RationalWiki:Saloon bar

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

Welcome, BoN
This is a place for general chit-chat about virtually anything that doesn't fit anywhere else.
Friends.gif For previous conversations, see the automagic barchives.Invision-Board-France-355.gif

What is going on?

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

Pointless poll

It's the end of the world as we know it. Do you feel fine?

Yes

144

Vote

No

340

Vote

My enemy is...

Pigeons

14

Vote

Geese

98

Vote

Ducks

7

Vote

Corvids

21

Vote

Gulls

41

Vote

Starlings

10

Vote

Owls

4

Vote

Parakeets

4

Vote

Hawks

4

Vote

Cliff Racers

61

Vote

Zubat

71

Vote

Has KarmaPolice been watching The Birds?

99

Vote

To do list

Situation on the ground...[edit]

The question is easy enough to ask [though much harder to answer]; what is the feelings on the ground at the moment in the USA regarding the continued attempts to construct the New Order? For starters, how many folks are even aware of this, or are they still milling around the 'both-sides, bad-as-each-other, stop-being-emotional, can't-happen-here' zone? And the ones who are aware, are they also aware that there is a significant risk that this very could get to physical blows - not the traditional 'we'll get you next time!' which seems to be still the mainstream Democrat opinion? KarmaPolice (talk) 13:02, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

It's already getting to blows. Like in Los Angeles. People on the ground are pissed. Do not conflate the idiocy of the Democratic leadership as being the opinion of the base. The Democrats are incredibly unpopular right now because they are so inept at being the opposition to literal fascism. Antares (talk) 13:12, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
Why do you think I asked? I was hearing the news about LA this morning and I literally wondered 'what the fuck would happen if Newsom ordered the Cali National Guard to disobey Trump's order?' Are the American Big Public even fucking aware shit like this is happening? KarmaPolice (talk) 13:42, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
Newsom won't do that, he's largely bark, not bite. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:11, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
As for the original question, my impression of the Dem base (and lower tier leadership) where I am is that they are dissatisfied, but largely relegate their anger to petitions, protests and the like. So business as usual. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:13, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
Newsom did float the "trial balloon" of the state stopping payment of all federal income taxes in response to Trump floating the "trial balloon" of cancelling California contracts for being California. This is all jaw-jaw shit of course, at a much more abstract level than what is going on in LA.
Any high information American is aware of what is going on in LA; it is the top headline story in most places, and social media certainly is abuzz. Some outlets, like The Economist (British of course, but read by a lot of Americans) are correctly reporting this as an act of vengeance, not peacekeeping. Other outlets sadly are doing their usual Trump sanewashing. There are unfortunately a *lot* of low-information Americans out there who are clueless, as well as fascist Americans in the Fox News orbit that are likely cheering this shit on. "Left-wing" social media (which includes prominent Never Trump conservatives and libertarians too), of course, is (rightly) pissed off.
One event I'm wondering if it will "move any needles" is the roughing up and arrest of a union leader (president of the California chapter of the SEIU) for merely being at the protest (from what the videos show). It's this sort of thing that makes the Teamsters' cuddling up to Trump in 2024 look really, really stupid. (But, of course, there is a lot of white dweebs in the "union job" sphere who care more about culture war shit than the rich running them over.) Still, it could inspire some strengthened union solidarity; anyone who has any inkling of "union history" should know why. BobJohnson (talk) 14:40, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
I think I need to clarify.
I don't give a crap about what the Democratic Party 'class' is doing because I think they're [with a few exceptions] a bunch of pathetically passive idiots who are stuck in 'business as usual' mode. They won't move until literally, the birthday parade tanks run them over - and perhaps not even then. In fact, I am starting to believe that they are 'part of the problem', not any solution. That if the New Order is to be resisted successfully; it will require new leaders [ie high-information voters so angry/scared they actively start to mobilise/organise/fight] who can then build up a machine [or more correctly, an alliance of many machines] made up of similarly angry/scared low information voters to basically actually really fight back [so beyond placards and 'please, stop being an evil shit' petitions]. Therefore, I need to know if there's any signs these two things are happening at all - or if any of you are picking up vibes/anecdotes of this. KarmaPolice (talk) 15:23, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
Things are still largely in the "peaceful protest" stage as I see it -- many people are pissed, protests (some pretty big) are organized on social media. A prominent example here is the 50501 group on Reddit; the next national protest is on June 14th. As LA shows (same with other cities ), there also is fairly often a lot of visible resistance to the blatantly illegal ICE raids. Now, in true social media fashion, I think the organization is pretty loose at this time; I don't see evidence of a fully coherent, organized "new machine" yet, with definitive anti-fascist leaders. But that's one reason I pointed out the roughing up of a union leader; this, or further similar events, might be what "kickstarts" further development. We'll see.
I will also say this: credit the courts for helping temper things down; they are a big current "resistance point" and that might explain why things haven't moved beyond the peaceful protest point. For all the bullshit surrounding the Federalist Society, even many of their judges thankfully have not been complete fascist lapdogs and Trump ass-kissers. Trump and DOGE have mostly lost in court so far; and while the Trump administration have screamed and howled and pushed the law as much as they could, they haven't really blatantly openly defied the court yet (even on immigration, though they are *really* pushing the court to the limit there). BobJohnson (talk) 16:14, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
LA survived Rodney King, this hasn't even reached the level of riots from 5 years ago. But I'm sure both sides are able to cherrypick the images they want to show to demonstrate how justified their side is.
On the plus side, that Singham guy has now replaced Soros as the boogeyman behind all the riots. So, new article time? CorruptUser 17:29, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
Just how long can you continue to peddle the lying narrative that there are 'two equal sides' in these various fights, Corrupt? It's almost as bad as those folks who think the existence of a few trans orgs is 'of equal strength' than a political administration, right-wing billionaires and fundie hate orgs. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:53, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

β”Œβ”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”˜The likely reason that Newsom did not order the California National Guard to disobey trump, is likely because it would have no effect, i.e., it would be just another performative action. The Insurrection Act of 1807 allows the president to federalize National Guard troops in cases of civil disorder. Though the protests were mostly peaceful, they were not totally peaceful, so the current Supreme Court would almost certainly side with trump if came to that. Bongolian (talk) 18:28, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Except that law makes it clear said orders are put through the respective Governor. What's more, the Insurrection Act was not invoked either. Lastly, the last time this was invoked ['92 riots] it was done by said Governor's request. In this case, I would have preferred a 'performative action' which showed folks that he was powerless than doing fuck all, which some elements of MAGA will see as surrender. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:53, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
Yes, according to this WaPo article, Trump invoked this section of the Armed Services Act to attempt to justify the deployment of the National Guard bypassing the governor (using what I feel is a very questionable definition of a "rebellion"). Since the Insurrection Act was *not* invoked, (in theory) the Posse Comitatus Act should still be applicable, which (in theory) means that the National Guard cannot be used for any sort of police purposes.
So, again in theory, this means that the deployed National Guard will be limited to logistical support and protection for ICE personnel. EG: Not much. The best case scenario is that this is just some stupid Trump "flex" and Trump just wasted a lot of taxpayer dollars and National Guard time. The worst case scenario is that something happens in the upcoming days for Trump to "justify" further authoritarianism (although if National Guard members are the ones who instigate illegal action, it could also mean that *they* are on the hook for prosecution, legally. EDIT: I do wonder if someone -- perhaps the city of Los Angeles, or the state of California themselves -- will sue the Trump administration themselves over this, depending on how things go. It seems really, really legally shaky to override a governor like this from my "layperson" understanding.)
The message for would be protestors, in other words, would be to seriously keep things non-violent (so Trump and his Gestapo enablers like Stephen Miller have no excuse, or at least no excuse that doesn't look stupid)... and record as much as possible (so if Trump plays a propaganda move, evidence exists that can shut his narrative down for those not in the cult). BobJohnson (talk) 20:57, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
There's a more nuanced view of the legal implications for what's happening in LA at The Contrarian.[1] It's possible that Newsom will still take action. Bongolian (talk) 00:09, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
I am not so fussed about the LA situation in itself, more the cumulative effect of the assaults on what is left of American freedoms. Have 'dissenters' grown more bold in the last six months or less? Has there been increasing elements of 'self-censorship' amongst them? Has there been folks in your own personal monkeysphere have said/done shit you never thought you'd see from them? Fuck, is this a situation where you personally feel you can't tell me the whole story due to worries of future retribution on a open channel [which is telling in itself]? As an amateur sociologist who's done some reading in the habits and mindset of folks who live in repressive regimes ]Nazi Germany, China, USSR etc] I am curious to a) how much authoritarianism is being pressed onto the Big Public and b) how much said Big Public is acquiescing in said pressing. KarmaPolice (talk) 01:09, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
Due to my personal demographic I am by far not going to be the best person for the most meaningful personal "monkeyspace reports". My personal meatspace report would probably be much different if I either had darker skin, or different sexuality, or worked in a GOP "target" (news media, education, science). I will say that I do know of people who will not travel to the United States as long as the immigration situation is the way it is today. Also, I do know people in government jobs affected by the DOGE wrecking ball bullshit to various degrees.
At this point I (personally) am not worried about retribution / Internet snooping / etc. (but see demographic note, if I were, say, Palestinian-American, I think there is much greater reason to worry). I have been to a few countries of various authoritarianism degrees. I do not think that the United States is anywhere *near* (yet) to what I saw in Egypt or China. The current GOP vibe *definitely* reminds me of Hungary in many ways, and I think this sort of "hybrid model" is really the sociology model you want to look at. One more worrying element of Trump 2.0 is that the white nationalism wing (Miller, Noem, etc.) seems more extreme than even Orban; comparisons to Nazis are hardly Godwin territory for these fascist asshats. So more worrying. But the courts are not kiss-ups yet like they are in Hungary. So there's that.
I don't think people (as a whole, but as an edit once again: demographic caveat) are at the self-censoring stage either. Some schools / companies / etc. definitely originally capitulated up to Trump just after the election, and a few still are (fuck off, ABC). But in general, I think that the companies / schools that are fighting back against the Trump regime are getting far more respect than the pussies. For now, I would say that the trend is in a positive direction here, against Trump capitulation. BobJohnson (talk) 02:28, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
The reporting on LA is that the city is on fire when I've only seen Waymo driverless vehicles, which would have automatically driven into the protest areas vandalized and set on fire. Not even in the same timezone, so I have to rely on media reporting. Three Waymo vehicles demolished is not a city on fire. So the narrative that the left is grossly negligent for refusing to address the destruction and non-peaceful parts of this protest is such an obvious lie. But the idea that California is monolithic and insane and violent is entrenched in red states. I don't want to call people stupid, but they aren't making it easy. I mean, if Waymo loses three automated vehicles that obstensibly replace the jobs of 4 to 6 low income drivers, I'm sorry, this is not a city on fire, and probably not indirect vandalism. I don't endorse violence unless necessary (which is why I think the national guard is an inordinate response) but you have to expect something like this level of protest. The narrative that the city is burning to the ground and people are acting like it's just peaceful protest is a far more harmful and unrealistic fantasy. It's impossible to stand in support of property damage, even to say 'it's not that bad,' and not come off like an anarchist lunatic, but I'm sorry I have not seen anything surprising or bad. These people who claim cities are burning every time there is a large scale protest are people who say they believe impeding traffic should get you arrested, because they actually believe disagreeing with them should get you run over or shot. They're as cowardly and politically neutered as any Democrat who can't say with their full chest 'It's a Waymo, it's not that bad.' Torrent (talk) 03:04, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
The big problem is 'this city is burning to the ground' is a hyperbolic metaphor that fascists and establishment use to talk about unrest, and then any fire goes on screen and the dipshits who aren't connected in any civic sense and don't have any sort of literacy see a fire, hear 'burning to the ground' and can't explain why LA, Detroit, Seattle or any of these cities that should have been reduced to pure ash are functioning full 'business as usual' the day after these protests die off. I mean, the LA wildfires were fucking wildfires, very strange that it wasn't sold as 'the city burning to the ground' when it absolutely would make more sense than what we've seen in any protest. Torrent (talk) 03:22, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
It's been suggested (e.g., in the link that I gave above) that the timing of LA was not a coincidence. trump was concerned that the massive nationwide (as well as Mexico and parts of Europe) No Kings Day protests were an affront to his ego as well as competing with news coverage of his military parade happening on the same day, June 14.[2] The idea would be to intimidate other protestors on June 14. Bongolian (talk) 04:44, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
If you want one sign of how Trumpist authoritarianism has affected things, it's been documented in several stories that minorities are by and large staying away from the current protests. Not because they aren't pissed off at Trump too, mind you.
I personally see the military parade as a sign of Trump's "weakness masquerading as strength". This sort of shit is more typical in authoritarian countries, ranging from Russia to North Korea, that need to have a "showy flex" to make up for their lowly position in the international order. I am betting that (as demonstrated by Ukraine's recent use of drones to attack deep into Russia) in an age where the tools of choice for military are rapidly changing, Trump's military parade will involve a heck of a lot of old fashioned, outdated tanks. BobJohnson (talk) 11:51, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
Speaking of that, is all the 'King Donald I' shit actually making any headway with the Big Public? I mean, from my read of things I would think such things would [or should] offend a lot of American sensibilities. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:13, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
For the situation on the ground, the best word I think describes it is hypernormalization. I can't really describe how the MAGA contingent feels, since they do not overlap with my monkeysphere. Antares (talk) 13:21, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
What, so a lot of folks are thinking 'birthday parade for the Great Ferengi, that's fine?' KarmaPolice (talk) 13:35, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
Not necessarily. It's more like these are interesting times, and people can't expend all their energy at once focusing on so many different things. Trump's love letter to classical militarist authoritarianism is absurd, but it's a raindrop in the ocean of bullshit that's been coming our way the past six months. There are bigger fish to fry. Antares (talk) 06:24, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

β”Œβ”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”˜

The "No Kings" protest was scheduled for the same day as the military parade. That's not a coincidence. So no one in that sphere thinks that.
I have no real direct contact with "the hardcore MAGA" these days. There are a lot of "running jokes" in my social media sphere about how just all these MAGA people who were screaming about the Tyranny of the Deep State and Don't Tread On Me are actually *perfectly* fine with a dictatorship, as long as it is *their* kind of "anti-woke" dictatorship.
Judging by the social media (perilous, I know, but still) in MAGA hangouts, the jokes about that sphere are absolutely correct. They are not only "okay" about the military parade idea, they are gung-ho. BobJohnson (talk) 14:03, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
My interest in what the MAGA cult feel/think is only marginally higher than my caring on what the Democrat Party do. I'm trying to gauge where 'the Big Public' are more at then anything else - because I believe that if there is hope, it lies with them. I mean, are they ignoring stuff like this? Being overwhelmed by the 'flood the zone with dead cats' that Trump has made his forte? Or, are they actively being deceived by previously-reliable media outlets? KarmaPolice (talk) 15:38, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
I maintain that a conventional dictatorship is highly unlikely. Much more likely, and much more insidious, is Inverted totalitarianism since the US has been leaning towards "populist executive who is expected to magic away any given problem" for a long while now. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:44, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
If you discount the public that is not MAGA (even mildly) or anti-Trump, you're largely left with the "don't cares". Anecdotally, I honestly don't know (or even casually observe) too many "don't cares". But for the few I know, I see grumblings on either economic stuff, or if they were affected somehow by DOGE cuts. This sort of echoes G. Elliott Morris (a former 538 guy)'s kind of confirmed this thoughts on some polls, which showed that low-enthusiasm, low-information Trump voters have very significantly moved away for him.] His thoughts were that economic reasons were a big factor here. (Though there may be some other reasons, of course.)
In other words, unfortunately, I think these folks by and large *are not* moved too much (if at all) by all the authoritarianism shit like military parades and ICE. However, if the GOP fucks them over with all the "fuck the poor" standard GOP economic stuff going on lately though... ranging from the huge safety net cuts in the budget bill to the Trump tariffs... or if the economy tanks in ways out of political control... well, that might move them enough to vote against the GOP if things get bad enough. (But don't expect anything if it doesn't.) BobJohnson (talk) 17:03, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

β”Œβ”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”˜ For context, the reason the protests got so heated in LA was because of escalation from the police. Antares (talk) 23:34, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

So, Newsom is suing. We'll see if the Roberts court either continues to fellate the "unitary executive theory", or if they recognize that Trump overreached again.
YouGov released a few online polls recently about this situation. Those polled disapproved of the protesters (by 9 points), but disapproved of Trump's handling of deportations as well (by 10 points). Deploying the National Guard is underwater by 7 points; deploying the Marines is underwater by 13. By a whopping 31 point margin, poll respondents thought state and local authorities should take the lead in handling the protests.
So, once again, all Trump's childish chest-thumping and democratic backsliding is really only resonating with hardcore MAGA folks. There's a media narrative out there among some outlets that all the shit happening will help Trump (because violence and law and order supposedly helps Republicans). I'm not so sure about that. This brouhaha probably just "reinforces the partisan divide" that already exists.
One thing I find notable about the polls is that, in all polls, there is around 20% of people who respond "not sure". Also pretty consistently, the "not sure" crowd is noticeably higher with 18-29 year olds, and noticeably lower with 45+. My guess is this reflects the "don't care" types I mentioned above (or, perhaps, there are some that care, but are so thoroughly disgusted with the American political system, they tune out). BobJohnson (talk) 16:38, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
Trump is only going to care about his base and what plays well with them in the media. He doesn't really care about playing to other demographics, which is actually a rare sign of smart thinking on his part. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:44, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
You know, I've been wondering. Some people voted for Trump because they support federalism (or even state's rights). What do these people think about the situation in LA? GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 10:54, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
In my observation, any American libertarian type (or even one who is maybe not that far along, but still strongly supports more limited / divided government structures) who actually *truly* cares about those sorts of things has long been in the "Never Trump" category. (If they weren't, hopefully they are now.)
Far too many "libertarians" turn... well, authoritarian, actually... when it comes to anyone not in their demographic. (This is basically the neoreactionary movement in a nutshell.) BobJohnson (talk) 12:27, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
If you can find a 'state's rights' right-wing libertarian who lives in a solid Democratic state [let's say, Rhode Island] I seriously advise you to net them, have them stuffed and put in an airtight glass case due to rarity value. Because the vast majority of the time said folks only use the line 'state's rights' as an excuse to disobey/ignore the Federal Govt whenever it does something they personally don't like. Naturally, this excuse doesn't wash if said blue state did the 'disobeying' of a Republican Administration. It's just like the shite KenBot said some six months back or so here; that it would be 'an act of complete perfidy' if any sworn official didn't line up to support the Orange One and his minions to the letter, yet during Biden's time [and I assume during Obama too] was screeching 'don't tread on me' et al. Or the guy who yells 'we won, shut the fuck up' at your face right until the day 'their side' gets thrown out of power via an election, then it's all 'we're disenfranchised!' bellowing and demanding they get the unicorns the losing side promised them. KarmaPolice (talk) 22:07, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
I mean, I'm in a purple city in a red state, and I'm fucking wildly left. I think 'Don't Tread On Me' is equivalent to Habeas Corpus, and I actively listen, so if you really wanted one of those right wing libertarians to fill your pokedex, they exist but they are impossible to capture without solid counters to a lot of extra poison. So I don't think your hunt for a right wing libertarian under your terms is fair, for one, and for two, are you talking to people in the real world? Torrent (talk) 06:51, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
I'm not looking for a right-wing libertarian, I'm looking for one who will with equal energy and determination defend the rights of folks they personally deeply disagree with on the basis they are a libertarian and apply that to all [in this case, defending the 'states rights' of a Democratic state to impose 'state laws' on them that they disagree with]. Not the more usual 'I should do whatever the fuck I like, when I like' variant which [for example] shall demand the ability to shout transphobic shite at you with zero comeback but moans and blocks you if you try to do it back.
A genuine 'let every person seek happiness on their own terms' libertarian I can respect, even if I don't agree with them - like a devout Christian who tries to live up to the tenents of Scripture or the anal 'follow all the rules' sort who applies said rules firmly even when it's against their own interests to do so. They are, if nothing else consistent and attempting to avoid hypocrisy. KarmaPolice (talk) 14:55, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

β”Œβ”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”˜

So, a week in politics is a long time. A weekend has passed. By any reasonable account, the "No Kings" protest was a massive success, cumulatively numbering in the millions. If nothing else, it shows that there are a lot of pissed off people out there. The Trump "military parade", in contrast, was a rather sad failure (to the point where honestly one felt sorry for those in the military participating). Trump literally has no idea why stuff like the Bastille Day military parade he was trying to emulate works.
One that I noticed: from my perspective, "No Kings" was the first big anti-Trump 2.0 protest that got really widespread coverage from the mainstream media. Those who have been paying attention know that there is more far more going on, so it was good to see actual stories on that side this time around. Perhaps the "mainstream media" is finally realizing that the whole sanewashing both-sidesing they've been doing a lot of is not quite such a good idea against an authoritarian-wannabe bully?
Such also came against the backdrop of some rather noticeable authoritarian events, ranging from Kristi Noem's goons handcuffing a Democrat senator, to a loon shooting Democratic politicians. Will this move the needle of any of the "don't cares"? We'll see... BobJohnson (talk) 12:20, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
New Order? Damn near killed Her! TheNFLGuy (talk) 13:15, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Age of Consent[edit]

Does anyone know of a good skewering of the American Libertarian and other right-wingers who are outraged by age-of-consent laws and really want the Internet to know the differences between pedophilia and ephebophilia? We don't seem to cover it so far but I have seen it many times. (Age of consent laws are a juicy ethical topic, but this specific type of person is not making a sophisticated argument, they want wealthy older men to be able to take their pick of women as soon as the women hit puberty).Polydamas (talk) 06:04, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

RationalWiki's article on the age of consent was deleted last year because it was essentially pro-pedophilia. It was likely written by Nathan Larson, a man who died in prison in 2022 after kidnapping a 12-year-old girl. Larson also wrote the article on child pornography. He was allowed to operate on this site for years, many accounts of his only banned after his death. Christopher (talk) 10:36, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
I doubt there's anything formal in study. But it's a well known trope that a section of "American libertarianism" is "cover politics" for privileged white males (often defacto a Fox-style parrot conservative in all other aspects) who nonetheless wants to do things that are illegal. Part of the old "24 types of libertarian" cartoon therefore includes not just the "creepy" pedophile, but also the "stoned" illegal drug user. BobJohnson (talk) 12:10, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
It's difficult to refute an argument when you don't know the key bit it rests on. Why do they say that powerful men should be allowed to trawl senior schools for fuckmates? KarmaPolice (talk) 13:04, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
I link the tweet that reminded me of this under Hereticon. I have also seen libertarians and other right-wingers in the USA who want to decriminalize cartoon and written lolicon.Polydamas (talk) 20:45, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
In that tweet's case, Romeo and Juliet laws already exist to handle cases of near-similar age, like a 15 year old in high school student boinking an 18 year old college student. (If they don't exist in a jurisdiction, IMHO they should.) Move much beyond, this, and, well, you are outside US social norms (with KP and CorruptUser giving some excellent reasons why this is the case, in addition to earlier IMHO rather justifiable moral qualms over child brides and child prostitutes). Like, a 15 year old boinking a 22 year old college senior would have *significant* ick factor for I would say most people. Including, I imagine, most parents.
Stereotypes aren't completely true across the board, but (though I can't find a survey with a percentage) there does seem to be a lot of introvert IT nerds. Cyan Banister is a self-described one from what I can Google. Can't judge on a single tweet, but occasionally this introversion extends towards extreme social norm naivety. Thus, on certain topics like pedophilia, they sometimes "put their foot in their mouth" and get into big trouble. Richard Stallman is an excellent example of this. BobJohnson (talk) 23:35, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
The question "naive or dog whistling?" is so hard to answer without knowing the person that I focus on networks (Max Read suggests this bloodthirsty bluster and this doe-eyed curiosity about brownshirts to understand Bannister's political project). Its also irrelevant unless you know them in person, because the only things knowing whether someone is naive or a villain is useful for are persuading them and making a moral judgement. As we say, when a Nazi sits down at your table and you say nothing, its now a Nazi table. Stallman sounds like a bad example of a naive idealist given that a women said he threatened to hurt himself if she did not date him, and that he set up his life to get money and sex and attention for not much work.Polydamas (talk) 15:51, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
The UK has had a de facto R/J exception for a long time as the police shall usually NFA such cases when alerted to them - there's talk about making this de jure. I know of only one case where a 'technically correct, best kind of correct' line was followed on this - in which it was the mother of [I think] a 15 year-old girl who was screwing her 17/18 year-old [then] boyfriend, via a private prosecution because neither the police or CPS cared. However, while there's merits for this kind of approach there's risks too; too-lax, unofficial R/J schemes are one of the reasons the Rochdale/Rotheram sex rings got so bad and big - too many official safeguarders [such as social workers as well as police] repeatedly NFA'd cases which in the cold light of text really should have been followed up pronto.
Why do I say that? The answer lies with that old British gaping societal sore - class-based adultification and bias. In that almost all of the victims were either 'working class' or 'underclass' and as such, they were assumed to be 'capable of giving consent' [and thus being responsible for their own actions] earlier in life than our middle-class safeguarders would have judged their peer's kids. The class bias was worse; far too many of said kids were seen as 'problematic', 'sluts', 'troublemakers' etc and a wildly disproportionate % of the victims were in LA Care and there was quite a lot of 'bad apples from bad trees, what do you expect?' prejudice going on.
Which is a prime example of why AoC lines are a static line and should have some firmly-marked loopholes - not a sliding scale riddled with adultification and loopholes running on people's biases. KarmaPolice (talk) 14:22, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
AoC is an interesting one because philosophy and ethics have an interesting parallel to financial accounting. When all the finances of a company, organization, country, etc run through a single person with no oversight, the result is almost always the same; levels of embezzlement the average person couldn't even begin to imagine, because that person has no one to tell them "no, your job is not deserving of THAT much wealth". When all morality and ethics flow through a single person, whether on a personal level or as a leader of a group, you'll end up with some version of "some animals are more equal than others".
We don't have an age of consent of 18 (or 16 or 17 depending on state) because it's "unnatural" to find a 17 year old attractive. But grown men trying to seduce young teens is a problem for numerous reasons, and in the US, the original problem that AoC was to solve was grown men impregnating young teens and then leaving them to raise the kid. Later on, AoC solves numerous other problems; young teens don't need to prove they didn't consent to sex in order to prove a rape, for example.
But if you want something, you'll find some way to "justify" it in your mind. So you'll end up with philosophers like Proudhon thinking with their other head and trying to justify lowering the AoC. You'll see rich and famous musicians such as Don Henley, Jimmy Page, etc. being unable to see a problem with abusing a teenager because they want it and they'll find a way to justify it in their minds.CorruptUser 15:46, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
15-18 is not uncommon in Europe. A distinction can be made between two 'late teens' and 'wide age gap', (including formally under age where the issue of active consent is not meaningful). Anna Livia (talk) 18:43, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
It's mentioned in Informed consent. Should be expanded upon, though.
– Regards, Avarice 19:09, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
I would expand this a little wider; that said consent does not just have to be 'informed' and 'an actual choice' when it comes to sexual relationships but said choice needs to be free of not just coercion, but also manipulation - such as love-bombing, bribery and gaslighting. A 15 year old may tick the boxes for being capable of giving 'informed consent' but how free that is when you throw in the possibilities of sexual flattery, 'lavish' gifts, the thrill of 'acting like an adult', hormones and inexperience to see through lies being doled out by someone a decade older? Relations with another 15 year old is different, because the power disparity is much more likely to be narrower.
This reminds me as a greasy teen, when there was always a few 'bit older' folks who always seemed to be hanging about with us [mainly male, but not all!]. I thought it a touch odd even then [if you're 25 why are you hanging out and getting high with sixth-formers?] but I soon clocked that one of the reasons was a fairly solid look for youthful fuckmates. A bit after that I came to realise most of them were 'creepy', 'losers' and/or 'nuts'. I know it's easier to impress a 17 year old with your clapped-out Nova, grotty bedsit and deadend McJob earnings than someone your own age...
Which is why AoC rules are needed. KarmaPolice (talk) 20:54, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
No legal standard worth its salt for informed consent allows manipulation, coercion, or bribery to be compatible with consent. As a example, you couldn’t as a medical doctor in Canada be innocent of battery or assault if it was proven you coerced your patient into agreeing to a surgery you performed.
Interesting to note, some philosophers of sexual ethics argue that framing of such sexual wrongs, such as adults trying to engage sexually with adolescents/children as a violation of consent can/does victimizes the youth further by denying the legitimacy of their own narrative and judgement of the events in question. Philosophers in this camp argue further that such acts should be unacceptable regardless of youth’s capacity to consent to such activities, the wrongness is due to the exploitation and propensity for harm in the act involved. β€” Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 13:11, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
I take it you oppose legalizing prostitution? That's literally bribing for consent. CorruptUser 19:53, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
Except legal systems do allow manipulation/coercion/bribery to function as 'consent' - as long as it follows the guidelines of the law. Compensation for breaches of contract, for example will usually comprise a 'bribe' element to it - like last month when a retailer bribed me Β£30 after having to deal with a defective item. I was bribed to waive my legal rights in a manner permitted by law.
When it comes to sexual activity, there's a bit of a blurred line here. For some time [at least in the UK] the line 'consent is non-negotiable' has been spearheaded. But what does that mean, exactly? Is it that it is 'non-negotiable' to have relations without consent, or is it that consent cannot be gained via 'negotiation'? From what I've seen there's arguments regarding both viewpoints. Clearly, if you have only the first position, that is one less reason to object to prostitution.
Anyways, if you go back to my point I raised above you'll see I wrote 'lavish' gifts. Lavishness is all in the eye of the beholder. And unless things have drastically changed in the last 20 years or so, teenagers are usually eternally short on cash, have little means of earning more and usually have to deal with parents/guardians who aren't inclined to give you new Nikes, new computer games or phone accessories 'just because'. Or willing to get you 'grown up' stuff like sexy underwear or booze. But oddly enough, those 'creeps' I described from my youth were capable of getting these things, for even a McJob provides significantly more disposable cash than a teenager's pocket money - even more so if they come from a poor household. It's why parents are advised to keep an eye out for any unexplained material acquisitions by their kids. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:17, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
I said specifically that "no legal standard worth its salt", as some legal systems also exlclude the possibility of there being such thing as "marital rape". I wouldn't say that such a legal standard that allows a husband to force himself on his wife whenever he pleases without breaking the law is a standard to be worth all that much. I am not sure if the legal concept of "informed consent" that I am referring to here genuinely overlaps with the examples you are talking about. I made specific reference to the Canadian medical system, where "informed consent" is given an explicit definition and set of standards. Ethics boards use similar standards when it comes to conducting research. You also do not have to describe your example again; that is essentially what happened to my biological mother. I am a child of a sex trafficking victim. I think I am way more familiar with these cases than you are. All of those things you mentioned would be something a judge in Canada would consider under charges of "sexual exploitation" under the criminal code. This isn't a novel observation; it is something that NGO's that work to prevent the sex trafficking of children are very well familiar with. It is a very common recruitment tactic by pimps. Police and Judges don't stop to think about whether the gifts provided are truly "lavish" or not; an adult who is buying an adolescent expensive clothes, alcohol, or drugs is already on the radar of committing an indictable offence. Yes, this supports your argument for the importance of AOC laws, but a lot of this also falls under the category of "manipulation". - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 18:42, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
Ok willing to come under fire here, but as I have aged children look more like children to me. My first.sexual activity had a two and a half year age gap the broke the standard, but I was 18 and in love. I got older. I was 26 or 27 and an 18 year old girl told me she LIKE liked me, I told her I couldn't date a girl who can't buy her own alcohol. Three years later, we ran into each other in a pool hall and hooked up, no relationship blossomed. There is so much living left to do after your childhood, anyone between the ages of 19 and 25 are also figuring shit out. Sex and relationships are hard because they are interwoven in a biological way. I been with some weird girls my age, but you know what I never got out of it? Children or an STI. Condoms, condoms, condoms, birth control if you can afford it, sex education, sex education, sex education. The age of consent really matters when adults take advantage of children. But, I do understand babies are gonna do the hormone thing and make babies. Because kids are dumb and beholden to fantasies. If you're an adult, you should be able to recognise a kid is a kid before it gets to sex. Torrent (talk) 05:57, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

AssataShakur, and any other sites like it?[edit]

Here is the thing. After clicking on an random page, I found an article for a black supremacist forum called "AssataShakur", which was named after a murderer, who is still wanted. The thing that interested me was it basically being stormfront but not white. Still as insane though! Is there any other forums like this for other races, so prove that craziness and racism is in everyone? I don't support racism BTW. ResurrectingDeadLinks (talk) 04:03, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Racism is learned, not innate. Antares (talk) 04:53, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
Arguably the psychology motivating black supremacy is different from the motivations of white supremacy. Both could be looked at as arising due to a particular set of socio-cultural histories, but with white supremacy the motivation is more so to rationalize having treated and continuing to treat other races as either sub-human or as property. Black supremacy seems to have been born out of having been oppressed in the oppressor/oppressed dynamic, a natural distrust and cynicism would result, but the political response is starkly reactionary. The desire to establish an ethnostate as sanctuary, with some historical revision motivated from conspiratorial thinking to boot. It’s still reactionary and racist for sure, but I don’t think it is quite equivalent to the politics of white supremacy in terms of motivations, and threat to existing democratic norms. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 13:27, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
Re: Antares, Ethnocentrism seems universal, although the rationalizations (eg. "we are the superior race because of the colour of our skin" or "we are superior because we worship the one true god the right way") vary. RationalWiki is Amerocentric but we have an Indian alt-right glossary and information on crazy nationalists and racists in various countries.Polydamas (talk) 15:33, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
Hindutva? KarmaPolice (talk) 15:25, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
If it was truly universal, everyone would be racist. Not everyone is racist. Therefore, racism isn't universal. And don't underplay the influence of culture here. Like OSD wrote above, black supremacy derives from a different set of circumstances than white supremacy does. You can also see cultural variation in those various reactionary movements around the globe you bring up. It turns out the reason that is is because you need to be taught to hate specific designated others. Antares (talk) 15:48, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
Ethnocentrism is universal like theft, in that every culture has people who tell you that they and their way of doing things are superior, just like every culture has people who take things that do not belong to them. That does not mean that every single person is ethnocentric.Polydamas (talk) 16:04, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
That claim is an unverifiable assertion. Without canvassing every single culture that has ever existed throughout the hundreds of thousands of years our species has been around, there is no way to prove such a claim. An easier statement to prove would be that racism is common. That still doesn't refute the fact that racism and other forms of bigotry are still taught. Let's say I was Russian. I would have to be taught to hate Ukrainians. That specific hatred doesn't come naturally. It's cultural. Antares (talk) 16:20, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
I think we're in a distinction without a difference territory here; in that while 'racism' is not universal or hardwired it appears elements of xenophobia and neophobia is. That often, this xenophobia is then expressed in racial terms because it makes it really easy to see Them, exp if you know people 'who look like X' don't hail from your locality. This follows through to Dumb's argument regarding the historical background/origins/motivations of say, black supremacy - if you hold that one ethnic group's achievements/culture/nature/etc are inherently superior, that's racism. It doesn't matter one jot if said group in the past was oppressed, exploited or decimated by others - two wrongs don't make a right, just like the raging misandry seen in say, female supremacy end of feminism [qv: TERFs] can be understood as being majorly caused by male misogyny but cannot be excused by that. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:21, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
I have seen suggestions that fear of disease is a possible major motivational factor for racism. Honestly, I would actually buy that this might even be a bit of a "hardwired" trait, as part of an instinctive "fear of the unknown". For the disease part, this wasn't even completely wrong before modern medicine! (Modern vaccination development, with a few exceptions, only got going in the early 20th century. A blink in the eye of human history.)
That doesn't mean, of course, that racism isn't mostly a learned cultural and societal structural thing. It is. But there might be some base instincts lurking in the autopilot part of the brain that help drive it along. BobJohnson (talk) 17:49, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
There are (source). Of course, as you yourself point out, that doesn't change the fact that racism is a largely cultural phenomenon. Antares (talk) 17:54, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
I theorise that xenophobia/neophobia is at least partly 'hardwired' in humans, in the respect said traits are also seen in other intelligent species such as wolves, corvids, rats, dolphins etc. When you consider it, this makes sense from an evolutionary level - 'fear of outsiders' can protect you from rivals while 'fear of the unknown' can protect you from disease, poisoning etc - clear evolutionary bonuses. I've seen it argued that said traits are also most likely to be at their lowest during the juvenile phase of existence; this would be again an evolutionary bonus because you need to find an outsider to mate with and you need to head into the unknown to build your own nest. These traits would [and did] serve our ancestors well until we started living in groups larger than, say a hundred. Which was about 10,000 years ago. Sounds a lot until you remember that's only ~600 generations of human between us and the first Neolithic settlements like Jericho. Not a lot of elbow-room in evolutionary terms. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:34, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
[EC] In-group/out-group effects may be universal in a limited sense, let’s us call it β€œweak universalism”, but the effects are by no means inevitable or irreversible (let’s us call the assumption that they are inevitable β€œstrong universalism”). While there is evidence to support the former, there is evidence also to contradict the strong claim. Support for the strong claim, which leans heavily into a kind of bio-determinism, is rarely ideologically neutral. Racism itself is not simply prejudice against a perceived outsider, but is itself an ideology. Ideologies do not and cannot exist in a cultural vacuum. They are always socially/culturally contingent.
@KarmaPolice I think you misunderstood the point being made. No one was saying that black supremacy wasn’t racist or was morally acceptable. You’re point seems to be based in abstracting from the particulars of the ideologies in question, which is fine, but only if our interest is to simply not have detailed knowledge about the particular content or cultural significance of these ideologies in question. A history of oppression definitely informs the rhetoric of black nationalist groups and figures. Look at some of Malcom X’s early speeches before he moved away from black nationalism. For racial minorities, a narrative of persecution isn’t difficult to factually support, and this makes there claims seem all the more compelling to those who are sympathetic to it. Look at white nationalist groups and a narrative of persecution almost always has to be fabricated (i.e. white genocide), though they often present such narratives with the intent to bullshit (in the Frankfurt sense of the term). Often White nationalists/supremacists do not actually think of oppression as being immoral, and they tend to focus more on a narrative of cultural degeneracy or a fall from grace. Black supremacy/nationalism is still no doubt racist, reactionary, nationalistic, hyper-patriarchal, antisemitic, and homophobic. All morally unacceptable things. But such ethnonationalism is niche even among such minority groups. White supremacy on the other hand, is something that is already entrenched systematically through the history of legislation and public policy in countries like the United States, Canada, Sweden, etc. Acknowledging the non-equivalence does not mean we cannot still be absolutists about the moral unacceptability of racism in any form. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 18:43, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
Racism is not a scientific term. Therefore to speak of racism in terms of innate characters can be misleading. I think it is well accepted that it is probable that people will mate with those who resemble themselves, sometimes called Positive Assortative Mating. This can look like racism and involve selection. Certainly the belief that PAM should be enforced looks a lot like racism (at least to me it does). I see this as the main problem preventing the elimination of racism. For example, if you travel to Japan and become involved with a Japanese person, you will likely meet people who resent your presence in Japan. Zatoichi (talk) 00:30, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
I think we need to be careful to not mix up 'seperatism' and 'supremacy'. Malcom X, for example I regard as the former, not the latter. You complain that 'I'm abstracting' but I say it's vital because you cannot simply make up a load of termanology etc to merely fit your one situation, rather than my attempt to make more general ones which fit many situations. If nothing else, it makes a better, more useful glass to use when looking at other situations.
The crux of the issue is that whenever a minority group speaks of 'separatism' it is usually the result of a pragmatic [and perhaps depressing] conclusion that integration with the majority is impossible. The Jews of Central Europe were a subject lesson in this; that it did not matter to the antisemites that you dressed in formal suits, loved Beethoven, had medals from the Kaiser, went drinking with your Gentile co-workers and only turn up to the synagogue for a Bar Mitzvah or Yom Kippur - you were a Jew and met the same fate as the most hoary kippah-wearing bearded, devout Rabbi. Sometimes this belief in separatism can be for more neutral reasons; for example due to generational exogamy rates and lack of 'new blood' from the Old Countries, it appears [if current rates continue] 'British [black] Caribbean' will cease to be a distinctive group by the 2060s and there's an element within said community don't like the idea that their cultural identity ending up as nothing more as 'just another flavour' in the mainline British melting-pot. And I can see their POV on this - but I can also see how demands of 'we need more black babies' can also come over as racist [similar to how the campaigns of minorities to 'support minority businesses' can seem as both a) a self-strengthening movement and b) racist.].
The issue is that when a majority/dominant group speaks of separatism it always means expulsion of minorities [often via compulsion] from the main body, rather than said minorities choosing off their own bat to move to a real/imagined/planned 'homeland' to go it alone. And almost invaribly the demands for expulsion ends up in beliefs of superiority; that the majority/dominant believes they would be better off without the minorities. And centuries of experience teaches us that when variants of 'seperate but equal' end up appearing [be it in Isreal, the USA, South Africa etc] it always ends up with the minorities being shunted onto the poor wastelands - so it's a very good rule of thumb to be very suspicious of any group with power advocating separatism because it's normally a cover for supremacists. KarmaPolice (talk) 14:35, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Main antagonist of my novel I am working on.[edit]

My main antagonist will be a group of TERFs. They will release the zombie plague. --Trans Fem Agenda\

Sounds like a good idea! Maybe they do it because a trans person said that zombies aren't real? Koafox (talk) 19:11, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Brian Wilson is dead[edit]

The Beach no longer has its Boy. Antares (talk) 02:38, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

RIP, but why did you choose such a corny last line for him? Something respectful would be "I hope that his family can still find positivity after this."ResurrectingDeadLinks (talk) 02:46, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
I'll contact his family and let them know you rectified this, thank you. Torrent (talk) 06:48, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
You should make amends to his relatives in Aruba, Jamaica, Bermuda, Bahama, Key Largo, Montego... CorruptUser 16:48, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
Brian Wilson just wasn't made for these times.
(Kokomo is more the Mike Love side of things, for what it is worth.) BobJohnson (talk) 19:01, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Joe Biden and the non-existent 'curtailment' of Israel.[edit]

For some reason I got into an argument with a stupid person. They claimed that Joe Biden tried his best to curtail and retrain Israel, this holds the same amount of water as claiming a guy who helped a murderer hide the bodies of his victims, and gave him a bunch of knifes to murder people with tried his best to prevent him from killing more people. I don't know why certain centrists and liberals are incapable of admitting that Joe Biden enabled a genocide. A somebody. (talk) 01:15, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

A key tenet of the Trump era Democratic party is that criticizing liberals from the left is literally Hitler, especially if it's an election year. The impulse that alows moderate dems to ignore Gaza is the same thing that causes republicans to insist the Trump tariffs are the greatest thing that ever happened to the economy.-Flandres (talk) 03:35, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
Not so sure about that. Think it's been a mainline Democrat policy for 30 years is that anything further 'left' than Third Way is 'electoral suicide' aka the believed electoral group is so tiny it's not worth having. It's all about our hallowed centrist 'floating voter', and they'd be scared witless if any policy even gives the vague impression of spilling their drink. Normally, this works - but on a rare occasion, a 'leftie' cause hits the consciousness of the Big Public [or at least an electorally significant chunk of it] which means 'stately ignoring' won't cut it no more. Enter 'he means well'.
Thoughts and prayers/regret for the situation/urge restraint/[Bromide #45]/etc. If pressed, offer to 'help mediation' or similar. Sad face, sombre tie. Voice like background music, the 'this is bad, we'll try to help' vibes washing over you. Repeat record so many times even a deafblind hermit in the Yukon has heard it. But they sound so sincere, they must mean it, are going to do something about it... right? Nope. The only change is the facade, and even then it will be so mild when you actually think it through you realise it's barely worth mentioning [Gaza is a bit different in this respect is that Bibi and co are so nuts that the mildest admonishment makes them fly off the handle].
The hope is that you get the impression things are being done to 'fix it' and then it drops off the news-cycle and thus, your brain. That if you somehow resist this forgetting, you then remember the record and conclude that it wasn't their fault they failed, but they'd tried and they had meant well. On closer inspection this rarely holds up [qv: Biden breaking up the arms to Bibi into penny-packets so he didn't need to go through Congress and thus, raise attention to it] but how many people bother doing that? KarmaPolice (talk) 10:00, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
The delicate political situation for the Democrats, in Biden's time and now, is this: the Democratic Party coalition consists of both pro-Palestine activists, and pro-Israeli activists. Of which the later are more numerous. (It's much easier for the Republicans. They've got plenty of gung-ho uber-Zionists, fundamentalist Christians, and racists who currently are eager to deport as many pro-Palestinian activists as they can merely for being pro-Palestinian. They have very little of the other side.)
The second "political problem" is this: if the more absolutist side of Palestine (and some other Islam nations) had equal armament power, and the most hardline were in charge, we would likely not be looking at the current "Israel commits genocide against Palestine" situation. Instead, we would be looking at a "total war" situation where the hardest of both sides would be absolutely eager to wipe out the other side from the face of the planet. "Have Israel lay on its back and let Hamas and all the other Islamic countries run over it" isn't going to be very politically popular... especially among pro-Zionists. (Of course, what Netanyahu is doing, that is, engaging in ethnic cleansing in Gaza, is not very popular either... particularly among pro-Palestinian activists.)
At least politically, many eyes are on Israel now (along with many eyes on Ukraine, which some have also labeled a genocide). Pity the Uyghurs, who aren't being talked about by anyone in Western media anymore. Pity even more the Rohingya and Masalit; Mynamar and Sudan are just too "politically un-important" in the West for anyone to bat an eye. So it goes. BobJohnson (talk) 13:38, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
The majority of Democratic voters are more sympathetic to Palestine than they are to Israel ([3]). The problem is that the Democratic Establishment is firmly Zionist. The party doesn't really give a shit about the opinions of its base. I also don't think the majority of pro-Palestinian activists are demanding that Hamas have equal armament with Israel. That's absurd. What we argue for, in respect to the genocide at least, is conditioning of aid so that American munitions are not being used to conduct a genocide. Biden was more than capable of doing that. But he didn't. Antares (talk) 14:24, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
Let's put it another way: if Biden eased American munitions... and then, a terrorist attack then occurred on Israel shortly after... he would've been in a heap of political trouble. Especially a year ago.
The problem with this obsession with Joe Biden is that the past is the past and "a week in politics is a long time", let alone 8 months. I have no idea what a president Kamala Harris would have done in the current climate, and we will never find out. In the West as a whole, support for Israel has dramatically declined this year, for obvious reasons. The poll you linked to even shows this. We know what Donald Trump is going to do because of who is in the Republican coalition; the more interesting actions will be what the European leaders do now. BobJohnson (talk) 15:54, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
Now we have the giga-instigator as POTUS. I suppose if Bernie had been POTUS and had cut off Israel he would have been impeached. Probably convicted. Hard to tell really.Zatoichi (talk) 17:06, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
@A somebody. Because Biden represents a stable status quo that they're emotionally invested in rather than acknowledging the chaotic flux of politics. Personally I blame Christianity. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:26, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
Not that Biden would ever had considered any alternative to arming Israel to the teeth and generally looking the other way with slight interspersions of tut tutting, but let’s say he actually had wanted to curtail the arms flow and decided not to due to the potential political blowback from some future terrorist attack.
The problem with using this as an argument is that no matter how many arms Biden would’ve agreed to deliver, he would still be called a Palestinian sympathiser who stabbed poor plucky Israel in the back once that terrorist attack happened (itself almost a certainty over a four year presidential term, especially given the prevalent situation in Israel/Palestine).
I’m so tired of this β€œblowback argument” being used to claim that it’s impossible for the DNC/neoliberal/Third Way faction in control of the Democratic Party to do X, Y, and Z, because the Democrats are going to get this blowback no matter what. Look at the BS about the Harris campaign being β€œtoo woke”, Trump calling Biden β€œa Palestinian” etc. etc.
The point is that the β€œblowback argument” doesn’t hold up, because refraining from advocating for or pursuing the policies in question doesn’t actually prevent the blowback, as the GOP and its media network will simply make shit up and call Democrats Marxist, terrorist sympathisers, woke, pro immigration, soft on crime, spendthrift-yet-underfunding-the-military and so forth, no matter what.
I find it highly implausible that, by now, those DNC/Third Way types using the β€œblowback argumentβ€œ haven’t figured out that it doesn’t actually work, which means that it’s a bad faith argument made in lieu of actually having to argue why they simply don’t want to pursue the policies in question.
It’s a deflection that provides the illusion that these DNC’ers/Third Way’ers really would like to do something and are only restrained by this potential blowback. It also dovetails nicely with their general β€œI’d really like to help you, but no just can’t”-attitude of feigned helplessness on all the policy areas they really don’t want to be part of the political conversation. ScepticWombat (talk) 07:06, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
The reason Joe Biden didn't cut off arms to Israel is because he is a deeply committed Zionist and a racist who views Palestinians as less human than Israelis, not because of some hypothetical blowback because of an even more hypothetical terrorist attack. A somebody. (talk) 19:50, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
How convenient. The world is the way it is because of evil men. The problem may be that power makes men appear to be evil, mostly because they don't really have the power you imagine them to have. People with strong moral feelings, like Christians, believe in free will. Without free will, all these moral arguments become unsound. Zatoichi (talk) 13:45, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

β”Œβ”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”˜ Trump vetoed an Israeli plan to assassinate Khameini. If Trump could tell Israel "no," then Biden could've told Israel no. He didn't, and now he has the blood of 50k dead Palestinians on his hands. Antares (talk) 21:33, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

If Trump could tell Israel no, then what? The man who produced more falsehoods than anyone in history said that did he? You can believe that if it comforts you. Israel denies it. They are also liars. People believe what they want to believe. This has nothing to do with the previous presidency. Zatoichi (talk) 22:30, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
I think Wombat has hit the nail on the head; that in both the USA and UK [cannot comment on other nations due to lack of knowledge] that anyone 'of the left' [in this case, 'further left' than the Republican/Conservative position] gets shit on by both sides. That any criticism [however reasonable, polite and muted] shall be siezed on by the right as being extreme and unacceptable etc [in this case, 'being pro-Hamas' etc] while it ends up fucking off the left because they can see how timid and frankly useless said criticisms were.
This strategy made more sense [in general terms] in say, the 90s when a) the 'left parties' were genuinely more left and b) the 'right parties' were not so nuts - they were [generally] correct in their 'let's cut the difference?' policies to attempt to get stuff moving. Problem is, the right has gone utterly nuts and now is openly reactionary, while the official left is very status quo. Which leads to the utter insanity of 'cutting the difference' now means retrograde steps, like with Starmer re-instituting official transphobia [shunting the legal position back to about 2000]. Give me a political position and you'll see this in action. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:25, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Why isn't there an article on Aba And Preach.[edit]

I feel like that they should really have an article on here and that they would fit in with an the Fresh And Fit article. Here's a video of there's too reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6PajaCfFGg Apparently, they also have a problem with FD Signifier, saying he gate keeps Black Culture. 1.43.236.241 (talk) 16:34, 13 June 2025 (UTC)Irony-Man.

Go ahead and write an article on them. The only thing I know about Fresh and Fit and Aba & Preach is that they hate each other. Zatoichi (talk) 16:57, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
Aba and Preach aren't relevant anymore, and when they were, all they did was talk about how the way they looked made them a target in quebec and then immediatly targeted people they disagreed with and used insults based on the way they looked. TheNFLGuy (talk) 13:19, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

The Roy Jay Theory[edit]

There has been a recent theory on 4chan about a British comedian named Roy Jay being fake. They say that he is either AI (which is partially true, videos of him have used AI upscalling for audio/visuals), or (you can guess) connected to (((ZIIIIIIJJJJJOOOOOOOOOOOOSSSSS))). But then again, everything that 4chan finds odd/bad is secretly Jew-related. I would like to see other users opinion of this theory. ResurrectingDeadLinks (talk) 23:05, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

I think I can speak for many of us, and by extension the amount of import said many would assign this 'theory', when I ask "Who?" Because I'm going to wager that most of us who exist outside of the UK have neither any idea who this is, nor any real interest in him.
About as much interest as anything else that crawls out of 4chan, really. Which is pretty damn close to none. Kencolt (talk) 08:44, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, I have no idea who he was. I say "was" because per the Wiki he's been dead for 18 years. Also his career seems (per the Wiki) relatively minor and confined to the early 1980s.
There is no Jew thing in the Wiki article. The only thing that this *might* confirm is that 4chan is aging, and now largely consists of Boomers and Gen-Xers who would actually remember this shit. BobJohnson (talk) 15:37, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
You speak for me, at least. I had no idea who this guy was until yesterday, when I found an old Reddit thread on him. The "theory" pops up in the most recent comments, BTW. Antares (talk) 15:45, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

New RW project in the works[edit]

Draft:Classical Education

I am spearheading the initiative for an article on Classical Education and its variant Classical Christian Education. --Trans Fem Agenda 23:34, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

It's a red link. Duncan from Teflpedia (talk) 04:41, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
Draft:Classical education. Antares (talk) 13:37, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

British sense of humour[edit]

BBC news reporter of the 250th anniversary of the US Army parade and the weather. 'I won't joke about it raining on Donald Trump's parade?'

So what will happen on USA at 250 4 July 2026? 'Confound their politics/ Frustrate their knavish tricks.'? Anna Livia (talk) 22:50, 14 June 2025 (UTC)Lord, make the nations see/ That men should brothers be.

'Our parade was better than yours!' KarmaPolice (talk) 14:38, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
Making Trump's spectacle a little sadder: There was actually a "No Kings" protest held in London and several other cities internationally (largely those with US expats, as Democrats Abroad did the organizing).
(The name was changed to "No Tyrants" or "No Clowns" in the UK and Canada, of course, because no one wants to mix up a protest of the Orange Mussolini with ol' King Charles.)
I think it's almost a given that Trump will do his darndest to try and politicize the semiquincentennial. July 4th celebrations however are largely planned on a city / state level. By and large, therefore, I would expect that only the most stupidly MAGA places will be politicalized, if at all. The rest will be a lot of the usual: historical mythos re-enactments of the American Revolution, fireworks, and various little "patriotism" things like American flags up the wazoo.
(The more interesting "hmm..." to me is Stephen Miller and his merry racist Gestapo vs. the 2026 FIFA World Cup) BobJohnson (talk) 15:36, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
Wonder what Ian Paisley senior (of the Orange Order/'the bowler hatted ones') would have said about the Orange Don. IP did have a sense of humour. Anna Livia (talk) 19:47, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Father's Day is tomorrow[edit]

I think I have a generally good relationship with my father. He is pretty laid back and charismatic, I at least got the laid back trait from him. My mom is out of town and my brother is going to my sister in law's folks'. Which leaves me visiting my dad alone. There's a bunch of reasons I'm excited for this, and a couple reasons I'm dreading it. But one thing I've been taught about dread and feeling overwhelmed is, I can take it, and I believe in myself. His father, my Papa, had immense charisma, just gave people big strong hugs and said 'I love you' like it wasn't hard. Taught me to do a crossword with a pen, because I was a puzzles kid. and he saw value and humanity in a broad scope and could narrow it down to make everyone know that they are important. My dad does a similar thing, maybe I would have an easier time seeing it if he wasn't my dad. I want to tell him I love him, but that's also inherently expressed in our relationship. We don't hug and we don't cry and we don't say 'I love you.' So it would be out of character for me to just hug him and say I love him. Which makes it harder. He is Papa now to my niece and nephew, and I am an adult son. I'm maybe just spilling my guts here, but I mean, it's easier for me to be vulnerable here than in front of the man who raised me. I can't be the only one. Torrent (talk) 03:17, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

So I did go see my father, I watched golf with him, asked if England and Scotland don't use the union jack because they golf independently, and he was like 'huh. Guess I never thought about it.'. We did not hug and we did not say 'I love you'. Y'all are never gonna believe this, but I also ran into a friend of mine late tonight, known him for fifteen years and lived with him for one. We talked about father's day a little bit, I asked him about his cats, they are still alive, but it was late, so he told me so and I can take a hint. I told him flat Out 'Hey, I couldn't say this to my dad, but I love ya man' and gave him a big hug which cracked him up but he gave me a big hug back. so, not much ventured, but something gained. Torrent (talk) 08:28, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

What do you think of the Youtuber Patience Xina.[edit]

Here are some of her video's: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDlhejhp2ZY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nryE5tfKuI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipz2gDtFNf0 The comments under her video's also interest me.

1.43.236.241 (talk) 13:30, 15 June 2025 (UTC)Irony-Man.

Pretty bog-standard YouTube social commentary. Nothing wrong with it, but she doesn't appear to stand out from the crowd. 186k subscribers is pretty good, though. By the way, the plural of video is videos. Duncan from Teflpedia (talk) 12:35, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Vance Boelter[edit]

The Minnesota terrorist seems to have shared some traits with mall ninja/whacker culture. I was thinking about adding him to one or both articles, but neither has any IRL examples sections.

Worth it or nah?

From the WAPO: "The gunman was said to have been dressed as a law enforcement officer and opened fire on the actual police officers who were called to Hortman’s home after she was shot ... A black SUV that was altered to look like a police vehicle β€” complete with emergency lights and a license plate that read β€œPOLICE” β€” was towed away from Hortman’s home Saturday"

Hope y'all are well.

RagingHippie (talk) 21:08, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

apparently he was an Evangelical Christian. More proof that Evangelicals are wastes of flesh who are all inherently evil. β€œstop generalizing” doesn’t help when a literal religious cult wants anyone who isn’t in their ideology dead. it’s another example of evangelicals are fascists. fuck nationalism and fascism Rolling with it (talk) 04:49, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
I am sure I am gonna have to hear about him being a Radical leftist. An evangelical Christian with a private security business who has worked internationally in business security and targeted democrats is a radical leftist because of the most obvious police plant of 'no kings' 'Flyers' and previous work with the government, including Democrats. Man shot at police and ran for his life and wasn't chased as a danger at large. https://www.ketv.com/article/forgiveness-for-farrah-police-chief-speaks-at-funeral-for-17-year-old-involved-in-a-shootout-with-his-officers/35802002 I've been to the funeral of somebody who wasn't in their right mind and and fired on police. I knew the kid, not well, but she was kinda my responsibility for a short time and it weighs heavily on me. I never told her anything political, I just encouraged her to come to work as often as she could and took her seriously when ahe.couldn't come due to court or counseling. You can watch this kid die, chased by police and killed in a 'shootout' on body cam footage. You could do it within like the day after it happened. Methamphetamines, youth, anger. What the fuck is this guy's excuse, and why does he get to run away? He has a fake police car in the sense that private security drives fake police cars. The 'no kings' flyers in the back are so phony. Nobody is handing out printer paper, even conspiracies agree that n95 masks are bought and paid for. But somebody will definitely say 'this guy is actually a leftist' And I will have to stay quiet. They are not paying me, I have to work with them, I can't be everyone's enemy, these are people who actually like videos of ICE detaining laborers who, despite any legal status, in my opinion are American workers. I saw a poster on a bridge that said 'Deport invaders' today. Chase a dumbass little kid until you have to shoot her, and let a fucking maniac in his 50s just run away. Cops are cowards, scared of a man who looks like them, and no way was anyone at a 'no kings' rally about to shake a piece of printer paper. But again, I guarantee I will hear someone say he's an extreme leftist. Torrent (talk) 05:54, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
MAGA propagandists have already tried to play the "he worked for Tim Walz's government therefore he's a radical leftist!" line. Which sounds ridiculous if you have a working brain.
I'm seeing some reports that in reality, the guy actually was largely a food worker and much of his security company front was a sham (though he had worked at a security firm as a director of some sort, possibly giving him access to some of the gear). So yes, basically a "mall ninja" in the flesh. The reports of him being a missionary evangelical preacher do seem to pan out (the CNN story mentions that he had trouble holding regular jobs because he did a lot of traveling to Africa to preach). BobJohnson (talk) 13:03, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
I’m not sure the No Kings flyers are phoney. Yes, people still hand out flyers and given the decentralised, fragmented and bottom-up character of No Kings organising, it’s hardly a stretch to suppose that someone did actually made some amateurish, handwritten flyers to advertise/remind people of the event.
But if the flyers are indeed genuine, what does that say? It seems a fairly ridiculous suggestion to me to automatically jump from the presence of such flyers to the conclusion that this represents the shooter’s sympathy with the event. It may just as well chime with the caution to the various Minnesota No Kings demonstrations that they might be targets. And the same goes for the comparison to some contrived false flag operation. Hell, I would expect a deliberate police false flag or plant to look more convincing than this.
It’s hardly unknown for these kinds of attackers/terrorists to have β€œopposition material” with them, either. Or it might even be the shooter’s own amateurish attempt at playing the false flag game (but again, I’d expect a deliberate attempt at a false flag gambit to look a bit more convincing than this, even if it’s by some mall ninja).
Yet another option might be that the hand-written β€œNo Kings” slogans on the flyers could be the shooter’s attempt at appropriating the slogan with the β€œKings” being the likes of his victims. Come to think of it, that would actually fit well with the ludicrous persecution complex and conspiracy theories pushed by even β€œmainstream” GOP politicians these days. ScepticWombat (talk) 19:12, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
So, on the flyers, when I say ' obvious police plant' I mean this guy Boelter did it himself. They are not all hand drawn unless he is an impeccable font master, they are photocopies or printed. It also turns out that he didn't shoot at police, they watched him enter a home that they went to protect, and as he entered and opened fire inside the home the police stood back, which I can understand why a police officer wouldn't open fire on the face of a house, because when they do that shit innocent people die [4] It also turns out, they had a chance to stop him, but they were completely bamboozled, not unlike that guy in Nova Scotia who could have been stopped but wasn't[5] because the guy looked like a cop. I am not of the opinion that police need to be militarized. But one, they are, and two, they seem to pick and choose when they want to engage as if it's a job that allows that. Torrent (talk) 05:12, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
Wombat is correct; it's dangerous to leap to conclusions on the basis of one piece of evidence - we all have things in our posession which if taken alone [or in a tiny selected group] can paint a very different narrative to reality. I personally have enough to paint me as a far-right conspiracy theorist with a martial/survivalist bent, if you wished to. Clearly, this narrative only holds up if you ignore the massive bulk of the evidence which points to me not being any of these. I don't approve the moves to instantly write this off as 'a police plant' either; not only do I have the similar belief that if it was a plant it would be more than just this [though I do have a tendency to over-estimate Authority's competence levels] but it can look bad to 'neutrals' that you'll being as bad as the MAGAs in jumping to conclusions without any actual evidence [though it has to be said 'finding evidence' of police planting of evidence is in it's very nature difficult to get]. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:07, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
I mean, I don't own guns, but I own a lot of camping gear because I did backwoods camping with some friends years ago, so I could be spun as homeless. I also have a car that doesn't quite run right yet, but my solutions are also very much DIY that, if you didn't know me, would probably make me look like I was living out of the thing. A decade ago, between places, I crashed some couches and always helped pay for rent, and it wasn't even as nice a car to 'live out of.' But when I get it going without the upkeep, it will be good to go on tour. My dream is to go stormchasing with it, not to drive into a tornado, but to help with first response in communities hit with emergency supplies and the ability to drive very fast with enough space to load anyone injured. I also want to convert it to biodiesel, but that's in odds with the idea of driving it distances. I am an avowed peacenik, communities hit by tornadoes aren't at war with the weather. but it's kinda a confluence of DIY fixes and survivalism that would make this vehicle look like I planned to live in or out of it. Torrent (talk) 07:45, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

πŸ’ƒπŸ½ Happy NHAI is a bust day! πŸ•ΊπŸ½[edit]

I put a counter on the article for Natural History of Ashkenazi Intelligence (NHAI) to keep track of how long it has been since the paper for NHAI, written by racist Gregory Cochran and white nationalist Henry Harpending, was published. As of today it has been 20 years. Steven Pinker claimed it would be easy to test - so why has it never been tested? I'll tell you why - because it's a total failure and never had any actual evidence to back it. It was always just wishful thinking on the part of hereditarians - but that didn't stop Pinker, NYTimes columnist Nicholas Wade, professional racist Steve Sailer, Scott Alexander and many others from promoting it as much as possible. Charlatans! Pinkerite (talk) 00:35, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

What's your point? They were wrong? Scientists are wrong every day. If nothing came of it, whatever it was, why bring it up?Zatoichi (talk) 14:12, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
My point is evident in my comment, including a link to the NHAI article for more details, so I'm not sure how you missed it. Pinkerite (talk) 17:20, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
Cochran is a physicist. He tends to be... rather out of his league... on other subjects.
What I would love to see: a study comparing "cultural importance of education of certain cognitive skills required for IQ test" vs. "performance on so-called IQ tests". This could get especially interesting if the cognitive skills are adjusted as best one could with what cognitive skills are emphasized in a particular culture, because that certainly is a thing... both in IQ test design and in education systems. (Not the easiest thing to analyze, I'll admit!)
I have never seen a study like this. (Probably because doing it well would be hard!) But you see a lot of race-based shit around these parts. (Probably because it is self-serving and easy.)
My "armchair guess" is that there is far more correlation on education / training vs on such a nebulous concept as "race". (Especially when the folks that promote this shit really go broad. Like, do scientific racist realize just how many fuckin' cultures "white" covers?)
I mean, one problem with this theoretical study: from my understanding, it is mainly Western cultures are particularly concerned about "IQ tests". Which, er, kind of proves the point right there if my understanding is right... BobJohnson (talk) 19:59, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Conceiving an idea of a really bad story[edit]

I came from List of countries that prohibit identifying as the gender assigned at birth. I have been seriously thinking of including it in an upcoming novel. Not a country, but some mad scientist-type organisation dedicated to extrasolar space travel.

物灡 (talk) 07:18, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

I have watched some K-dramas - there is the concept of 'νƒœλͺ… ( taemyung)' - and the ancient Chinese practice of being given a new given name on becoming adult/courtesy names: while in European stories about interacting with the Fae and others one is not supposed to give one's real name/certain things and entities are referred to by by-names (eg the Greek Furies being referred to as 'the Kindly Ones'). Would these ideas suit your story? Anna Livia (talk) 10:33, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
I think this is goofing, but really hard to tell if 'Mad Scientist' is taking TERF seriously or not because Poe. I am legitimately proud that [this https://imgur.com/a/0FLGW6t] took me less than 5 minutes to draw and upload, and I see no reason to improve upon it because I'm not taking this post seriously. if I should be taking it seriously, give me more than a vague idea. if it is a mean goof, don't take up space for that. There is a reason it's OK to do sometimes, and a big part of it is getting ripped apart and still coming back with some substance. So I'm not really worried whether this is a mean joke or an actual attempt to give us a heads up about a project. Give me something better than this either way. Torrent (talk) 08:44, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

I made a new YouTube video[edit]

https://youtu.be/U7G4IRgaITE?si=JUSE_8M5Vur5wANu

Tell me what you think. --Trans Fem Agenda 21:33, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Beef ain't my bread and racial overtones definitely are not my butter. I think your card is good, your disclaimer is fine, but I wouldn't go with this. You could choose any clip to interrupt with nonsense EAS. I like the nonsense EAS. Aside from that, tapping out, I don't like where this has gone. Torrent (talk) 05:10, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

What do you guys think.[edit]


Writing Logical Fallacies essay without latin BS[edit]

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/User:Luhanopi/Logical_fallacies

what do yall think — Unsigned, by: Luhanopi / talk / contribs

The latin-names come from the historical fact that philosophy was largely written in latin since the scholastic period up until the enlightenment. The purpose was to make philosophy legible by specialists in the discipline across national borders. It was similar to the current latin naming conventions used within science today. Though philosophy was going beyond naming conventions, some remnants of commonly used latin and greek phrases within philosophy persist to this day. Fallacious argument forms are part of the study of philosophy, and that is why so many fallacies have latin names. They already have English translations, and I don’t really see the appeal of trying abolish the latin names when you’ll have to teach the latin names anyway when having university students read philosophical texts. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 05:16, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
But the names are not understandable by people with nil knowledge oh philosophy. "when you’ll have to teach the Latin names anyway when having university students read philosophical texts" - the aim is not to teach univerity students studying philosophy, and the English translations commonly used either contain unnecessary references to anecdote or unnecessary Latin- or Greek- originated wordings. Luhanopi (talk) 10:17, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
also, the definition you provided for logical fallacies in your essay is a bit confused. You seem to be rolling formal and informal fallacies together under one definition but informal fallacies have nothing to do with logical validity. Also, not all logically invalid argument forms are strictly fallacious. That is only the case if they are intended as a deductive argument,
"not all logically invalid argument forms are strictly fallacious" - tell me more — Unsigned, by: Luhanopi / talk / contribs
By the account of logical fallacy provided, probabilistic induction as used in science would be fallacious. Making it so only deductively sound arguments are non-fallacious is way too strict a standard. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 05:25, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
One more thing, It doesn’t help make things β€œeasier to understand” when what has been written isn’t particularly grammatical. Kind of defeats the point. I am more of a linguistic descriptivist, but a minimal standard for grammar does make things easier to read. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 05:31, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
this is like 10% complete, planning to work on grammar — Unsigned, by: Luhanopi / talk / contribs
On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. I don't see the point. All the pages on Latin phrases as far as I can remember contain an English gloss of the Latin right at the beginning (Category:Latin phrases). You're welcome to make an essayspace page, like anyone else.— Unsigned, by: Bongolian / talk / contribs
On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you.      β€“ Regards, Avarice 16:04, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Nobel Prize[edit]

Pakistan, Trump, 'you couldn't make it up.' Can Boaty McBoatface be nominated? Anna Livia (talk) 23:47, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Governments, politicians, academics, and certain institutions are the only people that can nominate a Nobel Peace Prize candidate. Highly unlikely that they will do something for the lulz.
The Nobel Peace Prize is, shall we say, not one of the Nobel's better categories, as several winners have been in retrospect extremely poor choices. (I mean, one can start with the infamous Henry Kissinger Peace Prize doled out in 1973.) BobJohnson (talk) 00:46, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
But what BMB represents and does is 'a good thing' - and somewhat better than various of the actual choices.
To what extent did Mikhail Gorbachev's Nobel Prize and subsequent actions against the Baltic States, with the negative reactions to the pairing - some prize winners wanting to return their medals) contribute to the ending of the Soviet Union? Anna Livia (talk) 09:16, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
Basically nothing. The USSR broke up over a combination of overextending itself in Afghanistan, the utter mess that was Chernobyl, and Perestroika. CorruptUser 04:49, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
I am I was not saying that it was more than a minor factor - but there *was* a sentiment expressed that it ill-behoved a Nobel Peace Prize winner to act as he did. Anna Livia (talk) 08:57, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
I suspect that Trump has such a hard-on for a Nobel peace prize because Obama got one for - well - something kind vague actually. Trump's Obama-envy means he always lusts after everything that Obama ever achieved.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:33, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
Any shithead politician/academic can nominate someone for a Nobel Peace Prize. Trump has been nominated before, and has loved to gloat about it (as insecure single-minded bullies would). But other past nominees include Joseph Stalin, Benito Mussolini, and Adolf Hitler (the later as an anti-fascist protest though). Most of the Trump nominations I have heard of have come from other fellow right-populist shithead politicians. (This year's Pakistan nomination was just weird, I guess they were trying to kiss-up to Trump?).
While I do consider Obama the best American president of the 21st century so far, his Nobel nomination really was yet another Peace Prize joke. I mean, someone like Jimmy Carter? Now that's a worthwhile nod, as his 2002 award was chiefly for his post-presidency. What had Obama accomplished in 2009? Not being Dubya? BobJohnson (talk) 17:29, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Bombs for Peace ??[edit]

So Trump finally decided to "Make War Great Again” by launching an attack on Iran’s Fordow nuclear site all while still tweeting about how he deserves a Nobel Peace Prize. Is there a Nobel for irony yet? Because this man’s got it in ballistic levels. β€” Lunar|  02:26, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

The increased uncertainty of the future due the actions of a fascist geriatric and his enablers really is such a displeasure that one is always challenged finding adequate words to describe it. Impiricism (talk) 03:18, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
He should (but will not be) impeached and convicted for this. Ideally he should be headed for the Hague but that will not happen and unfortunately will die a free man. A somebody. (talk) 03:52, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
The problem is Steve Bannon, Roger Stone, And Steve Miller are actual face eating leopards. Trump literally called Tulsi Gabbard, democrat turned republican, head of department of intelligence 'wrong' because he was not listening to her. I repeat, Trump was not listening to the DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE. Good work getting that job, Tulsi, hope your mouthwash is strong enough to keep the taste of fascism at bay in the morning. And now she's wrong because rat fuckers, people who use lies to enact their political wants, want a Nixon style madman behind 'the button' and got a madman to say 'I pushed the button.'. Ratfucking is so stupidly easy to read and recognize, but it's enabled this type of American Vertigo, where looking at politics makes you so dizzy you can only stand on one take, and I don't blame you for it. Lock them up is fine, but I fought against a project spearheaded and illegally green lighted by a Democratic administration. This is not a situation where 'Lock him up' even matters rhetorically. Lock em all up, this is nutso bonkers 'call your own head of national intelligence wrong' madman strategy. Probably not great for the US in any 'peaceful' international business. Torrent (talk) 04:29, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
Nixon was somewhat more rational than Trump. Anna Livia (talk) 09:17, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
While I consider US direct entry into the war (or whatever we should call it) between Israel and Iran to be both foolish, dangerous and counterproductive to ending (let alone solving) the conflict, it seems less than clear cut whether Trump has actually done anything unambiguously illegal by ordering these strikes.
The POTUS has a lot of leeway within US law for ordering these kinds of air strikes and I don’t see the strikes being in clear contravention of the laws of war either. Nor is it clear that the strikes are illegal in terms of the UN legal framework, such as the Charter of the UN.
Hence, I think this is actually one of Trump’s actions that is probably within the existing legal and political frameworks and not yet another potential impeachable offence (unlike the multiple ones he has already committed). Even if a case could be made in terms of the ICC legal framework, the US is not party to that, so it simply doesn’t apply to any POTUS. ScepticWombat (talk) 15:53, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
The United States of America is not at Legally at War with Iran, no declaration or authorization of military force was passed by Congress. And even if it was passed by congress this would still be illegal under international law which nobody respects anyways. A somebody. (talk) 16:35, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
Legal or not is should be interesting to see how this plays out in the Middle east and the US.
Although Trump claimed complete success, the military later said there had been no bomb damage assessment. Without such an assessment Trump's "complet'e success" claim is yet to be verified.
Secondly, although Israel is having some success at blowing up missile launch sites it's interception success rate is dropping. Presumably because it's using up its anti-missiles. Which will lead to a war of attrition into which Trump mow may feel he is committed to act again. Wholly apart from any reprisals which Iran might make directly against the US which would also draw the US deeper in.
Which then leads to the MAGA political reaction. Although some tend to regard Trump as some kind of Christ-figure who can do no wrong, not everyone will be on board. Indeed not everyone is on board now.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:29, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
My personal opinion: doing this shit without Congress approval is bad, but assisting Israel in a war they started is even worse, and this whole situation shows Iranians that their their government is right and they actually should hate the west. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 16:37, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
Trump is far from the first POTUS to bomb a country without a declaration of war or prior Congressional approval/authorisation. It has thus been accepted practice within US law and politics for decades that a POTUS can do this, which strongly suggests that Trump is not doing anything illegal within that framework, even if it may indeed be considered to be ”bad” (I’ve long been worried about the loosening grip of Congress on the power to declare war, despite the US Constitution’s very wording on the topic).
Nor has the US been alone in conducting these kinds of airstrikes, which also suggests that he’s not in clear violation of international law either. There are plenty of reckless, dangerous actions that aren’t outright illegal, including in international relations and politics. ScepticWombat (talk) 17:18, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

β”Œβ”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”˜Regarding "Israel in a war they started" against Iran, if one is talking strictly about missile strikes, then it would have been Iran starting the war last year with strikes against Israel (Israel in a war they started. Israel assassinating Iran's non-citizen proxy leaders (Hamas and Hezbollah), which was Iran's excuse for the missile strikes would ordinarily not be deemed an act of war against. If the Constitution were strictly interpreted, the tRump bombing was unconstitutional. Unfortunately a spineless GOP presence in Congress, the far-right elements of the Supreme Court, and a history of bending the rules on military engagement means that it's unlikely to ever be litigated.[6] Bongolian (talk) 18:38, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

There's really no good course of action, only less-bad ones.
On the one hand, I'm sick of constant bombings of random places in the Mid-East (and South Asia).
On the other hand, I really really really don't want the country that Gilead was modeled after to have nuclear weapons. CorruptUser 04:45, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
You can thank Trump for getting rid of the nuclear agreement then. Antares (talk) 09:02, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
More importantly, you can thank Trump of creating this clusterfuck which he never had any solution to. This is why he's such a shit politician; not only does he have little to nil clue to what he wants but even when he does have said clue [which is rare] he neither a) has a clue how to get there and b) will not listen to those people who [might] do. He is the quintessential 'shit boss' - I've worked for folks like this [for my sins] and in my experience 'stuff gets done' in spite of them, not because of them. It's also why he's a crappy dealmaker; he is 'King Dunning-Kruger', reducing everything into a 'real-estate, zero-sum, always another sucker' prism and will not be told otherwise and will not learn from experience.
And in this case; Trump has blown any chance [it was slim in the first place] of being 'a peacemaker'. I could have envisioned a somewhat weakened Iran 'groping towards a deal' - if Washington had bothered to liaise with the Europeans [to play sticks and carrots] and even more importantly, Washington was willing to strongarm Bibi into accepting it. But that couldn't happen because the Orange One moves unilaterally at all times - not just vs other powers, but even within factions of his own govt. Now whatever goodwill there was, it's now gone.
Now the question is 'what does the Orange One want to achieve here?' Stop the nuclear programme? Cut down Iran's capabilities to support folks like the Houthis? Or break her fingers so much she can't even defend her own territory, let alone move past it? The worst solution - I think - would be in a tacit refusal of the Orange One to work out an actual realistic goal, it devolves to Bibi's plan which I believe is 'utterly fuck up Iran so she takes a generation to recover from'. KarmaPolice (talk) 10:26, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
"This war will destabilize the entire Mideast region and set off a sparkwave of anti-Americanism vs no it won't." Antares (talk) 13:33, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
Looking only at missile strikes when trying to answer the question of β€œwho started it” between Iran and Israel is weird, because the Iranian strike didn’t come solely as the response to Israel killing some of its officers or proxy leaders, but in a chain that started with the Israeli airstrike on the Iranian consulate in Damascus on April 1st, 2024, which would’ve probably killed Iran’s ambassador to Syria had he not been away at the time.
This strike was clearly way outside of normal international relations, even hostile ones. Considering that embassies are legally territory of their home government, this not only meant that Israel had struck a civilian (and thus normally protected/exempt) target, but had conducted a direct air strike on Iran, unlike Israel’s earlier air strikes on Iranian officers and other military personnel on Syrian territory.
The main reason this didn’t became a massive international scandal and news story at the time was probably that it happened in war torn Syria on territory held by Assad (who had few friends), targeted Iran (who had few friends) and was conducted by Israel (who had powerful supporters and a far wider latitude to act in contravention of international law than most states).
It was bizarre to see how many subsequent stories apparently forgot about or just dismissed the connection with the Israeli attack on the Iranian embassy when covering the subsequent Iranian missile attack on Israel, despite the Iranian being very vocal about the cause and effect. ScepticWombat (talk) 17:09, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
One impression I'm getting with this bombing is that there is more than a touch of political theater going on with this brouhaha, and "things" are being coordinated enough so that "stuff" happens to satisfy certain go-go-war hawks... but at the same time, serious damage does not occur that could *actually* start a full scale war. At least, it seems like Iran had plenty of notice to move much (if not all) of their uranium out of Fordo etc. before the bombing. Subsequently, it seems like the United States had plenty of advanced warning when Iran "retaliated" against some American bases. I also get the impression that the United States also didn't go as full-scale with the bombing as they could have.
What I don't know, at this time, is who the "adults in the room" that are playing this game, and who are the "marks" that this theater was designed for. (I have some guesses on the later, but...) BobJohnson (talk) 13:14, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

What percent of Gab posts contain reality?[edit]

Since Gab has a "News" group, I will show you some common "news" sites that appear in it.

  • Gateway Pundit - Fake News site that actually worships Trump (I think).
  • Rumble - Site where Andrew Tate and friends stream. Also has some MAGADerpians on it.
  • Other Gab posts. - Shocking news: A site that relies on kooks will inevitably rely on itself to survive.
  • YouTube - Has some good channels (like Some More News), but has a lot of cranks. Guess which type Gab likes more?
  • Just the News - probably an average MAGA news site.

So...what percent of Gab's "News" section is in reality? (probably 0 percent) ResurrectingDeadLinks (talk) 19:46, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

The thing with Gab, Rumble, and all these other "alt-tech" sites that really focus on political-conspiracy shit: there is no real reason to use them unless your political worldview is so far out there, it is too much even for the likes of major social media sites that already have large amounts of political-conspiracy crap. Like YouTube, Facebook, and Elon Musk's Twitter. You have to be pretty nutty to be too nutty for these places.
Looking, Gab's news does actually contains legitimate news sources (when something occurs that reinforces their worldview), but their focus is pretty obviously on right-wing Dominionist / nativist propaganda. Fox News is probably the most "reliable" "news feed" that they highlight (it's not reliable of course, but compared to Gateway Pundit?) One little oddity about this site (probably reflecting the CEO's ultra-fundamentalism) is that the presently irrelevant WND show up pretty frequently in their current news feed, as if it were still 2010. BobJohnson (talk) 21:56, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Charity, and Its Existence without Religious Motivations[edit]

So it's been a while since there have been some fun atheist rants in the bar. I am speaking specifically to Pascal's Wager, whether it would be better to believe in a God that offers eternal joy for believing or eternal punishment for not believing, or whether it's safe to just ignore that wager altogether. Let's say under a modern Christian view, A la Ray Comfort, any sin is weighty, hell worthy and punishable by eternal torment. The only way to eternally survive this is to profess that you have turned your immortal soul over to Jesus. Only then, can your sins be forgiven in the eternity of your everlasting life. I, and I know this is probably a surprise to all of you, don't think everlasting eternity should be the motivation to do things that are good. If I went to hell because I'm not baptised and have spent my life worried about things social and physical, rather than the divine or the letter of some translated self contradictory rulebook on how to live ethically in 1000 BC, am I supposed to apologize to Satan? Would Ray Comfort ever apologize to Satan for proselytizing? Matthew 23:15," Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when you have succeeded, you make them twice as much a child of hell as you are.". So preaching that doing bad shit can be eternally forgiven, and doing good shit doesn't matter is fucking ignorant and dangerous. You do good things, not for an eternal reward, but because good things actually help society, and any amount of sacrifice you accept in order to enact a greater good may not go in the God of Breath's eternal tome, but it matters down here in the real world, regardless of how any cult wants to minimize it or claim it for themselves. There is no wager that denies you your right to love thy neighbor. You can just be a good person, that's enough. Torrent (talk) 03:57, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

There is a short story to the effect that a rabbi is asked why God allows atheism, and the response is that the atheist acts out of true charity/goodness because they choose to, not in the expectation of some future reward.
There are many views of what heaven and hell are (the Vikings Valhalla and the Christian Heaven, the Buddhist concept of escaping rebirth etc) - and there is the concept of what you do coming back to you threefold, and for many people 'being good or neutral' (and avoiding adding to the tragedy of the commons) is A Good Thing, whatever the expectations of reward or otherwise. Anna Livia (talk) 13:27, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
I am also constantly miffed by the 'Karma is a bitch' idea that good and bad happen proportionally to your actions. Karma doesn't affect you until your next reincarnation, morons... I mean, people. But they don't know what they are talking about, and I only know a little bit more, so whatever, good things happen to bad people as much as bad things happen to good people. I have chosen to get over it and get real tough. Maybe I'll come back in my next life as a tree that isn't in danger of deforestation and I could live 1000 years without having to worry about this crap, just getting my bark gnawed on by jungle beavers or whatever a tree has to survive. But I don't think I've earned that yet. Torrent (talk) 06:06, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Articles for deletion[edit]

Should 'Articles for deletion' be a Sysop only privilege? BONs have taken to using it a lot methinks. Scream!! (talk) 00:51, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

I think it should be. I also feel that we need to put in a quorum and percentage threshold on votes too - no more '11-10 for delete with 9 Goats' situations which I don't consider a ringing endorsement of change. KarmaPolice (talk) 00:57, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
I wouldn't be opposed to either, especially for nomination or voting. Sysop-only feels a bit extreme, though. Let the autopatrolled have a say? If this might become policy, it shouldn't be in the Bar; move it here.
– Regards, Avarice   01:10, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
Any proposed changes to who and what is allowed to create an AfD should be addressed on the community standards talk page. β€”cosmikdebris talk stalk 01:51, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
There are several categories/types of deletable - 1) 'rubbish, look-at-me trolls and similar' (which can be whack-a-moled by anyone, 2) 'in the news/passing mentions encountered' of topics which are potentially RW-mission-worthy but which do not develop and/or which can be included as subsections of and/or mentions in other pages, 3) regularly raised topics in these categories, and 4) everything else: 2) and 3) can be partially handled by judicious use of redirects (after a sufficient grace period). Anna Livia (talk) 09:23, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
I think the process could well be tightened up a bit. And ,yes, CS would be the place for this.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 11:25, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Wait is Johnney Deep Innocent. (sic)[edit]

How a day's people are saying Depp is not the victim while Amber is the actual victim. I understand that public opinion might be wrong, but I'm honestly lost all thing considered I was recommended a series of videos called the Cult Of Depp. I see some people saying he's the abuser so could I have some help in this 1.43.236.241 (talk) 11:54, 26 June 2025 (UTC) Irony-Man.

A big problem with the world is that people care a great deal about this sort of small-scale personal shit, and meanwhile Trump, ICE kidnappings, Gazan genocide… Duncan from Teflpedia (talk) 02:59, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
That comes off as kinda snobby and condescending - 'oh, why aren't the proles using that time to do something worthwhile'. It's part of the hymn to the 'cult of busy'; that we should spend [ultimately] every waking moment doing 'productive'/'useful' things and everything else is a waste of time. We all have a limited amount of 'bandwidth' [physical, mental, emotional] and constantly going over-capacity is going to drive you nuts - esp if the things you're 'supposed to be doing instead' is watching the Great Orange trying to make himself King of Gilead. I mean, you cannot assume all the people engaging in celeb gossip [or other 'small scale personal shit'] are not also paying attention to the bigger shit about them. KarmaPolice (talk) 14:21, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

I know but still I feel like there has been a change in recent years so I'm curious 1.43.236.241 (talk) 07:00, 27 June 2025 (UTC)Irony-Man.

Innocent of what? Marrying an emotionally unstable actress half his age while having no intention to create a stable living environment? Lock em both up, statute of limitations be damned. But seriously, Who even cares about Johnny Depp and Amber Heard anymore? Who the fuck cared in the first place? I remember there is all this drama about who got drunk and mean, and who threw a wine bottle at who, and who shit the bed, who cares, who married who? Lock em both up, I can't believe somebody still cares about this here. Torrent (talk) 07:45, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about that it just interested me. 1.43.236.241 (talk) 07:49, 27 June 2025 (UTC)Irony-Man.

I have no idea what this (presumably celebrity gossip) story is about and I care even less.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:56, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
Anything can be discussed here pretty nearly. There is actually an argument this topic is missional since Ben Shapiro's Daily Wire (et al.) got involved with attacking Amber Heard on social media and it became an antifeminist talking point, although this has since disappeared as far as I can see. Chillpilled (talk) 17:39, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
I didn't mean to make you apologize. I am very sick of the take that Johnny Depp did nothing wrong. But I'm also not going to relitigate something that has such low stakes. Spousal abuse is a real thing. A messy divorce is a real thing. It's theater but it can't help you and can't help people get better at surviving the real thing because these are two immensely well off people. They might never be normal, but they will be fine. Torrent (talk) 06:19, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Anti-Woke UK?[edit]

Context: The ToryGraph

And the continuation of the 'bonfire of woke' continues; now with the MoJ scrapping all mention of LGBT. Note at the end it talks about 'routine changes to follow Civil Service guidelines' which is code for 'this is now the policy for all parts of national government'. This I have manually confirmed; the MoD and DoE D/I pages have zero mention of race/gender/sexuality now and at least for the MoD, they used to. The fact that D/I policies etc still exist is better than the policies of the fag-end of the Sunak regime but not by much.

The 'how' is simple enough; that they're doing their best to 'hide in plain sight' by hacking it up into penny-packets and doing it in the most greige manner possible in the hopes few if any notice.

But why? My two theories are this;

a) Starmer and Co actually don't believe in anything at all except keeping power and think becoming more Farage than Farage is the way to do it.

b) This is the 'secret paragraph' in the tariff-reduction agreement the UK got off the Orange King earlier this year. He demanded we 'drop woke' and while we didn't publicly acquiesce in the demand coincidently shit like this happens in the background, doing it in penny-packets and in the most greige manner possible in the hopes nobody notices.

Thoughts? KarmaPolice (talk) 14:19, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Both a and b are plausible. Spud (talk) 14:47, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
I hate to know I'm in the same group as Galloway and Spiked, but I have now 90% reached the conclusion that Starmer is the 'desiccated calculating machine' [ie passionless and emotionally dead technocrat who only sees the world in numbers and charts] which Nye Bevan warned against having as a Labour leader back in the 50s. Which is partly why the 'backbench grumbles' are more serious than they look on the surface - because it speaks of a deeper malaise with MPs who feel utterly ignored, having zero input in policy and treated imperiously by whips who only threaten. It's almost like he's decided to go flat against all known convention that a PM cannot afford to remain aloof, cold and rigid to their own backbenchers - that they need to basically 'press the flesh' in the corridors, tearooms, bars etc. A good example of this was John Major; that even 'the bastards' liked him as a person and he was quite slippery in his ability in one-on-ones to appear to be in full agreement with the MP - a skill which he honed as a whip [one of his charges was Harvey Proctor who said Major had a very good 'listening mode' and was most courteous even when it became apparent he was going to rebel].
The one thing I do find interesting is that the govt is 'sneaking this out' which tells me that they are [perhaps] starting to become aware of the 'left bleed-out' of progressives/socialists to the LDs and Greens and realising they, despite telling us to go fuck ourselves for the last five years might actually need us electorally and so are trying to be a bit more sneaky about their Farage-ing. KarmaPolice (talk) 16:02, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
I have long pegged Starmer as a completely unprincipled apparatchik who wouldn’t balk at copying his opponents’ politics if he thought he could get away with it or possibly gain some tactical benefit. His only goal seems to be to attain and keep power and his β€œideal society” seems to be some version of β€œBlair’s Britain”, incl. the kind of laws that keep down the β€œyobs and troublemakers”.
Starmer’s authoritarian streak (and untrustworthiness) was already obvious when he basically purged Labour’s top ranks of most of those of a more leftist persuasion, despite running as a β€œconciliation candidate”. And he’s obviously cribbing from both Tory austerity and Farage β€œanti woke” stuff, while also trying to play the β€œtough sheriff” clamping down on any kind of protest that isn’t nice, conformist β€œplacard and banner waving”, but may actually inconvenience someone. Starmer’s/Cooper’s ban on Palestine Action for basically being a terrorist organisation is beyond absurd, but clearly designed to appeal to Tory/Reform UK vote.
It would appear that Starmer thinks that he can triangulate in multiple dimensions:
  • Between Trump, the EU and the Commonwealth.
  • Between disgust with the Tories, Blairism and Farage.
  • Between affluent β€œI’m alright, Jack” middle class Litte Englanders, City financiers and bureaucrats/technocrats with some performative politics to appease more traditional Labour voters.
The only reason this has worked so far is that the Tories are still a total basket case, that Reform is just as politically chaotic as Farage’s previous outfits, that the LibDems and the Greens currently can’t present a viable alternative/threat and that the regionalist parties, especially SNP, are also weak.
This should be a golden opportunity for Labour, because it’s comparatively stronger than it’s probably ever going to be, yet Starmer is behaving as if he’s George Osborne in the coalition cabinet (or even more hesitantly), because his vision for society doesn’t seem to be markedly different from the one he inherited from Sunak. ScepticWombat (talk) 19:00, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Introduction And Concern That The World Is Getting More Terrifying[edit]

Hi its my first day having an account i will try to contribute to this great RATIONALWIKI!! but first some thing horrible. I have just found out today that Kirk Cameron YES THAT KIRK CAMERON the former child actor and Ray Comforts partner in debating has a television show!!!!!, its called Adventures of Iggy and Mr. Kirk the shorthand is Iggy and Kirk. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt31407414/ there have been 5 episodes as of the time of this post 27th of June first impression looks like a rip off of Mister Rogers' Neighborhood the Neighborhood of Make-Believe were small so Kirk had to go big and now his friends puppets look like a rip off of the muppets (good rhyming) iggy is a rip off of kermit though more like a lizard then a frog specifically a chameleon to avoid the wrath of the us legal system and trigger happy copyright lawyers, This crowdfunded tv show had to be formed when kirk cameron read television history and saw Mister Rogers' Neighbourhood and thought I could do better than that show here is why Seth Andrews - The Copycats: How Christianity Steals The Best Ideas I thought that people would have Hope For The Future got to wait and see if things will change for the better.

My Apologies if i have made you sick to your stomach Wise If Only (talk) 15:24 27 June 2025 (UTC)

I would say that the world is the same as it ever was. You are probably becoming more aware of the modes of being that can and do conflict with your personal epistemes.Zatoichi (talk) 16:22, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

I heard that buzz aldrin is a lurker here[edit]

What do you think of him? :s Spacewizard9000 (talk) 23:30, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

I doubt it. A somebody. (talk) 23:59, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
I'll punch him in his gosh darned mouth. The moon is a celestial object orbiting the earth like any number of man made satellites, okay then explain why it follows me home while I'm driving. I'm glad he's still alive because these fists gonna swing through his orbit like Apollo 13. But if he does actually read this, man, what a cool dude, and what an achievement, and how brave must a person be to try something like landing on the moon. Torrent (talk) 02:00, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
You heard where?      β€“ Regards, Avarice 02:06, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
As a 95-year old, he clearly has better things to do: his 3-decades younger new wife, legal battles with his kids, cheerleading for tRump, and the usual things that 95-year olds struggle with: eating, pooping, getting up from the chair, and sleeping. Bongolian (talk) 02:32, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
Well, I didn't know or really know or care about any of that, but now I'm less concerned about punching him in his gosh darned mouth, I had a hard time opening a pickle jar last night, but put me up against a 95 year old military dude and maybe I can predict what he's gonna throw at me. Torrent (talk) 02:40, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

So, where did you hear this remarkable claim?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 10:43, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Hey, Buzz! If you're here, I'd just like to say that I've always been a big fan of The Buzz Aldrin Show. Spud (talk) 15:12, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

What is the dumbest antisemitic theory that you have heard of?[edit]

A genuine example that I found once: Jews make hygiene products to ruin the life of the goyim (AKA Non-Jew). Yes, the person who tweeted that actually believed it. I am seriously afraid to smell whoever they are... (Note: I could swore that I found it through either a RW Article source or a FSTDT quote, probably the former.) ResurrectingDeadLinks (talk) 03:02, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

There's a ton of casual anti-Semitism that I have grown up around. Calling a bad deal getting 'jewed' or even somebody having a prominent nose being called a jew for it. I was seeing a girl who was smoking hot, like guys approached her constantly, and she was worried about her nose. She said people called it a Jew nose, and I said 'It's not a beak, if that's what you're worried about.'There was nothing wrong with her nose. But the idea of any protest being funded directly by George Soros is the most outlandish and stupid idea. But it has also become shorthand for 'I don't like this.' I watched the first episode of South Park when it aired. I never thought calling somebody 'a stupid Jew' was funny, but you better believe it is hilarious to a big population. Torrent (talk) 04:16, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
I think β€œthe jews are reptilians” is a good contended. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 14:59, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
I think that among dumb things that people verifiably believe or have asserted, Jewish Space Lasers ranks near the top.Zatoichi (talk) 16:26, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
Ah - Illuminati the card game...... brings back memories of the good old days.... I even featured in it :) Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 20:33, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
I was nicknamed "Jew" at high school (Catholic, boys) - can't really remember why - have always thought it was because I never had any money to spend at the school shop so was seen as someone hoarding cash ... Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 20:17, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Idolatry[edit]

There is a phrase 'Never Meet Your Idols' and I think it's valid enough, but why fucking idolize anyone in the first place? Harry Potter meant a lot to a lot of people. J.k. Rowling is a piece of shit for trying to use that to discriminate against people she does not care about, and I guarantee she does not care about you. Neil Gaiman has been a progressive author for decades, and it turns out he's comfortably weird and abusive in a power dynamic, which sucks. People enjoy Louis C.K. I also think some of his jokes are funny, but he jerks off in front of people that can't excuse themselves from the situation. People also like Elon Musk, which I never understood even as a green energy simp, there is no person in this world that should make you you feel like their achievements diminish your own or absolve them of bad behavior. I guess this is also about separating the artist from the art, but it is very possible for somebody to accidentally create something bigger than what they intended. The artist is a human too, don't fucking listen to them like they know something you don't. They can do really great things, but they are still people, and probably assholes. You can't do great things by acting like somebody else, and there is no level of famous that grants you the right to be absolutely deviant about your weird sex stuff. Informed consent, informed consent, informed consent. Don't ever think sucking a dick will grant you power. Torrent (talk) 03:43, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't know 'Louis C K' but on the rest I agree wholeheartedly. Scream!! (talk) 15:22, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
One might admire a wild animal, like a lion or a bear but, come to despise it when it injures someone one cares about. I don't care about any of those people. If someone says something I don't like, I will say so if queried. Whatever it is, I only hope to accomplish eliminating the disagreeable experience from my immediate consideration. My reason is, the world spontaneously generates all the worst opinions whether we like them or not. If one stops acting like a racist, sexist, bigoted asshole, then one no longer is one. If you are, at least you are ineffective at it, and I have more interesting things to look at. The bottom line is my own sphere of existence, small as it is, can be conditioned to satisfy my own personal sentiments. The world almost never changes, moment to moment, in ways that accord with my own desires. Sometimes there are too many of such people, and I have to go away from them for my own peace of mind. Zatoichi (talk) 16:58, 30 June 2025 (UTC)