39, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
- Heads up heathens! YOU can help out with the rapture. Act NOW!Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 05:50, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
- Yes and no. It's all about how many do ascend to heaven. If it's only a few, chances are the 'ascendees' will be simply treated as dead and stuff distributed accordingly. And the normal machinery of govt etc will continue to function. However, if 'too many' people vanish but also 'not enough', you'll face the spectre of an orgy of 'taking' because the machinery has split apart but there's still too many folks about. KarmaPolice (talk) 22:43, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
- I am seeing plenty of memes on social media. If the Rapture is real, can I get free stuff from people who ascended to heaven? --Trans Fem Agenda 21:23, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
- Really weird how a rando South African "preacher" that I literally cannot find any spec of Internet history on leapt out of nowhere to become the latest poprapture craze. From what I can tell, the source of the video is a reasonably long running "CENTTWINZ.TV" YouTube channel, run by two South African Internet influencer / preacher / minor actress types, that gets modest, but not huge, views. Adding to the weirdness is that my first impression is that this YouTube channel is not the typical hellfire damnation Jesus most Rapture "prophecies" comes from, and more like an Oprah Winfrey-ish lifestyle / touchy-feely oriented thing. 47.197.76.134 (talk) 15:24, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
- I find it perplexing that so many rationalists ridicule such phenomena as this rapture-type syndrome, when it is clearly dependent upon a group of mentally unstable individuals. Fascism, for example, unempathetic as it usually may be, is solidly sane compared to the belief in Rapture theology. That is to say, making fun of crazy people makes me uncomforable. Sorry...Zatoichi (talk) 17:17, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
- I certainly don't equate religious belief with insanity and I think it's insulting to do so. I equate religious belief with with indoctrination. Having said that, any weird belief - from fascism to flat-earthism to homeopathy - is worthy of ridicule.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 07:20, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
- There is also a lot of overlap between these weird beliefs that is itself worthy of examination (and ridicule). Antares (talk) 11:31, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
- Sure, if you have one objectively weird belief like "the Earth is 6,000 years old" then, in order to defend that belief, you need a lot of subsequent nonsense beliefs. But it's still not an indication that people are "mentally unstable". That would be like equating "wrong" or "misinformed" with "mental instability".Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 12:10, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
- Oh, I'm not disagreeing with you here. Antares (talk) 12:14, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
- OK, I think maybe I wasn't quite sure of your point. Good to see that we are of the same mind. :-)Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 12:17, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
- Oh, I'm not disagreeing with you here. Antares (talk) 12:14, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
- Sure, if you have one objectively weird belief like "the Earth is 6,000 years old" then, in order to defend that belief, you need a lot of subsequent nonsense beliefs. But it's still not an indication that people are "mentally unstable". That would be like equating "wrong" or "misinformed" with "mental instability".Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 12:10, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
- There is also a lot of overlap between these weird beliefs that is itself worthy of examination (and ridicule). Antares (talk) 11:31, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
- I certainly don't equate religious belief with insanity and I think it's insulting to do so. I equate religious belief with with indoctrination. Having said that, any weird belief - from fascism to flat-earthism to homeopathy - is worthy of ridicule.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 07:20, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
- Nah. On the receiving end, yes it is true that there's some crazy people who believe in Rapture theology. But there's also relatively sane people who believe this shit simply because they are self-righteous assholes.
- On the "preachers" who spout Rapture theology, there's also some kooks, but also plenty of opportunists, charlatans, and con artists.
- Trumpist style fascism is all about giving self-righteous rubes the validation the want, that They are the Right Kind of Us, and the World's Sins are the fault of the Other. And simultaneously drain the rubes' bank account.
- A lot of "fundie phenomenon" is frankly the same. 47.197.76.134 (talk) 18:35, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
Remember (to borrow from 'other sources') that 'the Mark of the Beast' reads 'Not fit for consumption.' Anna Livia (talk) 18:20, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
- I agree that there are con artists who convince people to give up their worldly possessions. The people who believe it are the victims. It is not relatively sane to believe that I will be lifted from the world and saved while everyone else is left behind. That's like the top end of a serious manic depressive condition. But oh well, I didn't say not to laugh at them. It just seems vain and pointless to do so. These people can't be talked out of being loopy. Zatoichi (talk) 20:13, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
- What is strange is, according to a ton of doctrine, the rapture would take, like, nobody who is begging to be taken in the rapture, because that's such a selfish desire and would end all evangelizing. 'We gotta save everyone until Tuesday when we all get to finally fuck off forever, grr, Mondays are the worst' like, don't you enjoy being alive? The absolute eagerness to speed run this life and get to heaven is fuckin culty. I won't even deny the fucking idea, maybe the rapture happened, but guess what, you weren't taken up to heaven, because your yappin ass 'It's gonna be me and not a lot of you' smug assholes didn't deserve to go either. Torrent (talk) 11:24, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
- I agree that there are con artists who convince people to give up their worldly possessions. The people who believe it are the victims. It is not relatively sane to believe that I will be lifted from the world and saved while everyone else is left behind. That's like the top end of a serious manic depressive condition. But oh well, I didn't say not to laugh at them. It just seems vain and pointless to do so. These people can't be talked out of being loopy. Zatoichi (talk) 20:13, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
Am I in a manic phase?
I received the diagnosis of you know what by the name of this subsection on Monday. Apparently, all of what I had seen as a linear development was actually cyclical, and all I did in response to the psychiatrist's comments was laugh and say "Yeah that's it", without any doubt whatsoever. Next, while taking public transportation, I thought "Oh god, what an idiot, he's really stupid, and I thought I had to be scared of him…". I see him bc of what appears to be a previous manic Pease march last year. But then, I thought "even though this is complete bullshit, can I use it to my advantage by staying up late at night and working at that time and having the day for?". Maybe my psychiatrists identification of my currently state and its cause wasn't so bad after all. But then, the next day, I suddenly realised that since Saturday the last week everything I was legit thinking or doing or thinking was fine to do was completely insane. Now, bc I'm starting to do craze things on social media and telling lies to everyone I'm starting to see ppl who saw my manic phase last year and who apparently remember it. I hoped I could separate forever from it but now I'm being bullied bc of it. I did really unforgivable stuff but… ugh whatever I'm not gonna try you get it right. And I'm trying to stop but I realise almost everything I think right now is bullshit EXCEPT for the fact that I "know" that deeeep inside me, and that I sort of but not really as its bullshit but ey might comment on social media on it have a cause for all of this. I know I should be seeing my psych (I wanted an extra late meeting from him bc I felt sooo happy and good and everything) but I still don't really believe its not bullshit and the internet is there for posting bullshit. Anyway this is 100% serious I don't like other social media I'm not really anonymous there I can only ask this here as I don't trust others. I also start thinking the entire world is talking abt me and what I did. Pls I know medical advice is not allowed but I AM NOT GOING TO GET MEDICAL ADVICE FROM A PROFESSIONAL NOW and that's just what it is. 2A01:E0A:A84:5C70:B190:D3EC:ECB:73C0 (talk) 17:27, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
- Are you asking if your entry in the Saloon Bar looks like the rambling of a person in a manic state? If so, yeah, kind of. I mean, not necessarily, but there's not a whole lot that makes me think, 'Nope, definitely not manic'. But here's something to consider. I've always been prone to pretty bad migraines, ones that can take days or even a week sometimes to get over. Usually that means lying in a dark room in agony, but lately I haven't been getting the excruciating head pain part of the migraine. I still get all the lead-up symptoms that usually precede a headache, like visual strobing, and food tasting really good. They call these 'body migraines', but when I get them I behave in strange ways as my thinking is impaired. And since I'm not stuck in a dark room in terrible pain when these body migraines happen, I'm doing all kinds of things that are not part of my normal routine. My point is, I could easily see myself getting diagnosed as having a 'manic episode' if I were to present to psychiatric professional while in the midst of a body migraine. It is possible that you might have a physical, rather than psychological, impetus for your behavior. It may not be a body migraine, but there are other conditions that can mimic manic behavior, like blood-sugar spiking and plunging from undiagnosed diabetes. If you think your psyche-professional's diagnosis is inaccurate, you could be right. 2A0C:5700:3133:1705:BE24:11FF:FED1:B9D9 (talk) 09:07, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
- I received a diagnosis of b. diss. (I literally avoid saying or writing it now lol) and I think what my psych called a "mild version of m. phase" or hypom. might be going away after a week of pretty much ruining everything but I don't know if I its gone tomorrow. Basically I know something's wrong but I just don't know much more and I still don't believe and yet believe in that stupid diagnosis I swear I'm normal most times but now I'm super irritated and paranoid and yet sort of high and happy. I literally did three white nights and what really strikes me is that the diagnosis might potentially be right but I don't know if this thinking the diagnosis is right is also just the "phase" or not. I'll have to sleep over it and hopefully tomorrow everything will be back to normal. I did something really really really really really really really (and etc.) horrible last year and I my behaviour has driven (as already said) some witnesses to bully me to a point where I feel like I don't know what to do with the accusations and yet I don’t care and it's super weird. I don't know if I really have it or not and I might wake up tomorrow fine again and forget. I mean he also told me that I was not very severe and that I would be able to do self-control by not talking to others but that didn't work out crazy for now and while I'm starting to feel better I still have this weird thing I don't know. Maybe it's just bullshit (I still don't fully believe in it). I won't tell this to anyone as I don't want any problems and I have been effectively dealing with this for some time now. What really strikes me now is just the fact that my previous actions last year will continue to haunt me unless I change places. I was fired and completely separated for some time from my previous social environment but now I came back and it's just so frustrating seeing the looks from colleagues. I did something really awkward and horrible and I don't know if it can have any physical cause as it lasted 3 months. 2A01:E0A:A84:5C70:3486:2959:E25:D1ED (talk) 19:07, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
- Playing the armchair psychologist is often dangerous, I don't think this is the right place to ask these questions. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 19:11, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
- Being psychotic isn't a diagnosis that you're evil or violent. But you can be tiring. I could tell you to relax, but that wouldn't work. I'm impressed you are trying to accept other viewpoints, perspective is the most important thing. Torrent (talk)
- Not a joke or a phoney story, an old friend of mine was relapsing into alcoholism this past weekend. I told him all I planned to do was clean my apartment. So he came over and we cleaned my apartment, he gave me all the beer he had bought in his relapse, helped me clean up my apartment, and we reminisced and told stories of new grievances. I did, 100℅ ask him if it was okay to drink in front of him, because sobriety is hard and if he needed me to, I would have been sober too, no problem. I had La Croix seltzers that I told him to drink freely, because those kinda supplant beers for me when it's time to quit. But he helped me fix my vacuum, we had a good time talking about old times, and maybe some time as big strong men who get emotionally overwhelmed, alleged, there's no proof that either of us have emotions. We saw each other in respect and gratitude. I mean, works for me, my one bedroom apartment is gonna pass inspection like I never lived in it, works for my buddy because he wanted to do anything but drink. And he knows I fully respect that, I have never been a guy who says stupid shit like 'you don't drink?' It's my favorite hobby but I'm not great about it never being a problem, and I know how hard it must be to give up. Long story short, it might take some time for me to carve out some space for us to communicate in real time, but if you're taking it,whatever it might be, hard, maybe it could be a thing you could talk to me about. and instead of just talking about it, we could do something to start, and then find time to talk. You're never gonna believe this, but I make friends pretty easily. The trick is to listen to people, maybe you're on the tail end of a crack up. I'm in your corner, I'm a little buried these days, but I CAN find some time for you. Just, let's work it out together. I have plenty of friends with diagnoses and plenty of friends without. I probably need one myself, but believe me when I say you're not too crazy to be my friend. I honestly think you are a good person. Torrent (talk) 09:29, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
- I received a diagnosis of b. diss. (I literally avoid saying or writing it now lol) and I think what my psych called a "mild version of m. phase" or hypom. might be going away after a week of pretty much ruining everything but I don't know if I its gone tomorrow. Basically I know something's wrong but I just don't know much more and I still don't believe and yet believe in that stupid diagnosis I swear I'm normal most times but now I'm super irritated and paranoid and yet sort of high and happy. I literally did three white nights and what really strikes me is that the diagnosis might potentially be right but I don't know if this thinking the diagnosis is right is also just the "phase" or not. I'll have to sleep over it and hopefully tomorrow everything will be back to normal. I did something really really really really really really really (and etc.) horrible last year and I my behaviour has driven (as already said) some witnesses to bully me to a point where I feel like I don't know what to do with the accusations and yet I don’t care and it's super weird. I don't know if I really have it or not and I might wake up tomorrow fine again and forget. I mean he also told me that I was not very severe and that I would be able to do self-control by not talking to others but that didn't work out crazy for now and while I'm starting to feel better I still have this weird thing I don't know. Maybe it's just bullshit (I still don't fully believe in it). I won't tell this to anyone as I don't want any problems and I have been effectively dealing with this for some time now. What really strikes me now is just the fact that my previous actions last year will continue to haunt me unless I change places. I was fired and completely separated for some time from my previous social environment but now I came back and it's just so frustrating seeing the looks from colleagues. I did something really awkward and horrible and I don't know if it can have any physical cause as it lasted 3 months. 2A01:E0A:A84:5C70:3486:2959:E25:D1ED (talk) 19:07, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
- I will settle with forgetting forever (hopefully nothing happens again). It's bullshit anyway and that psych is pure evil to just mess around with my content way of doing like that. 2A01:E0A:A84:5C70:4119:342:6835:1D0E (talk) 19:03, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
Template:Otherlang
I created this new template to be added to articles with versions in other languages, to automate the creation of wikitables for the links. I wanted some feedback and to ask permission before editing RW:Languages and adding this template to multiple pages across the wiki. Also, do I need to ask permission for these kinds of things ? Avionfoudingue (talk) 04:19, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
France recognises Palestine
Macron's long process of campaigning for the recognition of a state of Palestine has finally come to an end, but it remains a ridiculous attempt to save face after the disaster (of which we will learn the amplitude) in Gaza has happened already, as former foreign minister Dominique de Villepin (the one who vehemently opposed the Irak war during his mandate) has put it. It's certainly a step in the right direction, but a clear position would have been to denounce the risk of instrumentalisation by the far-right Netanyahou government since October 2023. The HAMAS was indirectly supported by LIKUD (which was opposed to FATAH and sabotaged it). The October 2023 attacks were known and tolerated by the secret services and many leading LIKUD members, there is absolutely zero excuse for the inaction of Europe. (And Germany's position just makes me want the abolition of the German foreign ministry—they are the US-American voice of Europe and at the same time the head of the EU, they are very clearly restrained by historical guilt as well, even Macron's France as the EU's centre would be better than the German government. Mitterrand was right being opposed to German reunification in 1990, the country needed more time and was not reliable because of its subordination to Russia and the USA). New world (talk) 11:17, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
- Diplomatic relationships between Israel and most Western nations used to run rather deeply. It takes a bit of time to unwind this stuff. I think a better way to look at Benjamin Netanyahu's horrific actions is that he's pretty much torpedoing Israel's former deep relationship with... almost everyone in the West. The recent symbolic recognitions of Palestine certainly show this. Who does he have left these days?
- From my perspective, the more striking question is Israel's future with their current deepest ally, America. Trump and the Boomer-era Republicans may still be a Netanyahu ass-kisser, but when half of Republicans under 50 have an unfavorable view of Israel, kiss-ups are no longer guaranteed in the future, methinks. (A couple decades ago, Democrats also used to also universally be pro-AIPAC style Israel. Netanyahu's 15 years of bullshit torpedoed that, too, first among the youth and now among almost everyone on the "left".)
- Macron and his French government I think started halting arms shipments to Israel in 2024, so I don't think this recent Palestinian recognition is the first step for his government. 47.197.76.134 (talk) 16:39, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
- Depends on what nations you are talking about… Mitterrand was for a Palestinian state in the 1980s. It was a long journey for French officials and secretly arm shipments continued for some time after Macron's declarations. However, things like accusing everything and nothing of antisemitism (while also, let's not forget, planning for the National Rally, a party founded by Waffen-SS and holocaust deniers, to take power) as well as forbidding pro-Palestinian demonstrations weren't really a clear positioning. New world (talk) 16:50, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
Petro and Trump
I don't know if you've been following, but Gustavo Petro's actions have only increased my respect for him, and I would like to see any European leader doing similarly (but could you imagine this? I can't in regards to most European governments). Macron did good, but he could have done way better. New world (talk) 16:47, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
- I would say that Spain's Pedro Sanchez is probably the most notable anti-Trump in Europe.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 06:12, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
- Petro is just doing typical things for a left-wing populist leader. He is good at recognizing the genocide in Palestine, but also he likes regimes like Venezuela's. Fortunately he seems progressive on social issues, but wait till he gets better relations with Russia. We had a similar leader in Greece (Tsipras) but he quickly watered-down to a more centrist governance when he found out it isn't easy to just rebel against EU. Sanchez of Spain is the only current European leader who tries very hard to be an actual "Socialist" (not counting wacky leftist leaders such as Slovakia or Belarus)Alexk (talk) 08:03, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
- He is possibly also one of the strongest pro-Ukraine voices in Europe. It's the Spanish far right (as usual) who want to cozy up to both Putin and Trump.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 10:49, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
- Petro is just doing typical things for a left-wing populist leader. He is good at recognizing the genocide in Palestine, but also he likes regimes like Venezuela's. Fortunately he seems progressive on social issues, but wait till he gets better relations with Russia. We had a similar leader in Greece (Tsipras) but he quickly watered-down to a more centrist governance when he found out it isn't easy to just rebel against EU. Sanchez of Spain is the only current European leader who tries very hard to be an actual "Socialist" (not counting wacky leftist leaders such as Slovakia or Belarus)Alexk (talk) 08:03, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
My observation as an anarchist
As an anarchist who is vehemely opposed to democracy, I am tired of people who are hypocritically claiming they’re for democracy and fighting for democracy, then in the same breath, they support an authoritarian regime overseas. We should be opposed to all forms of fascism, not just American fascism. Being opposed to all facets of authoritarianism and totalitarianism should be a basic need for everyone. After all, every totalitarian regime has failed every time it was tried and implemented. 2607:FB90:3916:8EEC:9C72:514A:4213:CF30 (talk) 01:52, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
- It seems paradoxical that you oppose authoritarian and totalitarian regimes, while vehemely opposing democracy. Maybe, as an anarchist, you oppose "Liberal Democracy" in favour of a "Direct Democracy". Ironically, the totalitarian regimes and their supporters are mostly those who preach Socialism/Communism as a way to a direct democracy, therefore propagating against the Western/Urban-class/Liberal democracies.
- Or maybe you support a more chaotic concept of "Anarchy". I really doubt that it would work better than Democracy, which in turn STRUGGLES to be regulated, let alone working deregulated.
- Here's one thing: EVERY form of government comes and goes. In modern days, Social Democracy has been the best-working system in many ways, yet it's in crisis and decline.
- Every other attempt to progressify Democracy (namely Socialism) has indeed failed every time it has been tried and implemented. Neo-liberal/Ancap and other pseudo-economic reforms are a failure too. Far-Right/Fascists are at least "more honest" in that they work through an authoritarian regime. But their ideas aren't just "dystopic": They are deadly to human life. Alexk (talk) 07:47, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
- Yes. The IP editor is rather pushing at an open door when they vehemently maintain that we should oppose fascism. I doubt that any regular editor here would hold an opposing view. However the criticism of totalitarian regimes based on the fact that every one of them has failed is not convincing - on a long enough timescale every regime fails whether it is totalitarian or not.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:03, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
- What's entertaining is that a lot of anarchism is just an attempt to sketch a genuinely democratic society in which everyday people are not alienated from the systems that run their life because those systems are all directly and participatory in some way horizontalist way. Also I'd dispute that "Socialism has failed every time it has been tried and implemented"; there are many dark moments and junctures in the history of Socialism true but also a huge amount of progress and success. Those of us in the West just don't tend to get exposed to much of it because of the cold-war and its enduring legacy on both our media and academia - speaking as a UK resident who had family grow up in both the GDR and the USSR. Tikitime2 (talk) 18:50, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
- There actually was one (mostly) Anarcho-Syndicalist country that managed to basically build itself from pre-industrialization into a regional powerhouse, but the conditions for that were so utterly bizarre that it's unlikely to ever be repeated. More importantly, they also had Democracy and after putting up with their parents shit for too long, the kids voted for Welfare-Capitalism instead, which is why you probably haven't heard that story...CorruptUser 21:34, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
Bob's comment on coop page
As a BoN I don't have the ability to post on the coop page but I feel like stating my opinion in response to Bob's claim that the right of an RW user to delete anything on their own talk page should not be absolute. I think it should be absolute, there is no reason that anyone, including mods and other miscellaneous administrative strongmen should have the right to invade someone's talk page. If I had the right to delete the shit from my talk page I would probably still be logging in with my account. Note that I am not saying I should have the right to post anything to my talk page, I'm saying I should have the right to delete anything from my talk page, with no justification required. Just one BoN's opinion. 2A0B:F4C2:2:0:0:0:0:33 (talk) 10:51, 29 September 2025 (UTC) An exception would be perma-banned users, since their talk pages would be unusable anyway. 2A0B:F4C2:2:0:0:0:0:33 (talk) 11:02, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
- pinkerite removing comments from their own talk is a non issue. it's not comment refactoring, comment moving, etc. it's just deleting. there is no issue there. but just trout for replacing them with insults. that's the crux, and i hope that's the last we see pinkerite pull that move. To (talk) 15:25, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
- I'm the BoN who posted the comment you replied to. Your first sentence conflicts with the content of Bob's concern. I feel confident in saying that because Bob communicates in clear, direct language, and I think that I do, too. Conversely, I am unable to decipher the meaning of your comment beyond the first sentence. And I have no interest in debating Pinkerite's actions which are only tangential, and otherwise irrelevant to the issue I addressed. 2A0D:BBC7:0:0:F816:3EFF:FE65:992F (talk) 06:09, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
- Given that my name keeps being bandied about in this I feel that I should make the following observation. One of the reasons that the Coop and AITM exist is to prevent problems metastasizing over the wiki. Comments about the situation should be kept in those forums. Any random citizen of the internet who has suddenly developed an interest in the intricacies of our Community Standards or voting systems might well consider creating an account to contribute. They would then be in a position to propose changes on the CS page as well.
- Any more comment on this case should be in the Coop.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 07:50, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
- I'm the BoN who posted the comment you replied to. Your first sentence conflicts with the content of Bob's concern. I feel confident in saying that because Bob communicates in clear, direct language, and I think that I do, too. Conversely, I am unable to decipher the meaning of your comment beyond the first sentence. And I have no interest in debating Pinkerite's actions which are only tangential, and otherwise irrelevant to the issue I addressed. 2A0D:BBC7:0:0:F816:3EFF:FE65:992F (talk) 06:09, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
- i'm sorry but I just cannot understand what is so hard to decipher about trout. and you also disagreed with "the content of Bob's concern". I was just agreeing and than getting into the other half of the thing. the relevance is the fact you brought up the coop case. if you didnt want to talk about it all you could have registered To (talk) 11:51, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
- There's nothing hard to decipher about any single word, there is something hard to decipher about a series of words presented in a manner somewhere between prose and point form. I don't know what "comment refactoring" entails. Is that some kind of mathematical operation? Also, I disagree that registering would clarify what I wanted to talk about, nor would I agree that my point required any more clarity than I provided. 2A04:52C0:128:C6E7:50EF:CAFE:BABE:1337 (talk) 10:03, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
Book Recommendations for Scepticism and Critical Thinking
Ben Goldacre, of Bad Science, fame has probably influenced me the most in terms of how I look at science journalism and "woo". It got me thinking, what other books might Rationalwikians point to as part of a hypothetical quasi-missional reading list? Tikitime2 (talk) 19:40, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
- I honestly thought that we had a recommended reading list, but I can't seem to find it. The absolute classic in the field is Sagan's "The Demon-Haunted World". Although it's a bid dated now the principles he lays out are still good. "The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe" (book) was an attempt to produce something similar but more up-to-date a few years ago.
- If you are not put off by his current social/political stances then Dawkins wrote some good stuff a few years ago.
- If we don't actually have a list of recommended books it might be a good idea for us to create one, as I have seen this question before.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 06:03, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
- It's at RW:Bookshelf. Chillpilled (talk) 07:08, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks! I thought we had it somewhere!Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:20, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
- It's at RW:Bookshelf. Chillpilled (talk) 07:08, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
Elon Musk is making Grokipedia?
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1972992095859433671
Apparently Elon Musk is making Grokipedia, a weird wikipedia clone. Is it just gonna be Conservapedia except slightly more moderate? - From DoppelTaken, the free oppeltaken 20:03, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
- From here: [13]
- "To create Grokipedia, Musk plans on tapping xAI's Grok chatbot (which he also created as an alternative to another technology he didn't like, ChatGPT). Grok has been trained on web data, including public tweets. In a podcast earlier this month, Musk suggested that Grok is smart enough not only to replicate the work of human community volunteers who maintain and update Wikipedia, but also to account for any bias or inaccuracies."
- I actually see the hilarity potential being *much* greater than Conservapedia here. AI is well known for it's bullshit "hallucinations" factor before one even factors in Elon Musk's love of hooligan knucklehead politics that is probably inspiring this project. Grok was reportedly trained on Twitter tweets, which makes me suspicious (though I've never used Grok specifically, maybe I'm wrong, but Twitter seems like the last thing I'd want to train an AI on...) Based on reports from DOGE, there sure seems to be a lot of young whippersnapper "vibe coders" in the Twitter-sphere these days... who are the basically the new equivalent of script kiddies, they think that they are THE hot shit for being able to talk to a chatbot and have it spit out code. Whee...
- So the potential is quite high for some hilarious hallucinations and other shenanigans to come out of this. Like all attempts to challenge Wikipedia because "wah! I hate the purported politics!", it will probably have plenty of pages on Political Outrages of the Day, written very badly (in AI slop style!) It will also have absolutely shitty pages (if they have them at all) on anything remotely academic... y'know, the science / math / history / philosophy / etc. type stuff. 47.197.76.134 (talk) 20:55, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
- Remember when Elon was going to make his own political party? I'll believe it when I see it. CorruptUser 21:45, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
- I did wonder about that. Do you think he got a horse's head in his bed from the Orange One? Anyway, Conservapedia failed for roughly the same reasons all the other WP attempts failed; it was unable to hit critical mass due to a lack of resources [human, financial or technical]. The Boer could - by merely throwing the equivalent of his 'change found in the couch' at it - make a very slickly-produced affair with colossal amounts of 'content' very quickly. I can also see a market for such a product too; as in producing a more 'interesting'/'readable' version of WP which utterly coincidently, is also a mouthpiece for the Boer's views and pet projects. KarmaPolice (talk) 21:54, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
- A Wikipedia clone produced by an AI biased towards the nonsense on twitter? My first thought was that the idea was hilarious. But that mixture of twitter fantasy bolstered by AI hallucinations will simply add to the enshittification of the internet and hasten AI model collapse. So maybe not so funny.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:38, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
- Well, said 'AI model collapse' will be down to a general 'death of the web' - which in this case is a particularly pernicious edition of the 'free rider problem' and a self-fulfilling prophecy. I am feeling the 'enshittification' quite acutely now; the most recent experience was just last week when doing 'window shopping' [aka going through image results] for a particular bit of furniture and said results seemed overly-infested by AI mockups [and let's remember the toupee fallacy is in effect here]. Which is a bit shit on the basis I was looking for real bits of furniture to actually purchase. Yay, yet another door-slam of a bit of the web that can't be relied on now. Fuck, what's left? I would have said video but even there the wave of slop seems to be hitting that too.
- A Wikipedia clone produced by an AI biased towards the nonsense on twitter? My first thought was that the idea was hilarious. But that mixture of twitter fantasy bolstered by AI hallucinations will simply add to the enshittification of the internet and hasten AI model collapse. So maybe not so funny.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:38, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
- I did wonder about that. Do you think he got a horse's head in his bed from the Orange One? Anyway, Conservapedia failed for roughly the same reasons all the other WP attempts failed; it was unable to hit critical mass due to a lack of resources [human, financial or technical]. The Boer could - by merely throwing the equivalent of his 'change found in the couch' at it - make a very slickly-produced affair with colossal amounts of 'content' very quickly. I can also see a market for such a product too; as in producing a more 'interesting'/'readable' version of WP which utterly coincidently, is also a mouthpiece for the Boer's views and pet projects. KarmaPolice (talk) 21:54, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
- Remember when Elon was going to make his own political party? I'll believe it when I see it. CorruptUser 21:45, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
- Which raises the question; what next? There comes a point where everyone ends up saying 'fuck it, I give up' - particular sites, tasks, tech and whatnot. I've come to the conclusion that the next iteration of not just web use but computer use in general is going to be LLM-based. That within a decade either locally-run or cloud LLMs will replace the point/click GUIs which have been the norm since the early 90s. That instead of hitting up the Google or whatever for the answer, you hit up your 'GPT4All' which won't just look online, but also check locally-stored information [which for some folks, will be considerable]. And part of the service it provides will be to filter out the slop web content as much as possible; that [in my earlier example] my GPT will get why I'm looking for shelving units and instantly filter out options which aren't available in my country, unsuitable for my needs, incorrect sizing or not real and then offer me a curated, filtered results sheet. That it might even get my aesthetic tastes and price-range in advance. And it'll know I would prefer to exhaust all other options before trying Amazon. And if it has to be Amazon, put 'fulfilled by Amazon' at the bottom of the list. It does mean that this new era of web will be massively different; because it will cease to be one made for human eyes but for LLM ones instead.
- Which raises the question; how many LLMs apart from Grok take shit posted on social media [esp X] as being gospel? KarmaPolice (talk) 13:42, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
- I would suspect a vast amount of social media posting is AI generated.
- But that is not the only pernicious effect of AI on the web. Old fashioned indexing web crawlers could chew up a part of website's bandwidth - but AI crawlers are in danger of bringing sites down with their data sucking and training activities.
- Furthermore, at least with the earlier bots, you had the advantage that your site would show up in search results indexed and ranked. But with the vastly more aggressive AI bots the opposite is the case. They take your data, probably add something imaginary, and they present it to the user who then doesn't even need to visit your site. It's all cost and no benefit to the data provider.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:36, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
- Which raises the question; how many LLMs apart from Grok take shit posted on social media [esp X] as being gospel? KarmaPolice (talk) 13:42, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
- No need to worry that much about model collapse, for there's more stuff to happen the next few years. Strain in the form of a lack of return on investments is building up, with a gradual increase in media reporting which is beginning to take the idea of a bubble seriously (but still only as a "maybe"). Current pricing for all this LLM "AI" stuff -- not counting purely locally ran things -- is way below what's needed to make a profit, and will people actually use it if it costs 10 x more? Then the big money spent on infrastructure (both server halls and, increasingly, the need for more electrical power) is slated to increase exponentially too, with not too large a margin before that runs out and it all comes crashing down.
- Personally, I think it's fun to see the worst ideas on display proudly and boldly, by the biggest businesses, in the time leading up to the bubble popping. Except when it hurts innocent parties of course. I don't think a junk wiki will do much harm, it will just become part of the repertoire of slop answers served up to all those who don't look for better stuff (and by now, all who don't look for better stuff are asking to be B.S.'d by algorithms until they go nuts).
- Also KarmaPolice, the type of prompt interface for computing you envision in which LLMs somehow filter out all the junk and truly give you what you want seems rather unlikely to be built by any major business. Putting aside for now that it seems almost magical in its abilities compared to those of LLMs as of now. Because, of course, it runs contrary to what big businesses spend money promoting and gaining market share for, namely things that promote sloppy corporate platforms to the max. Expect a very aggressive strategy of predatory pricing, hostile takeovers, and more, targeting any business which tries to offer such solutions to customers. But it will be largely moot in the next "AI winter" I think, when something new (unknown now) is built on the ruins of the old web. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 18:21, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
- We agree to agree on doubting that most 'AI' stuff will actually be able to make it pay; one of the certains of a bubble is that many Serious People™ shall expend much ink on explaining to us how This Time It Will Be Different, using logically dubious reasoning. But on more solid evidence; all the playing about with various LLMs I've done has convinced me that while they're capable of reducing the number of say, content creators from ten to five, they're going to be incapable of reducing them to zero. Through in the real 'market costs' for this... well, it's quite possible humans prove to be cheaper in many situations.
- Also KarmaPolice, the type of prompt interface for computing you envision in which LLMs somehow filter out all the junk and truly give you what you want seems rather unlikely to be built by any major business. Putting aside for now that it seems almost magical in its abilities compared to those of LLMs as of now. Because, of course, it runs contrary to what big businesses spend money promoting and gaining market share for, namely things that promote sloppy corporate platforms to the max. Expect a very aggressive strategy of predatory pricing, hostile takeovers, and more, targeting any business which tries to offer such solutions to customers. But it will be largely moot in the next "AI winter" I think, when something new (unknown now) is built on the ruins of the old web. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 18:21, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
- Will the forces of AI slop-makers attempt to kill off any AI slop-filterers? Sure. But I suspect they ultimately will fail; esp as I predict 'AI-OS' is marching down the lane regardless of personal opinion. I don't think the filters will become 'standard features' anytime soon, more something akin to adblockers or browser plugins are now. Anyway, tell me of this coming 'AI winter'? Will I need to stock up on tinned chickpeas and retreat to my cousin's house up in the Brecon Beacons? KarmaPolice (talk) 23:13, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
- Well, I don't think you're the kind of guy who depends on AI investor money for a living, so I'd say the AI winter
largely means your life simply doesn't change so much. Maybe you'll eventually hear of the plight of a few starving former AI tech millionaires though.
- Well, I don't think you're the kind of guy who depends on AI investor money for a living, so I'd say the AI winter
- Will the forces of AI slop-makers attempt to kill off any AI slop-filterers? Sure. But I suspect they ultimately will fail; esp as I predict 'AI-OS' is marching down the lane regardless of personal opinion. I don't think the filters will become 'standard features' anytime soon, more something akin to adblockers or browser plugins are now. Anyway, tell me of this coming 'AI winter'? Will I need to stock up on tinned chickpeas and retreat to my cousin's house up in the Brecon Beacons? KarmaPolice (talk) 23:13, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
- But we can expect that media reporting and general talk in society will change. Suddenly the term "AI" will become less popular, as most people no longer believe that the singularity is near, and it reminds too much of the recent cascade of failed businesses. People will become specific once more about what they mean, such as LLMs, other machine learning areas, and other things that may now also be called "AI". (Reversing how, with the present "AI craze" and the hope that superintelligence would grow from chatbots, general discourse as of 2024 became sloppy and vague, ceasing to be specific about what technology is talked about and just saying "AI" everywhere. Something similar happened decades ago. Machine learning became popular to talk about, in fact, when AI was generally seen as discredited.) --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 18:15, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
- I think AI has changed social media in a similar manner that email changed junkmail - that the 'cost barriers' have fallen to near nil. That say, a decade ago if you wanted to pump out clickbait, scams and/or propaganda you had to pay a human being somewhere to produce the shite; now AI can whip it up to an 'acceptable' quality in about a minute for about $50 a month.
- And the 'data-scrape and no clicks' model is why I described it as a free rider/self fulfilling prophecy territory; that not only is it freeloading off created content, but also swiping the clicks that used to pay [via ads] for said content. And as ever, American crapitalism is winning this business model; in that the big firms [like the media syndicates] have enough heft to lawfare Big Tech into having a profit-split model while the small firms [or individuals] are just fucked over with impunity. Which then kills them, which means the AI is losing it's own knowledge-base [esp for nichey topics, unlikely to be covered by the major outfits]. Or [perhaps worse] causes them to become enshittified themselves in an attempt to cut costs to remain viable [which then becomes an AI doom loop]. 'Insult to injury' territory being entered if it's also seriously clogging up your bandwidth [which you have to pay for].
- As for the future... well, I think there's going to be two real options. That either our GPT makes us view an ad or three before delivering up our web results and/or we allow websites to introduce microstransation paywalls. In that [purely as an example], each hard query the LLM does we get charged a penny. Otherwise, there's going to be almost nil decent content left at all. KarmaPolice (talk) 15:49, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
- In the future I see a whole series of over-hyped AI financial bubbles bursting and a lot of people losing money.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:35, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
France is experiencing Trumpian rejection of justice
Nicolas Sarkozy was sentenced to 5 years of prison (as a VIP, obviously). This is historical, and, contrary to some foreign newspapers sayings, not ordinary: next to Pétain and Louis XVI, he will be one of the rare French heads of state to really see prison. The left-wing journal Mediapart (which would deserve an article on here, btw), which is also known for other affairs (notably Benalla concerning Macron) revealed his various infractions and has been continuously investigating the case. Beyond the details of the actual legal investigation, what really is striking is the French media's response: editorialists, "philosophers", renowned journalists, they all deplore "poor Sarkozy's" prison sentence (while the magistrates are receiving violent threats because they are doing their job). This shift might mean going one step closer to Trumpist understandings of justice. Some editorialists are talking about a "leftist justice system", rigged against the right and far-right. Sarkozy himself has used this explanation, and it has been alleged as proof that the prosecutor supposedly liked Mediapart's twitter posts. Hopefully, opinion polls won't show the same trend among the French people, as this would not be good news for 2027. New world (talk) 12:20, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
- Out of interest, what exactly is the line they're peddling? That Sarkozy was innocent or something?
- But the 'mild rewriting' of current events to suit political narratives isn't new. Here in Blighty, we have the majority of the [rightist] media repeating Toad's whines about basically, being called out by PM Starmer [at fucking last!]. Apparently, he's 'introducing the hostile rhetoric from the US', which Farage himself then blew apart by literally using American terms like 'antifa' in his whine, that they're 'threatening violence' which again, is fucking rich when he was JAQ'ing off and peddling lies during actual fucking riots and then decided to hug a literal racist who went to prison for inciting violence only two weeks ago on a big fucking stage. KarmaPolice (talk) 16:59, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
- @KarmaPolice It's more a mix of the traditional talk about how our poor friend the president is going to have to do the dishonouring experience of prison (makes you want to cry for poor little Sarkozy, right…) and the more modern rejection of facts in a post-truth world. They say the sentence is too harsh for a president, some allege the judge was leftist. Farage in the UK just seems like the beginning of a far-right movement there, so I woudn't compare that. France has already reached a point where Le Figaro (centre-right, occasionally far-right since 2024) and Le Point (let's say they are not good at trying to not be far-right…) are literally, in accordance with Cnews (part of Canal+, owned for some time already by Bolloré the far-right billionaire exploiting west Africa), Europe 1 (bought by Bolloré), le journal du dimanche (Bolloré), and frontières (just plain far-right) and Valeurs actuelles, rejecting the results of the legal investigation on the grounds that justice is supposedly biased towards the right. And as always in France now, BFMTV (the Macronist channel) and all the other "normal" media (even public) are taking over this "debate" on the "illegitimately" harsh sentence. In Anglo-Saxon countries this has been going on for some time, but in France there was some sort of consensus for the state of right (excluding the 40 % of people that voted far-right that last year) and this consensus seems to be loosening. They are literally putting into question the état de droit. New world (talk) 17:43, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
- Sarkozy is hardly exceptional in France's recent history. There is Jacques Chirac (2011 conviction for embezzling) and François Fillon (2020 for fraud and misuse of public funds). See List of former heads of democratic countries charged with crimes for a world roundup. Convicting criminal heads of state is good for democracy. Bongolian (talk) 03:26, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
- You're missing the point: he'll have to go to prison. Jaques Chirac managed to avoid a trial for a long time and when it finally happened he was too ill to go to prison, Fillon didn’t go either. New world (talk) 06:15, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
- My gut [which is admittedly an Anglo gut] is telling me this is more a generic 'pity thee for tomorrow it could be me' defence/JAQing off. That 'people like Us' don't actually go to prison etc 'like the ordinaries', even if the facts say you should. Off the top of my head, if you wanted me to point a j'accuse finger, it would be to neoliberalism. In that it's created an elite which feels entitled to be 'above' such piddling things as legal systems, and if caught to a point they cannot wiggle out of, shall get a token slap [esp when it's corps and not individuals]. The darkly humorous bit I get from this is the fact you have all these journalists, talking heads etc who delude themselves of being 'Us' with the elite but said elite see them as somewhere between 'competent hireling' and 'useful idiot'. KarmaPolice (talk) 16:15, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
- You're missing the point: he'll have to go to prison. Jaques Chirac managed to avoid a trial for a long time and when it finally happened he was too ill to go to prison, Fillon didn’t go either. New world (talk) 06:15, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
- Sarkozy is hardly exceptional in France's recent history. There is Jacques Chirac (2011 conviction for embezzling) and François Fillon (2020 for fraud and misuse of public funds). See List of former heads of democratic countries charged with crimes for a world roundup. Convicting criminal heads of state is good for democracy. Bongolian (talk) 03:26, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
- @KarmaPolice It's more a mix of the traditional talk about how our poor friend the president is going to have to do the dishonouring experience of prison (makes you want to cry for poor little Sarkozy, right…) and the more modern rejection of facts in a post-truth world. They say the sentence is too harsh for a president, some allege the judge was leftist. Farage in the UK just seems like the beginning of a far-right movement there, so I woudn't compare that. France has already reached a point where Le Figaro (centre-right, occasionally far-right since 2024) and Le Point (let's say they are not good at trying to not be far-right…) are literally, in accordance with Cnews (part of Canal+, owned for some time already by Bolloré the far-right billionaire exploiting west Africa), Europe 1 (bought by Bolloré), le journal du dimanche (Bolloré), and frontières (just plain far-right) and Valeurs actuelles, rejecting the results of the legal investigation on the grounds that justice is supposedly biased towards the right. And as always in France now, BFMTV (the Macronist channel) and all the other "normal" media (even public) are taking over this "debate" on the "illegitimately" harsh sentence. In Anglo-Saxon countries this has been going on for some time, but in France there was some sort of consensus for the state of right (excluding the 40 % of people that voted far-right that last year) and this consensus seems to be loosening. They are literally putting into question the état de droit. New world (talk) 17:43, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
Federal shutdown
So what happens if the shutdown persists beyond the 'OK, point made, now let us sort things out' stage? Anna Livia (talk) 15:53, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
- Just so I get it, a federal shutdown in the US is like when the National Assembly in France doesn't vote a budget for the next year? New world (talk) 15:57, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
- A little bit. However, there is no Article 49.3 like there is in France (where a PM can push through a bill without a vote unless a motion of no confidence passes), and there isn't a way to do a no-confidence vote / trigger fresh elections, either.
- Perhaps as a result, I could not find an instance where the French government has shut down like the US. In contrast, there have been three "significant" (>5 day) US government shutdowns so far... one during Bill Clinton's time (due to Newt Gingrich being an asshole); one during Barack Obama's term (due to Republicans whining about the ACA health care insurance system); and one under Donald Trump 1.0 (over the border).
- When the US government shuts down, most things, excepting "essential services", stops (and the folks on essential services often aren't getting paid during that period.) You can look at what happened during those previous long shutdowns to see what will happen if things persist. 47.197.76.134 (talk) 17:16, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
- Trump and MAGA are actually very happy about this shutdown. It creates a good excuse to permanently lay off even more federal workers (except ICE and the military, of course) while all these no-longer-independent agencies can pin the blame on the Dems. 2001:67C:2628:647:32:804:0:386 (talk) 17:32, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
- Alas, traditionally I would say 'they wouldn't be so stupid' but I now know 100% yes, they actually are. And I believe they've entered [surprisingly quickly, in fact] the authoritarian mindset of believing their own propaganda [which is good news for America, because deluded regimes usually don't last that long].
- Trump and MAGA are actually very happy about this shutdown. It creates a good excuse to permanently lay off even more federal workers (except ICE and the military, of course) while all these no-longer-independent agencies can pin the blame on the Dems. 2001:67C:2628:647:32:804:0:386 (talk) 17:32, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
- Anyway, part of the 'how will this pan out' depends if the individual Depts etc are allowed to tap their independent reserves. If MAGA truly believes they can 'win this battle', they very well might withhold said permissions out of sheer spite. The easiest way to imagine this 'on the ground' is the sorts of service we get during Christmas-New Year's - a 'vital needs only' skeleton service. The longer it goes on, more and more 'routine stuff' won't get done [for example, the customs people won't be processing new application paperwork etc] which over time will degrade service. The time 'this starts to hurt' Federal employees will be about the 17th Oct; folks are often paid fortnightly and about 35% of Americans have less than a month's worth of savings. Contractors/suppliers will be in a worse situation, because they are not even guaranteed to get paid back after reopening. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:42, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
- Being a Brit, somewhat ignorant of the mechanisms (and with a proportion of UK 'strikes etc proposed' an arrangement is reached at the last moment).
- President 48 will have a tough job disentangling all the issues arising from this Presidency, including the various international issues.
- Anyway, part of the 'how will this pan out' depends if the individual Depts etc are allowed to tap their independent reserves. If MAGA truly believes they can 'win this battle', they very well might withhold said permissions out of sheer spite. The easiest way to imagine this 'on the ground' is the sorts of service we get during Christmas-New Year's - a 'vital needs only' skeleton service. The longer it goes on, more and more 'routine stuff' won't get done [for example, the customs people won't be processing new application paperwork etc] which over time will degrade service. The time 'this starts to hurt' Federal employees will be about the 17th Oct; folks are often paid fortnightly and about 35% of Americans have less than a month's worth of savings. Contractors/suppliers will be in a worse situation, because they are not even guaranteed to get paid back after reopening. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:42, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
- How serious will the effects of the shutdowns, ICE activities, 'Medicare etc' cutbacks have to be before the 'migrant caravan' reverses direction? Anna Livia (talk) 18:33, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
- Alas, the shutdown doesn't cut 'essential' services, of which ICE is counted amongst them. Social security payments etc will be okay, I don't see even the most malign MAGA cutting of the moolah of their core voters. Medicare/Medicaid is a different story; because health practitioners [as it's all private there] will be told exactly the same thing as any firm contracted to do essential work for Uncle Sam - continue to do said work, collect all the billing up and then submit them all when the Dept reopens. Issue is, the longer this goes on the larger Uncle Sam's tab will be and this will increasingly lock up swathes of operating capital for the company. In a Brit analogy; it's like NHS dentistry. If there was 'a shutdown' some dentists might continue doing NHS work on tick because a) they don't do a lot and b) they have the cash reserves while others might ration work because a) the NHS is a big part of their business and b) they don't have the cash reserves to extend credit for long. And eventually, they all would stop doing work period because well, they need the cash to pay for stuff too.
- How serious will the effects of the shutdowns, ICE activities, 'Medicare etc' cutbacks have to be before the 'migrant caravan' reverses direction? Anna Livia (talk) 18:33, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
- Which in fact tells you something important; that not only are poorer Americans more dependent on the state providing stuff for them, but the companies who do the providing are also more dependent on the govt cash as part of their business plan. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:29, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
- So when 'Uncle Tom Cobley and all' (note - UK term, no negative implications) submit their bills, and 'routine payments' have to be made there situation is likely to be 'a tad problematic' (and persisting for longer than originally expected (as is the nature of such events). Anna Livia (talk) 20:30, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
- If you mean 'will there be a backlog of payment processing', then yes. It won't be as bad as it used to be [I am assuming here it's all computerised now and more simply needs someone to authorise the spends than physically 'do the paperwork' but still, it will take more time than usual. KarmaPolice (talk) 06:19, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
- Which in fact tells you something important; that not only are poorer Americans more dependent on the state providing stuff for them, but the companies who do the providing are also more dependent on the govt cash as part of their business plan. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:29, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
According to the propaganda being heavily pushed by the Trumpist regime, the Democrats are responsible for the shutdown. This narrative is bullshit because it's the Republicans who control all three branches of government, not the Democrats. That aside, I'm actually surprised the Dems had the gumption to stand their ground and not cave to Republican demands. I guess they finally got the memo after the sudden plunge in the polls they took after the last shutdown row back in March. Antares (talk) 07:19, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
- The polls show that to some extent the American Big Public get this; that something like 10% more polled blamed MAGA for it, not the Dems. I also read that to a certain extent the Democrats have been pushed into this hard-ish stance from their own base; that the pile of memos demanding they quit attempting to reason with the unreasonable and start slugging instead has actually started to bother them [well, most.]I also heard that MAGA might have deliberately picked this fight in a hope to distract from the whole Epstein thing [including the signing of the petition]. KarmaPolice (talk) 12:48, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
- Maybe they are finally seeing the polls: while all politicians are unpopular these days, Democrats that are actually seen as doing something against Trump's bullshit are far more popular than wimpy Third Way-ers like Chuck Schumer. Even Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, for all the Fox News propaganda making her out as the Whore of Babylon or something, is by (a large amount) more popular than Schumer.
- The other thing here is, the Democrats have a simple message that has worked before (and not an untrue message by any means): We are fighting for your health care. It's something even the Third Way types can rally around. 47.197.76.134 (talk) 14:11, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
- I think the folks at the DNC have concluded 'looking smugly on while MAGA falls apart due to "historical necessity" so they can waltz in and rule for 20 years' is not going to work. Second factor; fear of 'the Mamdani effect'; aka a sufficiently fucked-off base might end up unhorsing too many incumbents in Primaries. Fuck, some of them might be even starting to twig that if current rates continue, there isn't going to be a '28 election. KarmaPolice (talk) 15:35, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
Going back to Trump's earlier plans - how will the shutdown affect the intended takeovers of Canada and Greenland? Anna Livia (talk) 20:30, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
- Directly? It won't. But indirectly, the shutdown shows that there are still internal 'enemies' which probably need to be 'dealt with' before any foreign adventures start. I also think MAGA is starting to fathom that the 'enemies list' actually includes swathes of the American military. I mean, let's look at this [partial] crowd pic of the shitty lecture all the generals were given last week. Even after taking into account a certain percentage of 'resting bitch faces' [kinda high in guys in their 50s] and more don't realise their mask-face looks like previous they don't really look like folks who are aching to unleash troops on the American people in the name of King-Emperor Trump I. More bored, irked, confused, baffled and occasionally sardonically amused [I doubt Hegseth won any friends with his lecturing on grooming standards, PT etc like they're a bunch of Sgts rather than, y'know the actual fucking strategic vision for the military]. I bet at least a third was a) wondering if Trump did have 'cognitive decline' and/or b) mulling over retirement plans. KarmaPolice (talk) 06:12, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
What exactly is the goal of Lacanian psychoanalysis?
I sorta made the mistake of trying to dig into his stuff and kinda ended up worse off for it. Not only is the source material hard to understand but trying to get other people to explain it doesn't work, they mostly just talk like him. It doesn't help that apparently what HE means by certain words and ideas isn't what everyone else means. But suffice to say his concepts: the mirror stage, fantasy, love being imaginary, there being no sexual relation (which is something Zizek seems to agree with), desires not being our own, sexuality being unnatural, etc have sorta done a number on me mentally because it just makes it seem like everything I do and know is wrong but there doesn't seem to be any solution here? I mean it doesn't help either that other people who read him tell me I have to read the ENTIRE work of his to get it.
But I guess I'm wondering what is the point and goal of his theory and writing, because from where I stand it's not helping people. Not only have I been permanently damaged by it but apparently all his patients were worse off for it. So like what is the point here? I can't make heads or tails of his stuff on my own and the little I do get just makes me depressed. It's hard enough to get help with this because the dude deliberately writes his work to be hard to understand so I'm not sure where to go or who to ask. Also I know the wiki here said some of his claims were proven false but which are those?47.5.66.54 (talk) 19:14, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
- I have never heard of it. But a quick look on the net tells me that is builds on Freudian psychoanalysis which makes it suspect from the start.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:37, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
- Don't take me as an expert on any of this psychoanalysis stuff, but the debates in my country (France) have been rather important, going beyond the left/right spectrum. Usually, from what I've heard, French/european psycho-analysis is more philosophy than psychiatry (I do know a little because most philosophy courses in France in university and high school alike are supportive of Freud and Lacan, meaning most French citizens come into contact with these things one way or another). If you really insist on using Lacanian psycho-analysis for help, I would honestly recommend seeing a serious (not a total charlatan) lacanian psycho-analyst instead of reading Lacan. Serious lacanian therapists are probably hard to find in most of the Anglo-Saxon world, I would recommend you to just go to any psycho-analyst in a French speaking country (maybe not Quebec, due to American influence) and most of them will be lacanian. In practice, there is not much difference between a German psycho-therapist following the newest theories of the day and a French psycho-analyst with Lacan and Freud proudly displayed. The only difference might be that the latter will occasionally suggest you have an Oedipus complex, but with the sufficient pensée critique you'll survive that too. Most psycho-therapists in Europe are more or less neutral or even supportive in regards to psycho-analysis. In Latin America, I think, psycho-analysis seems to be way more linked to psychiatric studies than in Europe/France. In France, most psychoanalysts don't study psychiatry to my knowledge (but please, if you really want to, go only to those who studied psychoanalysis and psychology, otherwise they might not be serious). That doesn't change the fact that most older French psychiatrists have a psycho-analytic background, but the psychiatry + psychoanalysis studies seem to be more of a thing in Latin America (especially Brazil and Argentina). Generally, psycho-analysis doesn't seem as bad as some journalists represent it, but maybe I'm just ignorant of how much better psychic health research is outside of France (though I doubt it).
- Long story short: French psychoanalysis is more philosophy than psychiatry. If you really want to use it as the latter, go see a French psychoanalyst, preferably one who studied psychology and psychiatry too, on your next vacation to Paris or something. New world (talk) 19:46, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
- Not really looking to it for psychaitry, it's already done enough damage to me that can't really be fixed. Also from what I learned Lacan's patients were always worse after psychotherapy. More than that the data doesn't show it helps.47.5.66.54 (talk) 20:42, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
- You seem to want to use it more in a psychiatric way. Otherwise, reading philosophy is supposed to be a little fun and interesting, it's not an obligation to read Lacan if you feel the need to complain about your headache. Just do something else and stop caring then. I personally always finish a book I started, maybe you'll change your view by the end. But if you really hate the author already, just stop. New world (talk) 21:15, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
- It doesn't work like that, you can't just forget what you read and you cannot really see things the same way again, that's what I said by broken. If reading philosophy is supposed to be "Fun and interesting" then you're not really absorbing what is being said. With Lacan it's pretty much breaking what I cared about and is saying it's wrong. The guy calls love imaginary and says it's not really about care for the other person but to fill some lack in you, or saying you aren't your body (mirror stage), that your desires aren't really about the object or person but the idea that you hold about them, that sex is violence (per Zizek's view of it). Like...what does one do when everything they love is shown to be wrong? His writings on love took the feeling away from me, calling it "giving what you don't have to someone who doesn't want it" https://www.lacanonline.com/2016/06/what-does-lacan-say-about-love/ 47.5.66.54 (talk) 22:32, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
- You seem to want to use it more in a psychiatric way. Otherwise, reading philosophy is supposed to be a little fun and interesting, it's not an obligation to read Lacan if you feel the need to complain about your headache. Just do something else and stop caring then. I personally always finish a book I started, maybe you'll change your view by the end. But if you really hate the author already, just stop. New world (talk) 21:15, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
- Not really looking to it for psychaitry, it's already done enough damage to me that can't really be fixed. Also from what I learned Lacan's patients were always worse after psychotherapy. More than that the data doesn't show it helps.47.5.66.54 (talk) 20:42, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
Also I asked around psychoanalysis groups and they all say the point isn't to help people or to make them happier and more adaptable, that's for therapy and psychiatry. Lacan said "traversing the fantasy: no longer being blindly governed by the unconscious scenario that sustains your desire." And per their words "Psychoanalysis' aim is not to break the subject, but neither does it promise harmony for the subject. It is precisely this fantasy of harmony and wholeness that psychoanalysis aims to illuminate: to insist upon the constitutive lack of the subject." So it sounds like it's good for nothing, more like they invented a problem and are selling a solution.47.5.66.54 (talk) 02:45, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
- We have an article on Jacques Lacan. Bongolian (talk) 03:33, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
- Lacan was a psychoanalyst; he had a clinical practice and patients. He developed his theories for application in that setting. You will have a difficult time finding information on the philosophical significance of Lacan partly because Lacan is of interest to only a relatively small number of professional philosophers (Zizek being probably the best-known). There is an SEP article on Lacan, though, which you may find useful. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 talk 03:56, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
- We have an article on Jacques Lacan. Bongolian (talk) 03:33, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
From what I have been told by other psychoanalysts the SEP article is wrong in that he's expanding on Freud or drawing from him. The truth is that he was actually a departure from Freud and most of the school of his thought is based on what Lacan said not what he proved. From the article on here it says the few testable claims he made were wrong, but I couldn't find what those were. Though if you're arguing he developed his theories for application in that setting I might have to disagree, given how his patients were often harmed by his practice.47.5.66.54 (talk) 18:04, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
- From your comments, I still don't know if you want psycho-therapeutic help or a better understanding of Lacan. For the latter, I can't help you much, all I know is that Lacan was (at least that's what I learned) supportive of a return to Freud. His critics claim this "return" was completely different from the original, however Lacan was pretty clear about wanting a return to the roots (so you might have come to the same conclusion as some critical commentators there). French psychoanalysis is in its entirety more of a philosophical practice trying to analyse people's psyche, more than a behavioural analysis trying to "change" or better the parts about you you don't like (at least that's how it's framed today, after a long evolution). It has done damage, but, again speaking on the grounds of personal experience, in practice there is not much difference to the average European psycho-therapist. Lacan's experience with patients is mixed: some hated him (but that could happen with pretty much any psycho-therapist), others were so fascinated that they became the next generation of psychoanalysts (really, there are many such testimonies). Is reading Lacan that traumatising? Maybe I should try. Reading Freud certainly isn't traumatising even if you disagree (at least to me it isn't), maybe you should just stop seeing Lacan as the absolute figure of authority and take everything he says with a grain of salt. I mean, did you read Freud before getting into Lacan? That would seem rather logical, honestly. Criticising psychoanalysis is very popular, especially in the Anglo-Saxon world (but there are occasionally very strong debates here in France), but it doesn't seem logical to criticise psychoanalysis (a philosophical practice according to many French therapists) and not psychological research in general for its unfalsifiable and arbitrary nature. I prefer to be rather tolerant towards this domaine of research and see what advances will be made, including in psycho-analysis, rather than obsessively pointing out the occasional inefficacy or contradiction. New world (talk) 19:13, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
Well I dunno about comparing psychoanalysis to psychology but that's neither here nor there. Him being a return to Freud isn't really true from what other psychoanalysts have told me, he's actually a departure from him (despite what he thinks).
If you wanna know yes it was that traumatizing. I can't feel love anymore after reading his points about love (him calling it imaginary), I don't feel desire these days because of what he said about it being imaginary and that you don't want the thing itself but the image you have of it in you head (the representations and symbols you built up of it), right now I have some deep depression from reading him because it's like being told all my feelings are wrong and wanting anything isn't real (also that your desires aren't yours) and I generally feel nothing for other people. Never mind what he says on sex, calling falling for someone a lie. Double that reading what Zizek says about sex being violence and that it requires a fantasy to make it work. That you aren't falling for the person but your fantasy that you project onto someone. It's got me scared to interact with other people because I'm doing something wrong or just projecting onto them. So yeah I'm a hot mess right now, an apparently the goal of his practice is to cause psychosis by breaking everything you thought you knew. It's in his concept called "the destitution of the self".
I just....don't know how to be or feel right now, apparently my life was wrong and everything I thought. And I can't really talk to anyone about it because the Lacanians don't care how I feel and the people who do don't know the man's ideas enough to help. I'm drowning here...47.5.66.54 (talk) 00:05, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
- Get a grip, 47. If you disagree with what you read, you can decide it's wrong. If you're unable to do that, then apparently you agree with it. Neither Lacan nor Zizek have forced you to reassess your beliefs, you chose to do that. Your issue now is that you resent no longer finding your old psyche security blankets as comforting as you used to. I recall a study a few years ago that determined that people in long, happy marriages had one thing in common; whenever they thought about their partner, they put on a pair of rose-colored glasses. They deluded themselves into thinking their partner was really awesome. They downplayed their partner's faults and exaggerated their partner's appealing traits. Love requires delusion if it is to be maintained, otherwise the shine will come off your partner fairly quickly. The 'honeymoon stage', as they say, won't last forever. Delusions that work for you are useful delusions. And knowing that you're deluding yourself doesn't quash the delusion. You can still delude yourself into loving a partner - at least now you'll know that's what's required of you. Would you rather continue to accumulate partners who become ex's, always wondering why "it didn't work out"? Always lacking that key piece of insight required to make a relationship last? 2A0D:BBC7:0:0:F816:3EFF:FE12:1851 (talk) 07:25, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
That’s actually pretty lousy advice to give to someone questioning their entire belief system and doubting if love is real. Also we can’t just decide something is wrong or right, we don’t choose what we believe, something either impacts us or it doesn’t. It’s not as simple as saying “if you disagre you can decide it’s wrong” doesn’t work like that. Reading philosophy can force someone to question their beliefs because, again, we don’t choose how things affect us. The problem with the study you cited is that that’s not how happy marriages work, it’s more dealing with the aftermath of when the rose colored glasses come of. That’s when infatuation can transform into deep and abiding love but it takes work, because it requires accepting the person for who they are and not what you want them to be (that’s being the image when the butterflies were flowing). Love does not require delusion to maintain and there are several studies to back that, it does require a shift to acknowledging the whole person though. If you have to delude yourself into loving them then you don’t really love them and what you’re describing isn’t a relationship (not to mention unrelated to what the thinkers mentioned say about love). Knowing you’re deluding yourself does quash the delusion, it’s kinda like knowing how the magician does his tricks, you can’t unsee it. Seriously, what kinda take is this?Yokaiwatch (talk) 23:14, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
Machina
Ok, so by now this User:Machina person has been continuously posting obsessive (and very often nonsensical) commentary on the saloon bar (see the above, among others). He might even have been more active since the time I joined the site than before. Either, he really needs help and advice, or he is a troll. I have mixed feelings about this, as he might legitimately need help he might not get on other social media, yet he is so obviously obnoxious that he clearly resembles trolling behaviours in bigger social media. He is banned from the saloon bar for exactly this reason. And yet, he exclusively participates in saloon bar discussions (I have also been discussing things on the saloon bar more than contributing, but at least I did improve a few pages and I'm not posting the same thing over and over again. I wouldn't even consider myself as a member of this community nor knowing its rules and manners, I just find it interesting to see a more Anglo-Saxon/American perspective on things confronting the French/european one, though an increasing amount of users isn't Anglo-saxon. Similarly, other regular users here do not post every two weeks about Lacan, reality, consciousness, etc. And this while displaying 0 change in opinions). There clearly is a problem, and he might just be trolling us. New world (talk) 15:04, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
- Doesn't sound like a troll, more like someone who doesn’t know how to handle ideas they can’t work out on their own. I don’t see how not editing pages is relevant. If someone posts the same thing it can mean they struggle and don’t know how to resolve it. Lacan isn’t exactly popular and his writing is so murky not many people have read let alone understand it, plus it’s not like going to France is a solution…I mean honestly. If I had to guess the defiance is more a defense mechanism to avoid uncritically swallowing everything they read, because the alternative is to just accept everything you hear and that sounds like hell. I can’t imagine being unable to say no to everything you read and hear. But that’s my two cents, I’ve seen trolling and this doesn’t have that malice to it.Yokaiwatch (talk) 23:14, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Yokaiwatch Reading philosophy can do that if you let it. But by your description everyone should have an existential crisis because of that, when it's just supposed to be interesting postulates, often contradictory, into various subjects of life and the world around us. Obviously it changes your way of seeing things, but it shouldn't change your mental health. Apparently, Machina doesn't like it, he (or she) doesn't feel any pleasure in it, and Lacan isn't THE reference to have. If Machina wants to stop, he can stop reading Lacan. He can do or read other things which will make him forget Lacan. "Love is a delusion" seems like a pretty obvious statement. I like alcohol. Even if I'm not medically an alcoholic, me liking it very likely would reveal me to be addicted in case I tried to stop completely. Yet I don't have to change my entire belief system (nor will or have I) if I read an interesting study about addiction to alcohol. It's an addiction and I guess I'm addicted (like the majority of humans), but I don't have the incentive to stop nor do I feel morally pressured (better live happy than longer). Love is a delusion and we're deluded and like it. Where's the moral issue? Love isn't bad for our health, like our consumption of alcohol from a young age is. Taking Lacan as an absolute figure of authority and asking every two to three weeks if his sayings are true, then complaining they are, suggests a different cause than poor Lacan. Machina just wants to tell us about how he's feeling (that's fine, honestly), but the excessive use of obscure philosophical references (and giving them any fault whatsoever for his feelings) is annoying. Feeling empty because some thinker wrote love is delusion doesn't mean you should give said thinker the fault. I mean, even asking these questions should be fine, but asking to be contradicted and then refusing any contradiction is the annoying part. He is asking us for opinions, and even if those don't disagree with his own, he continues to ask for opinions. And, I could bet on that, if you would unconditionally agree with Machina, he would ask the same question again in disbelief. And this same thing every two weeks. Some trolling certainly is involved. New world (talk) 13:48, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
- The phrase “let it” is doing some heavy lifting here because we don’t choose how things affect us. I hear people say that often but it’s not a switch one flips, something either moves you or not. As for what it’s “supposed” to be, that’s a matter of perspective but I’d like to think the ones who formulated these thoughts didn’t view them merely as an interesting set of postulates but more like they figured out something about the human condition. I think you’re downplaying it too much. I cannot really say why some are affected or not, but that doesn’t change what is. Again with “should”, the fact is most people likely don’t know Lacan or anything he wrote let alone his ideas about the psyche and life, they just carry on with their own assumptions about the world and how things work (from what little I know about Lacan much of what he wrote does conflict with how most humans view life, which also explains his current champions of his thinking). So if you found out that things aren’t the way you thought they were for most of your life and your experience was “wrong”, I wouldn’t be shocked if that affected their mental health. You don’t even have to go to Lacan, I don’t think most would handle realizing that they had been “living a lie”. If thoughts affect our beliefs then it would logically follow that a philosophy that questions your foundations would have an impact on your mental health. I mean just search Quora for the thousands of posts struggling with coming into contact with solipsism, they kinda read the same but the point stands. Again saying someone “could” do something else instead is projecting what YOU would do just because it doesn’t affect YOU like them. Same with stop thinking about it, I’m sure you’re familiar with Pink Elephants right? In my experience when something clashes with a core aspect of life you can’t just forget it, and saying love doesn’t exist is a big one. I can’t imagine what OP does if those feelings come up. “Love is a delusion” is “common sense” but anyone with half a brain cell knows common sense isn’t sensical. It’s a common cynical phrase, on that doesn’t ring true. See what you’re describing is infatuation, that phase with the butterflies and everything. THAT is “delusion” and sadly what American culture portrays as love itself. But it’s not, love is after that, when you see the person in their entirety.Your example with alcohol doesn’t track either as there is a marked difference between liking something and an addiction to it. People like things but they can put them down, people who are addicted to something CANNOT. They will do anything and everything to get their fix.
- @Yokaiwatch Reading philosophy can do that if you let it. But by your description everyone should have an existential crisis because of that, when it's just supposed to be interesting postulates, often contradictory, into various subjects of life and the world around us. Obviously it changes your way of seeing things, but it shouldn't change your mental health. Apparently, Machina doesn't like it, he (or she) doesn't feel any pleasure in it, and Lacan isn't THE reference to have. If Machina wants to stop, he can stop reading Lacan. He can do or read other things which will make him forget Lacan. "Love is a delusion" seems like a pretty obvious statement. I like alcohol. Even if I'm not medically an alcoholic, me liking it very likely would reveal me to be addicted in case I tried to stop completely. Yet I don't have to change my entire belief system (nor will or have I) if I read an interesting study about addiction to alcohol. It's an addiction and I guess I'm addicted (like the majority of humans), but I don't have the incentive to stop nor do I feel morally pressured (better live happy than longer). Love is a delusion and we're deluded and like it. Where's the moral issue? Love isn't bad for our health, like our consumption of alcohol from a young age is. Taking Lacan as an absolute figure of authority and asking every two to three weeks if his sayings are true, then complaining they are, suggests a different cause than poor Lacan. Machina just wants to tell us about how he's feeling (that's fine, honestly), but the excessive use of obscure philosophical references (and giving them any fault whatsoever for his feelings) is annoying. Feeling empty because some thinker wrote love is delusion doesn't mean you should give said thinker the fault. I mean, even asking these questions should be fine, but asking to be contradicted and then refusing any contradiction is the annoying part. He is asking us for opinions, and even if those don't disagree with his own, he continues to ask for opinions. And, I could bet on that, if you would unconditionally agree with Machina, he would ask the same question again in disbelief. And this same thing every two weeks. Some trolling certainly is involved. New world (talk) 13:48, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
- I’m not op but again I would still blame the thinker itself for what they’re going through (especially Lacan given how controversial and radical this thinking can be). I mean they didn’t do this prior to reading him, and from what I’ve been told by others the guys material isn’t only hard to process but can be destabilizing. DOUBLY so if your the impressionable type who just believes what someone famous or “smart” said (which is my impression of Machina, dude just sounds very impressionable, which is its own sort of hell). My guess is they can’t figure it out, they can’t let it go, and they can’t just say no (which sounds like ASD to me). In my experience if folks like that ask the same questions over and over it’s because they don’t understand, having worked with them in group homes they will keep asking until they understand. Doesn’t happen often with me because I give direct answers and the questions are usually easy.
- TBH it sounds more like you’re making a lot of assumptions about how people work or things should be when none of that matches with reality. The most you could say is that’s how YOU are (and I already explained how love being a delusion is wrong) but you cannot say that about others. Lacan doesn’t affect you like that but for others it does, even Lacanians I talk to aren’t surprised. So yeah, that just sounds like projecting your ideas onto other people. But like I said above we don’t choose how things affect us or our reaction to them, and saying to just “stop thinking about it” is about as useful as saying “stop thinking about pink elephants”. To repeat, I don’t see a troll I see someone who doesn’t know what to do with philosophies that contradict what they know to be true so they ask here because no one else would understand (highly doubt family or friends would). Maybe I’m just soft hearted because I’ve met people like Machina in real life. Most people don’t really question their lives too much, and not many people can handle it either. Not to keep beating a dead horse but Lacan ain’t easy if you don’t have someone to help you, especially given his common proclamations like “Woman does not exist” and especially “there is no sexual relation”. If you’re the impressionable type (and I’m guess they are) these would wreck you, check it (the part about not being attracted to a person but an object sounds like it would upset most people): https://nosubject.com/Sexual_relationshipYokaiwatch (talk) 21:11, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
ADL
The ADL has caved to the far-right and deleted the entirety of their "Glossary of Extremism." We might wanna comb through our articles to find any citations referencing the GOE and update or remove them accordingly. Antares (talk) 08:50, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
- They already sold out their credibility, but these glossaries and other things they had up on their site at least were vestiges of sometimes useful references one could cite. They're just totally useless now, I suppose. Not that their research tended to be stellar, but they did have some information others never bothered covering, previously. (There was recently a school shooting, or attempted school shooting, where the ADL had detected the shooter on a gore website and tried to report him to the police, but nothing was actually done.) I suppose GNET is one newer org that serves a similar function without the ADL's baggage. For what it's worth, there seem to be people inside the ADL not happy with the recent direction of the ADL, including even big donors to the group, if some of the reporting is anything to go by. Chillpilled (talk) 15:31, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
Can we just add the United States to the list of authoritarian regimes?
I feel like we are well past this point by now, especially when the comparison to other authoritarian regimes in the past and the present exemplifies this. TheAceOfOne (talk) 13:00, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
- I mean, Brazil is in the list of "authoritarian regimes" at RW, so anything goes in the RW lists, eh?
- I personally think that Hungary (Fidesz / Viktor Orban) is the most comparable party to the GOP and Donald Trump at the moment. This is not full-on authoritarianism, but what has been variously called "illiberal democracy" (by Orban himself), "competitive authoritarianism" or a "hybrid regime". There are signs here and there that Trump wants to emulate worse hybrid regimes (eg Turkey and El Salvador), but so far there is nothing approaching Russia / China levels of oppression and totalitarianism. So it depends on "how far you want to go".
- Complicating this ranking (not dissimilar to Brazil, which also has significant federalism if I recall) is that there is a lot of federalism in the United States; the Democrats are much more pro-democracy than the GOP; and there are plenty of Democrat-ran cities and states. In addition, unlike Hungary, while the Supreme Court has been captured by Trump, other judges in the court system have not been. 47.197.76.134 (talk) 14:36, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
- I would add the caveat 'for now'. Russia c05 looked fairly like a 'guided democracy' but what happened that over the intervening years the 'democratic/liberal' innards got eaten out so much that by c22 it was a paper-thin facade, which was promptly torn off when the war began. Late Weimar Germany was somewhat similar; while the democratic facade remained intact, a lot of it had been hollowed out by the 'rule by decree' by President Hindenburg. KarmaPolice (talk) 15:06, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
- Yep. And while the United States as a whole is "more complicated", personally I would have no issues slapping the "authoritarianism" tag on the Republican Party article now. Hybrid-authoritarian political parties do usually get the tag on RW, and at this point I don't think there's any question that the GOP is now hybrid-authoritarian. 47.197.76.134 (talk) 16:09, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
- From the other side of the pond it certainly looks like it's going that way. But of course it's a series of steps, each one just a little bit more extreme or a continuation of the last. It's the apocryphal boiling frog in a saucepan. I would imagine that if US had moved from where it was before the first Trump presidency to where it is now in one step then I think that people would be a lot more appalled. But when the liberal democracy dies the death of a thousand cuts then it's harder to notice.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:43, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
- 'Creeping normality'. It was perhaps one of the key takeaways from Diamond's Collapse; that societies did not realise the peril they were in because the slide was gradual and when 'shocks' happened, they were invariably blamed on 'unique circumstances' and/or 'particular individuals' which couldn't possibly ever arise again. In this particular case; 'American democracy' was already pretty sick by 2016 because a healthy democracy wouldn't have allowed Trump to become President, or at worst would have rapidly 'boxed him in' to the point he wouldn't have dared to try to pull the Jan Putsch. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:00, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
- I think the Republican MAGA party is well past "Hybrid Authoritarian" label at this point. Republicans are very open about their Totalitarianism at this point. Not only did they label Antifa as a terrorist group despite it not even being a formal group, they now have the DHS labeling common centrist beliefs as "terror indicators." It is obvious that they are using this vague definition of 'terrorism' to go after anyone who even slightly disagrees with Trump. There are already reports of people being arrested on BS terror charges just for post they've made online. The death of Charlie Kirk gave them the perfect excuse to do this sooner than they've planned, and the GOP themselves admittedly compared it to Horst Wessel and the Reichstag. We should stop dodging the fact that MAGA's ideal society is to have all Democrats and anyone to the left of hunting homeless for sport rounded up and slaughtered in concentration camps. 2001:67C:2628:647:32:504:0:128 (talk) 20:12, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
- It was already in the subcategory of empires before, I put it in the main category though because let's be completely honest, who's honestly going to dispute this? TheAceOfOne (talk) 23:20, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
- I won't dispute that we have an authoritarian regime in power, but people here are overestimating how successful they have been in their attempts at power consolidation. For one thing, they wasted a lot of political capital very early on with how DOGE gutted the government (including the security services), which obviously degrades their ability to successfully carry out their fascist project. Logistics matters. They also don't fully control the courts and the states. Civil society remains more or less independent for now, even with elite capitulation in mind. They don't really have anything to offer to the American public either. Competent authoritarians know to use the carrot in addition to the stick. All the Trump regime has been offering is the stick. Sure, you may be able to carry over some portions of your base with humiliating your enemies, at least for a time, but your base is not the same thing as the wider public. All they have been offering the wider public is a worsening economy and political instability. Antares (talk) 14:06, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
- "Hybrid authoritarian" is still authoritarian, but in a muted form. Hybrid regimes still hold elections, but they are often heavily gamed. Hybrid regimes doesn't execute its enemies or engage in censorship at gunpoint, but it uses mechanisms in the government to put enormous pressure on media outlets and other sources of information and news. It's basically a regime with less rule-by-force and more rule-by-gaming (though force is still a thing sometimes, depending on the regime). Some things are very similar, of course; authoritarian regimes often use the Other in propaganda, the same as hybrid ones. Obviously "hybrid forms" will vary in their degree. Compare full authoritarian regimes like Saudia Arabia, Russia, China to hybrid regimes like Hungary, Turkey, El Salvador.
- Obviously, as KP points out, Republican hybrid authoritarianism can easily backslide into *full* authoritarianism. Like Antares, though... I'm sort of optimistic that this won't happen. In addition to the points mentioned, I will add three more:
- A) Trump is very old, and honestly doesn't look too great. His time to consolidate power is short. The odds of a regime with a decade+ length, ala Erdoğan or Orbán, is frankly really low. Once the cult of personality is gone, authoritarian regimes typically dissolve unless a replacement personality can be found (and so far, none has emerged).
- B) It is very clear that the US military leadership *detests* Trump and his gang of clowns. It is very difficult for me to envision full authoritarianism without full military support.
- C) The Trump administration is openly catering only to its billionaires interests and/or "culture war" (white nationalist / Christian nationalist) interests. This is a minority. Authoritarians have a *much* tougher time consolidating power if only a minority is enthralled with the cult. Furthermore... Trump is incompetent at managing his cult, and often hurts his voters with his attempts to hurt his "enemies".
- But... just because I don't think it *won't* happen doesn't mean that one shouldn't be on guard. Because it absolutely *could* happen, things could get much worse.
- And the other thing to keep in mind... it's not just Trump. It's not like the "ingredients" for Trump's shit wasn't brewing well before Trump, and I do not see the "ingredients" for GOP authoritarianism completely going away even when Trump does.
- Still, it's not all hopeless. Something to keep in mind before one dooms and glooms. :) 47.197.76.134 (talk) 14:58, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
- I won't dispute that we have an authoritarian regime in power, but people here are overestimating how successful they have been in their attempts at power consolidation. For one thing, they wasted a lot of political capital very early on with how DOGE gutted the government (including the security services), which obviously degrades their ability to successfully carry out their fascist project. Logistics matters. They also don't fully control the courts and the states. Civil society remains more or less independent for now, even with elite capitulation in mind. They don't really have anything to offer to the American public either. Competent authoritarians know to use the carrot in addition to the stick. All the Trump regime has been offering is the stick. Sure, you may be able to carry over some portions of your base with humiliating your enemies, at least for a time, but your base is not the same thing as the wider public. All they have been offering the wider public is a worsening economy and political instability. Antares (talk) 14:06, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
- It was already in the subcategory of empires before, I put it in the main category though because let's be completely honest, who's honestly going to dispute this? TheAceOfOne (talk) 23:20, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
- I think the Republican MAGA party is well past "Hybrid Authoritarian" label at this point. Republicans are very open about their Totalitarianism at this point. Not only did they label Antifa as a terrorist group despite it not even being a formal group, they now have the DHS labeling common centrist beliefs as "terror indicators." It is obvious that they are using this vague definition of 'terrorism' to go after anyone who even slightly disagrees with Trump. There are already reports of people being arrested on BS terror charges just for post they've made online. The death of Charlie Kirk gave them the perfect excuse to do this sooner than they've planned, and the GOP themselves admittedly compared it to Horst Wessel and the Reichstag. We should stop dodging the fact that MAGA's ideal society is to have all Democrats and anyone to the left of hunting homeless for sport rounded up and slaughtered in concentration camps. 2001:67C:2628:647:32:504:0:128 (talk) 20:12, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
- 'Creeping normality'. It was perhaps one of the key takeaways from Diamond's Collapse; that societies did not realise the peril they were in because the slide was gradual and when 'shocks' happened, they were invariably blamed on 'unique circumstances' and/or 'particular individuals' which couldn't possibly ever arise again. In this particular case; 'American democracy' was already pretty sick by 2016 because a healthy democracy wouldn't have allowed Trump to become President, or at worst would have rapidly 'boxed him in' to the point he wouldn't have dared to try to pull the Jan Putsch. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:00, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
- From the other side of the pond it certainly looks like it's going that way. But of course it's a series of steps, each one just a little bit more extreme or a continuation of the last. It's the apocryphal boiling frog in a saucepan. I would imagine that if US had moved from where it was before the first Trump presidency to where it is now in one step then I think that people would be a lot more appalled. But when the liberal democracy dies the death of a thousand cuts then it's harder to notice.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:43, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
- Yep. And while the United States as a whole is "more complicated", personally I would have no issues slapping the "authoritarianism" tag on the Republican Party article now. Hybrid-authoritarian political parties do usually get the tag on RW, and at this point I don't think there's any question that the GOP is now hybrid-authoritarian. 47.197.76.134 (talk) 16:09, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
- I would add the caveat 'for now'. Russia c05 looked fairly like a 'guided democracy' but what happened that over the intervening years the 'democratic/liberal' innards got eaten out so much that by c22 it was a paper-thin facade, which was promptly torn off when the war began. Late Weimar Germany was somewhat similar; while the democratic facade remained intact, a lot of it had been hollowed out by the 'rule by decree' by President Hindenburg. KarmaPolice (talk) 15:06, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
adding brazil to the "authoritarian regimes" list is wild. The G (talk) 02:16, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
- I removed it. Revert if you want, but putting the Brazil of 2025 in the same category as China is just ridiculous.-Flandres (talk) 02:33, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
- thank you, and i agree. it would've made sense 40 years ago, but it makes zero sense today. i've been wanting to work on that article for a while (mostly adding sections relevant to this site's mission). i'll probably make time to do it now that i'm done with school. The G (talk) 02:50, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
- going back to the topic at hand, i say we wait until the democracy index
for this year is released. The G (talk) 02:53, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
- Yes. That should make for interesting reading. Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 06:38, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
- "I'm gonna wait for a piece of media to actually call out a country's authoritarianism that will most likely be heavily censored and obscured instead of looking at the facts and comparing the history" that's what this reads off to me as. I know how cynical this sounds but I am FUCKING done pretending we can act like shonen protagonists. TheAceOfOne (talk) 04:11, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
- going back to the topic at hand, i say we wait until the democracy index
LiquidThreads
Emergency! Phabricator is going to undeploy LiquidThreads![14] Technicians suggest that to remove LQT, Flow have to be installed to first convert LQT to Flow pages, and then convert them again to wikitext. If this is not done, the pages will become unreadable soon. 119.236.164.102 (talk) 15:25, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
- Was ist das wan es zur Haus bleiben? Anna Livia (talk) 23:06, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
- 'What is that when it is at home?' for those with even less German than I have. Anna Livia (talk) 20:18, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
I withdraw my previous statement
I was angry that Pinkerite had written about our recent legal difficulties on her blog at what is still a sensitive time for us. I do not like the out of court settlements we agreed to being referred to as "secret deals" and I was not pleased that she wrote the article without actually reaching out to me as a Board member for comment, although I could not have said much due to the nature of the out of court settlements. I had not read the entire article when I wrote the Saloon Bar post yesterday, just the first few sentences and the section headings. I do not like Pinkerite's, article but I cannot say it contains any lies. I need to say I do not know who masterminded the legal threats against us and I cannot speak for the characters of any of the people involved. I apologize to Pinkerite for any distress I may have caused. Spud (talk) 02:20, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
Venezuela and Trump
Looks like Trump might be using cartels as a good excuse to go to war. Not that Venezuela's regime is legitimate anymore, but this is starting to resemble the interventions in Irak. Just to trace a short history: after years of economic inequality and authoritarian right-wing rule, Hugo Chavez was elected president of Venezuela. While certainly establishing what I would call a "presidential monarchy" (in this case basically the French fifth republic but more extreme), and creating a cult of personality around his person, Chavez was a popular, successful leader of Venezuela who did not steal any democratic elections whatsoever. It's his successor, Maduro, who, continuing the process started under Chavez, slowly transformed Venezuela and (likely) stole the 2024 elections and potentially the 2018 elections. The illegitimate nature attributed to his regime in no way justifies invasion. Trump is going after the ressources of Latin America, and Venezuela is an easy (and ressource rich) first target. New world (talk) 15:43, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
- I think you may be being a little generous to Chavez as our Hugo Chavez article makes clear. Also, while I agree he was elected - that was after his attempted military coup failed.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:31, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
- That page doesn't contradict anything I said (it only uses stronger words to describe it). New world (talk) 17:41, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
A Chance to Relax a Little, What is Your Favorite Scary Movie?
The joke being a good scary movie keeps you tense, but I'm sure you got it. It's a matter of taste, but for me, Hereditary upped the bar and hasn't been cleared, even by Ari Aster's other works. But I love a good horror film, and 'tis the season. What are some of your favorites? No wrong answers, go off. Torrent (talk) 05:50, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
- Scream. An absolute master-peice. Absolutely genre-defining in so many ways. Its very well made in terms of its execution on various tropes, music is great, the lighting and camera-work is massively under-rated imo. At the same time its incredibly funny and so textually rich that it just gets better the more you know about the genre. Ari Aster's stuff has been good, I liked hereditary though I wouldn't rank it a personal favourite. Tikitime2 (talk) 12:31, 5 October 2025 (UTC)