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.
Icon beer yellow.gif For previous conversations, see the automagic barchives.Icon beer yellow.gif

What is going on?

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

Pointless poll

Is 'America' a country or a continent?

Continent

28

Vote

Landmass

10

Vote

Continent where the United States of America (Anglo-Saxon oligarchy) are situated

8

Vote

A very dangerous continent, according to the US state department's travel advice (reliable).

3

Vote

Why can't Americans get a real name?

16

Vote

Gringo country

2

Vote

Yankee country

13

Vote

Ami country

2

Vote

'Ricains country

1

Vote

Arrogant tourists

7

Vote

Is 'Europe' a real continent?

Yes

49

Vote

No

31

Vote

Who's the wanker in the black?

a referee

6

Vote

a clergyman

2

Vote

a police officer

1

Vote

a traffic warden

0

Vote

Satan

3

Vote

Dracula

17

Vote

Batman

2

Vote

Zorro

2

Vote

Keir Starmer in a black suit

4

Vote

Elon Musk in a black baseball cap

49

Vote

Donald Trump in the black suit he couldn't be bothered to wear to the Pope's funeral

1

Vote

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

Yes

181

Vote

No

430

Vote

My enemy is...

Pigeons

19

Vote

Geese

121

Vote

Ducks

7

Vote

Corvids

23

Vote

Gulls

47

Vote

Starlings

13

Vote

Owls

5

Vote

Parakeets

5

Vote

Hawks

6

Vote

Cliff Racers

69

Vote

Zubat

89

Vote

Has KarmaPolice been watching The Birds?

129

Vote

To do list

Best ways that Americans can fight Trump?[edit]

Really getting tired of the cynical rhetoric online where people seem to just give up. So just wanting to see ways that Americans can oppose Trump and disrupt his attempts to damage the country for his personal benefit. And eventually reverse all the damage he has done. So what are some ways the American people can foil Trump's schemes? No cynical or hopeless comments welcome. MrAnon (talk) 18:58, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Or the variant said by Whitmore at Area 51 on Independence Day.


Organise. Rally. Prepare. To a major extent, the mainline Democrats, organised labour, mainstream media and corp world have either surrendered or are deluding themselves that this is 'business as usual' mode. The boot is in view, but it's not on the neck yet - a simple firm no [if done by a large enough of people] will give spine to those who currently don't have it and a lot of the plans will start falling apart. There are such people. Even on the other side of the Atlantic, I can hear their whispers. Corp suits. Cops. Judges. Soldiers. Civil servants. Trump promises them order and peace, and all he demands is their silent, obedient consent. The enemy is relying on the bulk of the public to be either apathetic or cowed into submission; remember the quip from the ghoul from the Heritage Foundation about Project 2025 being 'the Second American Revolution' which will be bloodless if the left allow it to be. Which ties into the quip from Orwell; the quickest way to end a war is to lose it.
It takes guts to be the person who stands up and first shouts 'the emperor is naked' and refuses to back down in the face of violence. It's not for everyone, I get that. But I hold that everyone can do something to fight the New Order. I'm personally a fan of doing a carbon copy of the MAGA handbook; aka infiltrating local Dem party chapters and staging 'grassroots coups' against the do-nothing Dem establishments and replacing them with folks who a) can pass for 'normal human' and b) have the fight-fire within them.
The polls are clear; MAGA is a minority project. If the opposition can start fighting minus the kid gloves and make a coherent argument why MAGA is shit, they will have a majority. And it's not too late for that to be the deciding factor. At the moment. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:47, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
People have been protesting non-stop in LA for months now. You just don't see a lot of coverage on it because there's a media blackout on meaningful resistance to Trump. The powers that be don't want a repeat of 2020. Antares (talk) 19:54, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
It's best to stay away from inflammatory rhetoric, a look for more level-headed sources of information. The Contrarian (https://contrarian.substack.com/) is a good source in my view. It was founded by Jennifer Rubin and Norm Eisen after Rubin fled The Washington Post. All of the material on The Contrarian is free. They accept paid subscriptions, which they use for litigation. They have regular interviews with experts, as well as several other contributors. A bonus is regular photo updates on demonstrations (https://contrarian.substack.com/p/the-contrarian-covers-the-citizens). As far as things you can do:
  1. Go to demonstrations. You can find local events here: https://www.mobilize.us/mayday/map/
  2. Join your local Indivisible organization (https://groups.indivisible.org/).
  3. Call or write your to House member and Senators and tell them that you oppose what's going on. This is particularly important if you have any Republican representatives. Most or all of the Congressional representatives have online comment forms that you can fill out.
  4. If you can afford it, donate to the various pro-democracy organizations that are involved in litigation against the administration: ACLU, NAACP Legal Defense Fund, Planned Parenthood, League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), PFLAG. There are many others, and the list is heartening (here: https://www.justsecurity.org/107087/tracker-litigation-legal-challenges-trump-administration/ or here: https://www.lawfaremedia.org/projects-series/trials-of-the-trump-administration/tracking-trump-administration-litigation).
  5. Vote and encourage other people opposed to this administration to vote.
  6. There are sometimes opportunities for remote volunteering for pro-democracy organization (post carding, letter writing, data entry, phone calling and texting individual voters), e.g., Red2Blue (https://www.red2blue.org/), Beto O'Rourke's Powered by People (https://poweredxpeople.org/), Post Cards to Voters (https://postcardstovoters.org/), Vote Foward (https://votefwd.org/).
  7. As we get closer to November 2026, it will become clearer where the close Congressional races will be. If you can afford it, donate to the campaigns where the races will be close. If you live in such a district, there may be volunteer opportunities.
Bongolian (talk) 04:14, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
On 3, I would state 'watch all your elected officials like a stalker and make them know you are watching, constantly ask for justification for their words/actions and share the replies with others'. If you've joined an Indivisible you might be able to divvy up your stalking list. If they're 'Republicans', its' quite possible you can make them squirm by picking the most odious MAGA policies and make them defend it. Naturally, this works best if in person; so if they deign to turn up somewhere near you to speak etc - attend so you can heckle. Ideally, bring friends too!
On 5, I would extend that to 'encourage others who are opposed to MAGA to become active too'.
On 7, a lot of the 'contestable' seats will already be known. If you're in one of these, the time to start building an election machine is now, not six months before the vote. If on 3 you're following a particularly odious cretin you might be able to start leafleting against them ['Rep Sack 'o Shit is a lying spineless MAGA-creature' then with several examples as evidence] way before the election even happens.
8. If possible, boycott MAGA-owned businesses or those who have surrendered to the New Order. Ideally, divert this spend to those who are making a stand and/or minority-owned companies. For example, ditch Target and go to Cosco. Of all the things which have really got under the Orange Nero's skin was the Tesla boycott, so it makes sense to do more of that. If you cannot entirely ditch them, at least look to cut back; for example, I managed to reduce by Amazon spend by 50%. Corps follow the money, which means widespread boycotts work.
9. If you're an grad of a uni which has surrendered to the New Order; tell them in no uncertain terms to never darken your door with their begging letters. Make it clear why. Similar to if you are member of any org which has become far too pally with the New Order.
10. Make your opposition known to others. Authoritarian regimes work on creating an all-pervasive chilling effect, so each 'dissident' thinks they're a minority of one. You don't have to be super-vocal about it, or even have a huge ream of reasons why you're doing it [though having 2/3 potted reasons on standby wouldn't hurt] but to be seen and known will give other 'dissidents' heart. Even if you get labelled as 'that asshole' after you make a stand at the Christmas table after Uncle Roy's monologue about his love of obese Orange-faced septuagenarians there will be at least one other person around that table who be thankful.
KarmaPolice (talk) 08:41, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
As a Brit, so to some extent neutral on internal US politics, be very careful about not sounding too much like the 'right wing anti-establishment' lot, to avoid the last line of Animal Farm. Anna Livia (talk) 09:30, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
I am going to somewhat disagree with you on that. There are times where a unbending, unrelenting 'this is my fucking hill to die on' is what is required. As my link shows, the right-wing are usually very good at this, while 'lefties' all to often fall into the 'nice/reasonable' trap which usually ends with them being fucked over and shunted aside. From the various dips I have of MAGA media, I get the strong feeling they believe no 'librul' would ever really fight for 'their cause'. Therefore, to some extent you have to communicate your willingness to fight to the finish to your opponents in a manner they understand. KarmaPolice (talk) 10:03, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
I said - 'be careful' - and to non USAians certain nuances can be lost (and likewise with other political etc communities). Anna Livia (talk) 16:04, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
One personal thought would be: don't just focus on Donald Trump and the firehose of useless clickbait memes he is throwing out of his "propaganda firehose", whether in mainstream media or on social media. Donald Trump is merely the public show, the public figure, and the cult of personality -- the "face" of the carnival shitshow. In fact, consider all politicians mere faces for their respective donor classes, the true ruling class, at this point. The culture war is merely the tool of distraction that the oligarchs use to fuck over everyone else. (Funny how the conspiracy theory crowd picks up on the "we're being screwed over" detail, but fails to register the *hows*.)
In some ways, this is an American tale as old as time -- the more people know about the Southern Strategy, the better -- but we're in a new Gilded Age now, arguably a more dangerous one for America than the original one a century and a half ago. A lot of very rich (and stupid) people seem to be looking fondly at, say, the full-on authoritarian capitalism of China as the ultimate government idea to strive for. (Or even the ruscism of Vladimir Putin's Russia, of all things.) I do not consider this a "Donald Trump only" problem... at all. And the harder authoritarianism takes hold in the US, the more difficult it will be to remove in the future -- if it is possible at all.
This means that this isn't really a fully "Democrat vs. Republican" argument. Yes, it is better to vote for and support Democrats at this time, because the Republicans can be considered the party of the authoritarian oligarchs; the monied class behind the Democrats still seem to believe in a bit of democracy and decency (though often only at a Third Way type level, sadly). But even in the Democrat camp, there is way too much money floating around (hence the watered down Third Way malarky). A good long-term goal would be to clean this up and bring more equality and power to the working class. Way, way, way easier said than done, but something to keep in mind when deciding who and what to support IMHO. 47.197.76.134 (talk) 15:50, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
Liberals boycotting Target may have hurt their bottom line, but I don't really see it as a win for the left because boycotts on both sides are just going to make companies less likely to take a stand on anything, which means more corporate DEI initiatives will be quietly dismantled. The boycotts on Tesla may well have had more of the intended effect since the intent was to retaliate against Musk. I predict, with liberals and conservatives both doing boycotts, a lot of companies are going to revert to the 20th century mentality of politics (to include social justice) and business needing to be separate. 2607:61C0:700:2DD1:4C87:75DB:31F4:483A (talk) 16:33, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
I call bullshit. MAGA called for a counter-boycott and from the looks of it, Cosco is winning this scrap [Target -3%, Cosco +6%]. The problem with your logic is that normally yes, any company should think hard before making a stand for anything but America is very close to the point where I don't think anyone can 'remain neutral' anymore. From colleges to corps, charities to healthcare - the constant flow of demands, whining, attacks and threats from the New Order leaves all with only two real choices - comply and fuck off 'the left' or deny and fuck off 'the right'. Chances are, the orgs who are deciding to 'retain DEI' are the ones who to some extent actually believed in it [and/or their shareholders do] and are willing to risk the ire of the Orange One and his ghouls. Your enemy's enemy can be your friend, or at least an ally for now. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:38, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
There's a third option: tell both sides to fuck off with a statement that the company just does not get involved in social issues. I foresee a lot of companies taking that path. 2607:61C0:700:2DD1:4C87:75DB:31F4:483A (talk) 00:29, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
There's no 'third way' when the supposed third way is exactly the same as one of the initial two 'ways'. Telling 'both sides to fuck off' is equivalent to telling the DEI-way to fuck off. I also disagree with KP's statement that, "the orgs who are deciding to 'retain DEI' are the ones who to some extent actually believed in it [and/or their shareholders do]" Publicly traded companies and their shareholders would adopt, retain, or reject DEI initiatives depending on which position they think would be most profitable. That's the only thing they 'believe' in. Privately owned companies may be differently motivated, but public ones sure don't. 2001:569:5968:4900:48BF:B1D5:70C4:CBAC (talk) 10:16, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
The problem with the "social issues shit" is that this is built into brands. We've seen this a few times where MAGA's "biggest fans" are clinging to "old fart stuff" that is time limited. Both Budweiser and Cracker Barrel ran into this problem; they are dying products which have an aging core demographic. Both products tried certain things to appeal to alternate crowds (meaning *younger* ones, of course), and ran into trouble.
(In retrospect, the best thing for both brands to do would be to let their brand die and spin up new brands for the younger demographics. But hindsight is 20/20.)
Target ended up having the opposite problem: they built up their brand as "the Wal-Mart alternative" and more "urban/suburban friendly" demographic. So they made a mistake listening to the online mobs yelling at them for DEI / Pride things. That mob wasn't their core demographic, and they suffered for listening to them.
Basically, it's not "tell both sides to fuck off"... it's know your core customers. (Although if your core customers won't be around much longer, that puts you in a pickle.)
At any rate, as far as boycotts go... the social shit to me is less important to me than the authoritarian plutocracy part. 47.197.76.134 (talk) 14:52, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Is this user worth taking seriously?[edit]

Warning icon orange.svg Warning: Solipsism conversation ahead may rot your brain!

Man photographing himself in hotel bathroom with mirrors all around to generate illusion (cropped).jpg

https://x.com/NathanielLugh

sorry to bug folks with my personal problems but I wanna try eyes that aren't mine (and mind too knowing my mental habits) to ask if the info from this dude is realiable.

There's bits like this:

"Created “Self-Generating Transformation” collapse-based emergence. Burn everything you’re not. Become what remains. I talk human and AI transformation."

and this:

"Only under conditions of there being no knower. But there is and we are versions of it and so is everything else in the universe.

This could be understood as: 1.The quantum field or vacuum state that encodes the fundamental laws of physics 2.The information-processing capacity inherent in spacetime itself 3.The mathematical structure that allows for coherent relationships between physical entities.

These function ontologically as knowers and are why knowledge can exist.

Without this fundamental capacity for the universe to “know” its own structure and rules, there would indeed be no patterns, no regularities, no information transfer - just chaotic potential without organization or meaning."

I know you need twitter to see it but I would appreciate any help here. My first instinct is it's nonsense but I'm looking for second opinions.47.5.66.54 (talk) 18:52, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

The first problem is that you went on Twitter. The second problem is that you went on Twitter. (Rinse and repeat as necessary.) Antares (talk) 18:54, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
Always reject *anyone* that uses "sciencey" technobabble to create "mind/body/spirit shit" like this. Whether the charlatan is hawking religion, "self-help", or New Age "oogey boogey"... doesn't matter. It's bullshit. Science and "spirit stuff" have nothing to do with each other.
Quantum physics and AI are popular topics for these charlatans because, in the case of quantum stuff it's kind of "weird" and "non-intuitive", and in the case of AI, it's getting really overhyped to the point where even the VC guys are "getting high off their own supply" and trying to make that "bullshit engine" (what LLMs in reality are) into a Supreme God Being. 47.197.76.134 (talk) 20:47, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

But is there anything specific from the page itself (if people can view it, I know you need twitter to do so, which is stupid since it didn't used to be that way but...eh). Like I know QM and AI are fertile ground for people to horn in whatever they want but I guess I'm just asking for specifics. I know I got into an argument with him about how he thinks narcissism is a defense mechanism against solipsism. The reason being that to defend against being the only person alive you make a whole view where you're the center of it (which doesn't make sense and contradicts what we know about narcissism and that it's rooted in insecurity). He said that it's due to beliefs forming subconsciously and that they must have been exposed to solipsism subconsciously and his evidence was showing me stuff our brains do subconsciously. He gave me an article from a questionable cite that showed the exact opposite of that in that it talks about beliefs can form when we are told something over and over by those we trust, so...not subconscious. Like a teacher telling you you aren't smart. But anywho I told him that just because the brain does some things subconsciously doesn't mean his thing is one of them and secondly he has no proof said individual is exposed to solipsism (nevermind that denial seems like a more logical defense against it than narcissism).

This was the comment thread: https://x.com/Ragingboargod/status/1935520587473920103

That's my experience with him, he blocked me after I questioned him. All his sources for the claims were asking three different AI engines, which sounded like a red flag to me (having used AI it literally gives me three different replies when I ask the same words each time). But yeah, I don't really know enough about things to know if what he's saying has merit, just a notion that it seems off.47.5.66.54 (talk) 04:36, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Why do you care if some dude (?) you don't know on Twitter is wrong?
It you have some specific thing you would like to discuss here then by all means bring it up here. But few people are going to get involved in, or care much about, third hand discussions on Twitter.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 10:30, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
Solipsism is a philosophy in which the self is all that exists; narcissism is a personality style, an occupation of self and their personal needs, to the possible point of disorder. They seem rather different to me.
For a start, one of them -- the narcissist personality -- has many aspects that can be tested in one way or another. Solipsism lacks this falsifiability -- there is no way to prove or disprove the philosophy at the core. I don't know how you could even test for "being exposed to solipsism subconsciously"; heck, what does that even mean? An invisible René Descartes is invading your brain and whispering what ifs? 47.197.76.134 (talk) 13:28, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
The logic from what I gather is that solipsism is the primacy of the self and so is narcissism, so he sorta equated the two (the whole thing is in the comment thread). But for one solipsism is a knowledge claim, not a value claim. Narcissism is a value claim that you are more important than anything else, solipsism says that your existence is all you can be certain of.47.5.66.54 (talk) 19:53, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
Just reading a few lines, very superficially, I don't see what attracted you to this kind of tweet. The guy is unlikely to be another Wittgenstein, because no one is likely to be him. The "why do you care?" seems a predictable response to your question. IMHO, nobody is worth taking seriously without a lot of solid, impressive evidence. The principle "what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" comes to bear as you have seen above.Zatoichi (talk) 18:53, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
With the "why do I care" I guess I have this thing where if someone sounds like they know what they are talking about there might be something to them, and that I could be missing some sorta secret knowledge to existence or choosing to live in ignorance because everything I know could be a lie and choosing to ignore them is choosing to live like the normies and be ignorant of the truth or deeper reality. It's...incoherent when I write it out, but it leaves me prey to THOUSANDS of folks like him (and it has). I haven't been able to break it, even with therapy. I think it's also being unable to hold an idea without believing it, can't really do that.47.5.66.54 (talk) 19:53, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
I wouldn't really call it "incoherent", but maybe that's just because it's so familiar. That narrative is pretty much the emotional core of conspiracy theories, especially the more culty ones like Flat Earth or QAnon. There's a reason promoters of those theories reference The Matrix at every opportunity. At least you seem to be able to say "Hold on, does this person actually know what they are talking about?" when someone tries to sell you the "red pill" script, which is more than can be said for many people. Asgerrr (talk) 10:47, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
I'm not going to join Twitter to be able to read it, but I'd like to point out a couple of things. 1) There are different kinds, or interpretations of 'solipsism', there is, as IP states, the idea that the only thing one can be certain is real is oneself, and there is also the idea that you are the only thing that is real. Any discussion involving 'solipsism' would require participants to know which definition(s) they are using when discussing it. There are also solipsistic ideas such as the computer simulation hypothesis where nothing is real and the closely related nihilistic ideas such as 'I cannot know if I or anything else is real' or 'I cannot know if there is a purpose for existence', and 'there is no purpose in existence'. 2) Narcissism requires what is called 'narcissistic supply', which is externally sourced as it consists of primarily adoration by others, so a person who subscribes to the 'only I exist' kind of solipsism would not be able to obtain narcissistic supply, or at least the supply they would be able to obtain would be a circular projection of ego stroking from and then back to oneself. This would be analogous to masturbating with one's non-dominant hand; you know you're doing it, but it kind of feels like someone else is doing it to you. But would doing that generate satisfactory narcissistic supply? Maybe. Anyway, I am suspicious that the person who said that narcissism is a defense mechanism against solipsism simply judged both words to involve a modicum of self-absorption and vaguely correlates them on that basis. It's a vague correlation rather than an establishment of direct causation if there is no explanation as to why a person would feel the need to 'defend against' solipsism. and how narcissism would fulfill that need.2001:569:5968:4900:EA84:BE04:B155:5248 (talk) 11:23, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
This reminds me: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/urban-survival/202507/the-emerging-problem-of-ai-psychosis Äxl (talk) 14:04, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

An internet call to "block everything" is gaining importance in France[edit]

To fight the budget of the Bayrou government, on various social media there are calls to "block everything", in a sort of boycott or general strike, on 10th of September. It started in May, but only later got widespread visibility (and the media, who criticise it, are now giving it even more visibility…). It's very similar to how the yellow vest movements started, it took its origins with a far-right "souverainiste" stance, before starting to focus more on social issues. Former leaders of the yellow vests and the far-right are involved, and Jean-Luc Mélenchon, out of fear of loosing touch with the popular movement like in 2018–2019, was quick this time to announce his support. National Rally has remained rather vague (lately they claim it is "the work of the far-left"), La France Insoumise is (for now) the only political party supporting the movement, the other left parties are silent. The term was popularised by a TikTok video by a far-right conspiracy group, then was spread by former yellow vests and other organisations on telegram and Facebook groups. For now, we don't know if this will translate in action on the street (like with the yellow vests), or not. New world (talk) 09:50, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

The Green Party and the communists have announced their support, the socialists have partly given their support. The only opposition party staying ambiguous/opposed: National Rally. New world (talk) 17:48, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Tips for improving Wikipedia/RationalWiki content on the Muiscas[edit]

Hello. Sorry for my English, first of all. To make it short, without going it much detail, I can't, for personal/professional reasons I have already explained on the Saloon Bar, contribute myself to pages relating to the Muiscas of Colombia on Wikipedia, not create any reliable pages here. I know it's "off-mission", but this incomplete list of recommended reading might be the way for interested users of this site to help better the state of Wikipedia. I myself have decided (and am currently) working on only 4 important pages, and I have left messages on multiple talk pages relating to the Muiscas also detailing this list. This is only in case someone with the necessary time and energy is interested in helping Wikipedia with this (many Wikipedia pages on pre-Hispanic history outside of Mesoamerica are fairly flawed, even some on the central Andes [inca realm]). Some are in Spanish, others are in English.

-- (in SPANISH; ADAPTED TO THE ARTICLE MUISCA CONFEDERATIONS (POLITICAL UNITS)'s NEEDS, as the author, Langebaek, provides a complete list of chiefdoms and communities under the rule of each muisca confederation. These lists are (extremely) better than the current (unsourced) list shown as a template in the article: Carl Henrik Langebaek, Mercados, Poblamiento e integracion etnica entre los musical: Siglo XVI, a link has been provided at the top of this talk page as well already.
—-(in SPANISH) For a brief (and big public) overview of current academic debates/consensus, as well as Carl Henrik Langebaek's principal arguments about Muisca society and economy: Carl Henrik Langebaek, Los Muiscas: Historia Milenaria de un Pueblo Chibcha, Penguin Random House Editions, 2019 (not publicly accessible).
—-(in SPANISH) For a new description of the Spanish conquest: Eduardo Londoño, La Conquista del cacicazgo de Bogotá, 1988 (accessible if you click on "Download full text pdf")
—-(in ENGLISH) For new ideas on Muisca socio-politics and thought : Hope Henderson and Nicholas Ostler, Muisca settlement organization and chiefly authority at Suta, Valle de Leyva, Colombia: A critical appraisal of native concepts of house for studies of complex societies, 2005 (accessible)
—- (in ENGLISH) For a recent, English-language work summarising current consensus: Juan Cobo Betancourt, The Coming of the Kingdom, 2024, [[Cambridge University Press]] (accessible)
—-For (in SPANISH) ethno-historical research on spatial-temporal conceptions: José Rozo Gauta, Espacio y tiempo entre los Muiscas, 1997 (not publicly accessible)
—- (in SPANISH) For research on Muisca religion and cosmo-vision related to politics: François Correa, El Sol del Poder, 2004, (accessible)
—- (in SPANISH) For new ideas about post-conquest chiefs and their domains: Jorge Augusto Gamboa, El Cacicazgo muisca en los años posteriores a la Conquista (accessible)
—- (in ENGLISH) For new ideas about the Muisca calendar: Manuel Arturo Izquierdo Peña, The Muisca Calendar: An approximation (accessible).


Dear regards, RationalwikianN.51 (talk) 08:44, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

This site has nothing to do with Wikipedia. 2607:61C0:700:2DD1:808D:7DB5:5D11:7118 (talk) 22:41, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
But - there is a certain overlap of users, so not entirely unreasonable. Anna Livia (talk) 13:31, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Re-examining “leopards ate my face”[edit]

Earlier in the saloon, there were mention of the “leopards ate my face” phenomenon (i.e., people who supported tRump's second election but were then given the royal shaft by tRump after the election).[1] I don't think these mentions addressed the underlying point sufficiently.

Today, I watched a discussion between security expert and persecuted whistleblower Miles Taylor and historian of fascism Jason Stanley. Stanley in the second half of the video addresses this phenomenon (though he doesn't say it by name). Stanley repeatedly refers to how "owning the libs" was the main goal of tRump supporters, as well as similar phenomena elsewhere among authoritarian regimes. These are related ideas: the former is enjoying the self-induced suffering of one's perceived adversary, and the latter is enjoying one's perceived adversary's suffering that was induced by one's own side. Stanly connects this concept to Timothy Snyder's concept of 'sadopopulism. Stanley further argues that to resist authoritarianism, we must sympathize with and try to support those who suffer under authoritarianism even if we don't particularly like the person who is suffering (John Bolton the example of the day). Bongolian (talk) 03:14, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

i’m starting to believe that leopard face eating has been a fetish for online people. if they try to normalize it as a fetish, i’m like, you do you, it’s creepy and borderline zoosadism or zoophilia. this leopard face eating is one of the most bizarre fetishes i’ve seen this decade spawn. “but it isn’t a fetish!” then why do i always hear it? (and leopards don’t eat faces or attack humans, by the way. now lions, on the other hand… that’s a whole different story. — Unsigned, by: 2607:fb90:3906:138a:713c:65e8:c2db:4e14 / talk / contribs
What the fuck are you talking about? Antares (talk) 04:30, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
i’m talking about the “leopards eating faces” fetish people have when they don’t do that in reality, dumb ass. 2600:6C40:657F:917E:B4FD:2772:8AB1:AB6D (talk) 04:33, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
"Leopards ate my face" is not a fetish. It's a meme. Try doing basic research before posting bullshit. Antares (talk) 04:35, 23 August 2025 (UTC)


I doubt either the sanity or the goodwill or our IP editor.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 11:18, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
Which is an excellent example of 'Ate my face' targets - folks who when having made a mistake, proceed to lash out at the person who pointed out that they were incorrect. 'Wah, it must be a 'fetish thing' because I am never wrong so now I hate you and think you're horrible individual personally.' Lesson of the day; being told you're wrong is not 'being uncivil' [at least not in itself].
Anyway, always interesting when your when your own topic comes back to you. As I said then; the Schadenfreude usually [esp on the sub itself] is not for the 'everyday' MAGA voter realising they got tricked and fucked over - it's the ardent MAGA-hat who had been active campaigning for the very things which have now come back to hit them - and not only do they not show any contrition or even thought about the situation but normally their only response is not to realise the policy was wrong, just to seek a personal individual exception. Perhaps the most mockery goes to such MAGA-hats who appeal directly to the Boer/Nero [via social media] for say, their DOGE-cut job, their lost housing etc like they expect those fuckers to give a fuck. They have not admitted that voting for the FaceEater was a bad move, they're only pissed that it ate their own face. Is anyone expected to have sympathy for that?
Which is my maxim; 'sympathy for the conned, but only after the conned admit as such'. The day [for example] my elderly relative drops into casual conversation 'I think I was wrong about Farage/Truss/Brexit' and means it is the day I quit politely but firmly highlighting the origin of all those bite-marks on their face. This will sound harsh/wrong; but from my experience most folks will only re-think an 'important' mental position after a certain level of 'ego damage' is inflicted. Or to put it the way my old Nan used to; 'you need to have some of that arrogance kicked out of you to realise you're being stupid'. KarmaPolice (talk) 12:06, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
That’s basically the requirement that repentance is a prerequisite for redemption, which is probably as close to a universal moral standard as you get. Which is probably why the US “admit no wrongdoing” settlements in white collar crime cases tend to royally piss of the US public at large. ScepticWombat (talk) 12:14, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Apropos of that, Stanley said a few other things. In human civilization, authoritarianism is the rule (kingdoms of various sorts) and democracy is the exception. Most people like authoritarianism. In the the Soviet Union (presumably, he was referring to the Stalinist purges), people were pledging loyalty to the system on their way to their executions ("true believers"). Bongolian (talk) 13:43, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

I find that logic questionable. For most of human (pre)history, we have lived in small, tight-knit groups that were operated on a communal, democratic basis. A top-down hierarchical societal structure is a rather recent invention, in the grand scheme of things. I also find it dubious to assume that people just "like" authoritarianism. Should we assume that most women "enjoy" living under the boot of patriarchy? That most slaves "enjoy" slavery? For as long as authoritarian structures have existed, there have been people who have tried resisting it. And many more people generally "enjoying" a rather miserable existence under those structures. For that matter, complacency is not consent. A population writ large is not likely to revolt if they have bread in their stomachs and a roof over their heads. Why risk getting crushed by the jackboot when you have kids to feed? Antares (talk) 15:54, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
How does religion work? In many ways, but a part of religion is the power of Hope. That there is an Invisible Sky Being or some other thing that will come rushing in and magically solve all of their problems. (It's easy to see parts of fundamentalism, notably the sides like prosperity gospel, take advantage of this Hope and bilk away money from people who don't have much.)
From what I see of authoritarianism surveys (such as here), a lot of people who support authoritarianism are drawn in by a mix of Hope, civic ignorance, and "advertised strength" (usually in the form of cartoonish displays of power -- propaganda -- of course.). It also seems to help to have an Other to demonize as The One Source of All Society Problems. At any rate, I get the idea that those drawn to authoritarianism think (often rightly) that society is broken, don't know how or why, and Hope that One Strong Man will fix everything.
Once authoritarians get into power, (again from what I can tell) authoritarian leaders *are* at their most stable when they *are* benefiting the supporters in some way... even if it's show, spectacle, or propaganda, it has to be something. In fact, I would see this as a potential flaw in the current fascism of the GOP: their economic goals seem completely aligned with the ruling class, and what economics they have often wallows in ain't-gonna-work fantasy land that screws over both the economy and their lower-income supporters (ranging from tariffs to harassing the Federal Reserve to the supply side economics malarky). The showman shit against Others is the GOP "bread and circuses", and that -- and the Hope of Trump -- is all they got, power wise. (Trump, in fact, with his oodles of grifting scams, has a lot in common with those prosperity gospel preachers, eh?)
For now... it works. But there are many examples out there of "competitive authoritarian" regimes getting undone by a shit economy, when things get so bad that even Hope fades away. 47.197.76.134 (talk) 17:22, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
I find that logic questionable, Antares. Mainly on the basis that as prehistory didn't go in much for recording stuff, we do not know how they operated societally. What recorded history does tell us is that the vast majority of the time, our various ancestors lived under the thumb of people they didn't choose to rule over them making decisions affecting them with little to zero input on what they personally felt on this situation.
I would personally widen the maxim; that a lot of people like authoritative leaders, and a lot of these cannot really tell the difference between that and an authoritarian [or perhaps just don't care]. Think this goes back to childhoods; wanting somebody/thing to be the 'Big Parent' for us now we realised the genuine is just a pair of very-human people who may not even be that competent [this raises the question; does shit parenting short-circuit this line in their adult kids?]. This also does explain the situation where a worryingly large % of right-wingers see God as a big 'sky daddy' to hit up for favours and cash.
Which leads to the other appeal; let's call it 'having a Godfather'. If you actually trawl the 'leopards ate my face' reddit you'll find the following tale the usual one...
- 1/. the kissing of the ring and paying of the dues.
- 2/. the call for goon beatings on the people/things they personally hate.
- 3/. shocked Pikachu face on realising the goons are breaking their legs.
- 4/. personal calling the Godfather to stop the beating. Surely, it must be a mistake!
- 5/. shocked Pikachu x2 when the Godfather either pretends to not hear or tells them to shut up/fuck off.
A decent % of this is societal in origin; having a situation where sufficient numbers of the population genuinely hate particular person(s) so much they actively want someone to cause them harm. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:40, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
We can make general inferences as to how cultures in prehistory operated by examining how similar cultures operate today, and hunter-gatherer cultures are generally rather egalitarian. Across the board you only start to see a severe rise in social stratification with the rise of the state. And even if this were not true, it still remains a fact that people have resisted authoritarianism for as long as authoritarian social structures have existed. We have records of slave revolts going back millennia, and even when slaves weren't openly rebelling they were still resisting. Antares (talk) 18:45, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
As Nietzsche explained to us, those slaves eventually got 'master morality' replaced with 'slave morality'. Which means that our anti-authoritarian traditions are fundamentally debased. They can be easily subverted, it doesn't matter that most people don't like living under authoritarian rule, few people are required to screw up anything 'good'. The institutions that can arise under democratic rule heavily depend on what is sometimes called 'the honor system', meaning that bad actors can easily 'ruin it for everyone'. And they do, every time. Here's an example that may shed some light on what I am trying to get at: I recently watched an episode of the tv show 48 Hours, in which a woman shot and killed her ex-husband because she claimed he was about to attack her. These two lovebirds met when they were both campaigning for Trump, so it was a match made in MAGA-heaven. But since they were both terrible people, the honeymoon stage didn't last long. The woman started calling the cops and making up stories about the guy physically abusing her, and when the cops would arrive they wouldn't do anything because there was no evidence. She tries to assume the role of the abused female, but because she's spent a lifetime denigrating and mocking that very circumstance, her attempt to exploit it is cartoonish and ridiculous. When she finally shot the guy dead she claimed in her trial for murder that he 'didn't even look like himself', that veins were bulging in his neck, and she was sure he was about to attack her because he started 'moving his hands and arms around'. When the prosecutor asked her what she meant by this she said she didn't know much about 'fighting'. In other words, she was claiming that she shot her ex because he was doing what's called a 'kata', you know, like you see in kung fu movies before a guy is about to engage in some whup-ass karate he says 'waaah' and moves his arms around slowly. She was expecting that setting this ludicrous scene would garner her sympathy from the jury. So what I'm getting at here is that the very people who seek to destroy the institutions that we might set up to protect the weak, will try to exploit those institutions when they lose the strength to dominate.They'll wrap themselves up like a blanket in things like the constitution, things they otherwise sought to subvert when they thought other weak people used them to 'get away' with stuff. The 'free riders' are never the people who toiled forever to implement the systems that are susceptible to free riding, the free riders are the people who actively campaigned against those systems being implemented in the first place. They want to abuse them to demonstrate why they shouldn't exist. Anyone can call themselves a 'liberal', anyone can demand to be addressed with certain pronouns, etc. Anyone can throw up the signals that cause those who apply meaning to those signals to let their guard down, to assume the person they're dealing with is doing so with authentic intention. 2001:569:5968:4900:EA84:BE04:B155:5248 (talk) 08:18, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Better Out Than In[edit]

This will be entirely gross. I have been working with a 5 person team, two of which had been sick, both with an attitude that they should work anyway, because there weren't any alternates to swap on the job site. Nothing debilitating, but a lot of coughs and just low energy. It is not uncommon to work through illness, but it kinda pissed me off, and I'm not in a position to send people home. Yesterday, I woke up with a sore throat. I had considered calling in, but again, no alternates, and a four person team would be difficult. I got to the job site, and the other guy who had not been sick was coughing, and everyone was dragging themselves around like they were walking through mud. So, that's four out of five, I gave the lead a warning to give us all as much distance as possible, because we're all sick. Two of the guys are hand-coughers, which is awful because we all trade off tools. So, I'm sick now too, not debilitating, not gonna last long, but this morning, or rather yesterday, my precious day off, when I woke up, my sinuses were plugged and my throat was scratchy.

This is entirely gross, but it can maybe be helpful. When I blew my nose there was a bright yellow color to the mucus. If your snot isn't clear, it's capturing something. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0145561320981441/ when a man ejaculates, the signals sent through the body to loosen the urethra also loosen up the sinuses. So yeah, I did what I had to do to clear the pipes. After masturbating, I blew my nose, coughed very hard, and then blew again and a disgusting wad of dark yellow mucus striated with blood came out of my deep sinuses through my nose. The human body is gross, I understand, but that HAS to leave the deep sinuses, and as gross as it is, better out than in.

I would recommend to the fellas, i dunno for the ladies, because nobody really wants to admit when they are sick or talk about masturbation; if you want to get over a cold faster, know the symptoms, let your body do what it needs to do by sequestering it all in mucus and then get it out by any means necessary, guaifenisen thins mucus, but I don't really want to thin my mucus if I don't have to. In biblical terms, know thyself. Torrent (talk) 07:37, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

I also drink a LOT of water and eat VERY spicy food to encourage a lot of extra mucus production for a rhinovirus. I love spicy food anyway, so my gut doesn't react negatively to it. Swallowing mucus, though, gives me a stomacheache. Stay home and hack that shit up alone, don't cough on your hands and then touch shit I need to touch. Torrent (talk) 07:51, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
Quite sure that horseradish opens the sinuses faster CorruptUser 19:59, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
Horseradish is noxious, what you want is marshmallow root. And that 'yellow stuff' in the mucus is called 'pus'. Yes, it is better to get it out of the body no matter where it is, but when sinuses feel 'clogged' they're mostly just swollen. Blowing the nose too hard will keep them swollen, as will histamines. Sinuses only fill up with pus and mucus when the swelling has gone down but you can't feel when this happens because sinuses that are swollen shut or filled with pus feel the same - clogged. Blow your nose gently when you need to, and eventually the pus will come out when it should.2001:569:5968:4900:A5A9:3CA3:9781:5EB6 (talk) 08:38, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
Fully disagree, gentle coughing does nothing. High expectorant coughs are loud, rattly, but high production coughs are worth it. Snot in your lungs is pneumonia. Do everything to keep keep that shit out of your lungs. If your cough has a rattle, chase it until you can hack up that snot ball, before it becomes a lung cookie. I mean, obviously have a tissue or napkin if you can, but if you gotta cough up a ball of mucus, hack it up, polite society be damned. Don't suffer tiny coughs, 'hem hem hem' is so bad and annoying. 'Hem hem hem' Are you eick? @'£noz it's just allergies' at the end of summer. Just before fall. When allergies have not affected you all summer long until now. And you're gonna 'hem hem hem' into your hand, fine. I'm gonna cough with my full diaphragm and spit whatever I cough up up outside nd never onto my hand maniacs. If you cough hard with a rattle, cough until it comes out and you won't have to do the 'hem hem hem' I've been bit by a zombie, but it isn't that bat I've caught the cold bullshit. If everyone else on my team wasn't already sick I'd behave differently, I wouldn't bring it. I still wash my hands on every break, clear my sinuses when I can and use soap and water and hand sanitizer. It's not that I'm scared of getting sick,I just think it's rude to pretend like you're not sick and spread that shit around. Torrent (talk) 11:29, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
I said gentle blowing of the nose, not gentle coughing. We were talking about sinuses, not lungs. What you've stated about coughing is mostly correct, but most people don't know how to cough up crap in their lungs. I do know how, because I figured it out. I'd probably be dead by now if I hadn't, but I digress. Unfortunately the method is hard to describe. You need to exhale strongly in a certain way, which will bring the crap up far enough so that you can cough it out. It can help to lie on your back while doing the exhale. I can't really think of a way to describe the exhale, but it's not a 'normal' exhale, it's like a wheeze, making an 'H' sound engages the correct muscles. If you forcefully/loudly whisper 'Hooo' or 'Huuh' you'll be in the right ballpark. But not 'hem', if you engage the vocal cords it won't work. Then just cough normally and if there's anything to come up it will. 2001:569:5968:4900:7E10:FC59:A163:EB5E (talk) 08:15, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

I am becoming a language fanatic[edit]

Its recent but I like learning about languages. --Trans Fem Agenda 22:32, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

In what manner? KarmaPolice (talk) 17:51, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
Language acquisition --Trans Fem Agenda 20:38, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
What, foreign languages, the English language or languages in general? KarmaPolice (talk) 20:52, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
Languages in general. --Trans Fem Agenda 11:31, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
Duolingo? Äxl (talk) 05:14, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

I am learning Spanish from Duolingo. I am considering doing a class on Udemy. --Trans Fem Agenda 18:30, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

I have experience with duolingo German-speakers coming to Berlin from various parts of the world… If you do it the right way, I guess, but otherwise, please use more "old-school" stuff, incl. actual websites made for, I don't know, highschool students, expats, etc. Usually they're better than Duolingo. They're better as long as they're paying, as most free stuff isn't great for languages. Just my 2 cents. Wow (talk) 19:35, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
I love language, and the ways it can work. I am not a polyglot. I took years of french, kinda wish I had learned spanish, but picking fields of study is kinda the teachers' fault. I have a niece that has been learning Chinese, dunno what exact form,m but that is a good idea for a couple reasons. One, as I learned French, other languages like Spanish made sense to me. But that's also part of English, Which is Gerrmanic in origin but very utilitarian with its incorporation of anything, slang runs fast and loose in English. I took one year of German, and I understand it if I'm listening but can't speak a sententence. Ich bin ein Sitzpinkler. I am positive that means I shine every time I sit down. The other is, the more you can use language that isn't your native tongue, the more inventive you can be. I still think the Alphabet is the best way to describe phonetic uses of language. I think it would be worth their time to take Anything logo graphic and just break it down into phonics. Torrent (talk) 10:01, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Do you think the 10th of September movement will be successful?[edit]

That is, the French social movement of general strike (or more generally "blockade" of activities and consumerism) planed for the 10th of September against the governments budget and plan to remove two holidays. I know many who participate with me, but I'm not sure outside the Parisian bubble, people are also enthusiastic (it was quickly "appropriated" by a left which largely missed out on the yellow vest movement). Is it going to end up shaking the country, like the yellow vests and the retirement reforms did? It is supported by all left parties, opposed by the National Rally, but the supporters of National Rally (77 % of them), the Greens (83 %, if I’m not mistaken) and La France Insoumise (79 %) all support the movement, only the far-right deputies oppose it. The government has announced a press conference on Monday, and on the 8th of September, there will be a motion of censure against the prime minister, Bayrou: it will be on the centre-left Socialists and the far-right National Rally to make the change (last time(s), these two had some problems showing they were opposed to Macron's government, and both voted for Bayrou, while LFI, communists and greens voted against him). New world (talk) 20:38, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

What would a French general strike mean for European or global economics? Äxl (talk) 05:15, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
I think the more interesting question is what will happen when the French government (probably) fails the forthcoming confidence vote.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 06:46, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
If the government collapses, the mobilisation will only get more intense, in my opinion. The left will use this as an opportunity to force Macron to respect election results (I know, the left doesn't have an absolute majority blablabla. Sure, it's not the first time the relative majority of a party/alliance has been disrespected, but the problem is that Macron very clearly failed, and the French people largely reject his politics, yet Macron just continues as if he was a monarch ignoring the parliament he caused). Macron had 2 coalition or non-aggression options, everyone can judge by themselves which one was better: the left, including La France Insoumise, the greens and the communists, not just the Socialist Party; or the far-right. His "coalition" with the centre-right doesn't have an absolute majority, so… he sort of decided the far-right was better. Hey, just to make this even worse: the socialist party and national rally voted for François Bayrou. I can't express how scary this is: Retailleau is a French minister and literal fascist, worse than Darmanin, and nobody is able to fight back. Macron wanted a wide German-style "GroKo" going from Les Républicains to the Socialist Party, but turns out the socialists refused. Instead of seeing he had no other choice than to name a leftist prime minister, or to cooperate with the far-right, he decided to pretend to do neither. In the end, Bayrou depended on National Rally (and the socialist party…) to survive. Also, it shows National Rally is just an economically liberal party whose deputies were largely born rich, on contrast to their electorate. New world (talk) 21:49, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
I fear the main effect to this ultimately is going to be to push the French neolib/capitalist class closer to the National Rally. Because 'the left' generally is not offering anything constructive [as far as I know] to start tackling the structural and growing deficit or the rising debt/GDP ratios. Once again, it's the traditional 'principled opposition mentality'. That as the financial situation continues to deteriorate and with 'the left' blocking everything and anything it's very possible that in the end the capitalists throw their lot in with the fascists because they promise a variant of DOGE to 'balance the books' [I never said capitalists/financiers really understand macroeconomics] and all they ask in return is that they're given full reign over social policy [foreign policy being split]. KarmaPolice (talk) 12:35, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
@KarmaPolice: Please tell me why the crème de la crème of economists here support left-wing movements and the French social model. The solution proposed by the left is putting a stop to the fiscal gifts to companies, and especially to the super-rich, which have undeniably contributed greatly to the dramatic debt increase under Macron (together with the COVID pandemic and the Ukraine war). A general plan of reinstating the previous taxes abolished by Macron, "Mozart of finances", and to add new ones, as well as rejecting eurosur, going back to the exit tax prior to 2019, and generally increasing taxes for the super-rich (10 % most rich) and especially the oligarchy (2-1 % most rich), while the middle class and the popular classes will either not see an increase or will see a decrease in taxes, exists. Most critics are, well, companies, and especially the big ones. The 2024 New Popular Front program had a plan to win back 49 Billion euros, to be precise. If you speak French, I invite you to take a look yourself at this general overview: here. The French social model is still functional, period. It's the people in power since 2012 (since then, a certain clearly defined line has been established, though liberal Gaullists and others had governed previously too, and Giscard was also liberal) that are destroying it. There is reason to be a little optimistic, though: so far, the social movements of France have always been judged fairly positively by later French historians, and often had an impact, and since the French Revolution, a line of social movements leading to social acquisitions has been observed that might continue. Call it "off-topic", but it's immensely important to remind people (when they go on about the "unserious" left) that in the 1930s, the French right claimed that the 40 hour workweek was going to "drown the French worker" and destroy the economy. The result: the 40 hour workweek, and many other social acquisitions (free SNCF tickets, payed vacation, and many other rights) did not lead to the collapse of the French economy. The Popular Front of 1936 is an example because it was more of a social movement than a mere alliance: as a reaction to the storming of the National Asbly by far-right ligues in February 1934, all left parties demonstrated and concluded a pact to fight the fascist menace. They didn't present themselves as an alliance, but each party was campaigning independently. Finally, the SFIO managed to become first, and a government tolerated by the Communists was established. What is often forgotten: to force the government to keep its promises and as a celebration, French workers made strikes across the country for over a month, leading to the accords de Matignon. In fact, the Socialist Party was expecting the same thing (massive strike movements) to happen in 1981. But, it didn't, and especially to the extent it did in 1936. Later, being surrounded by liberal governments on all sides, and the collapse of communism, forced Mitterrand to change the course of his politics after one or two years of reform, and to open a "liberal parenthesis". And this is without mentioning May 68, and the literal hundreds of individual mobilisations across the history of the 4th and 5th republics. New world (talk) 21:12, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
First off, economists are not a monolithic bloc; like all social sciences there's various factions/traditions which argue the importance of details etc [for example some criticise the French for having an 'excessive' rate of saving but others are much more neutral/positive towards it]. What's more, quite a lot of economists [in my experience] have blinders glued on - they don't give a fuck about QoL, happiness, 'national resiliency' or any aspect of human life which isn't purely economic in nature [I would expect the majority of those who do care do find considerable merits in 'the French system']. But the ones who do find merit doesn't stop them from asking a) whether this is the most resource-efficient system for doing said things, b) are the downsides to this worth bearing and/or c) asking whether the country itself can afford to do it. For example, there's a lot of debate over employment law/rights etc; whether [in short] the juiced-in, unionised work system is damaging SME growth as well as creating a two-tier system where there's an ever-swelling number of permatemps.
I will take back my complaint that 'the left has not proposed anything'; this was mainly due to a source which proved to be wrong. So apologies for that. But don't for one moment think I get suckered into the constant lament from the rightist capitalist class that any reform, however mild was going to destroy everything - for example claims against minimum wages. High minimum wages may in fact be good long-term for an advanced economy, as it forces companies to be more efficient with labour, thus spurring automation (capital investment) and as such, producing a high labour productivity. This is an excellent example of a key issue - economists are not bankers, businesspeople or financiers. Economists are interested in the functioning of the whole economy, while the others are only interested in their own personal folders of figures. Macro vs micro. Decades vs the next quarter etc. It's the old quip of 'knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing'; the boss of [say] Carrefour only sees their workers 'as a cost they wish to reduce as much as possible' and call loudly for minimum wages to be reduced, while an economist will note said reductions will a) reduce economic activity (Carrefour workers cannot consume much now) and b) may make them more dependent on state assistance [which can lead to the paradoxical situation where the bill to 'top up' those jobs to a minimum liveable level is more than the tax-take from the company in question qv Amazon UK.]
My original prediction [which I stand by] is based on one key fact; the capitalist class are financiers, not economists. Most of them are too fucking stupid to realise the old maxim 'private good, public vice' and those few who do realise this don't fucking care. But they do care if any econ proposal makes them even very slightly less rich and/or 'have to do anything'. In fact, they are always hard-on to have those reduced. The crux of the issue [not just for France] is that our general fiscal 'headroom' is fairly tight and the market ghouls are using this in an attempt to strongarm nations to do UK-style austerity measures [under the guise of TINA]. A closely related group are the 'inflation hawks' who believe they must have 1% rates eternally and don't give a fuck how long or deep a recession the world has to achieve it.
And you wonder why I predict that the capitalist class will go towards National Rally. They're the only ones who will entertain the possibility of French style DOGE-slashing and don't propose raising taxes on the super-rich. I don't know the exact policies of Le Pen but I'm willing to bet they have a reasonable bit of 'entrepreneurial' spiel which in real terms equals 'we're gonna deregulate to fuck' which is music to the ears of the forces of finance. KarmaPolice (talk) 14:38, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
I absolutely agree that the French traditional right or "centre" is eventually going to openly admit they prefer "Hitler over the popular front", as the old saying goes. But the fact that the right might come closer to the far-right shouldn't stop the left from mobilising against the right and show 'the people' that the far-right is not "transpartisan", "apolitical" or simply "revolted", the National Rally is an extremist right-wing party that unites all the codes an extremist wing of the right would have. Supporting social movements might have given Die Linke in Germany a little bit more of a chance, in my opinion. A prominent example: the agriculture protests. In France, climate activists literally demonstrated in solidarity with agriculturalists, La France Insoumise and the Greens supported the protests, including the blockade of Paris. In Germany: the Greens literally call the people that protest against power "authoritarian" and "undemocratic", and the entire left electorate basically considers the entire idea of agriculturists' protests far-right and conservative just because the agriculturists are far-right. That logic just doesn't hold up: If the left would have participated, more protestors would have been left-oriented. But Germany, which has completely internalised the entire "progressive-conservative" opposition the neoliberals invented in order to be "left-wing" too, considers any radical protest as a mix of conspiracy theorists and the far-right. Here, in France, the frustrated "centrists" always talk and talk about Germany, "progressive politics" and the dumb, populist French people. In France, what the German greens said about agriculturists would have been an absolute scandal and a reason for demission from the cabinet for the ministers involved. Another example: retirement. In Germany, Die Linke officially supports a more just retirement, but the general discourse around the issue of retirement (the how and when) was and is… very "nice" and "civilised", the youth thought and thinks more about "generational justice" than solidarity, and considers it a "boomer" (what serious and encouraging discourse… almost like in an Anglo-Saxon country) debate. Meanwhile, the French left (including the most rightwing "leftists": Hollande, Delga, etc.) managed to take advantage of the protests, while National Rally was struggling for a time, and all unions, including the high school and university unions which called to blockades of school establishments, participated, and especially the youth in the name of "intergenerational solidarity". Without this, the left would be significantly less important in France right now, we might even have a far-right Prime Minister since 2024. New world (talk) 19:16, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Farage and deportation[edit]

So how soon will Charles and siblings (father a foreigner), and Bojo (born in the USA]] be sent elsewhere if NF and co get into power? Anna Livia (talk) 22:41, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

The day they turn Black. Spud (talk) 10:48, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
That's not strictly true. It's when they turn to be non-white. And they oppose him somehow. KarmaPolice (talk) 11:18, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
Don't they hate Romanians too? I'm pretty sure Eastern Europeans are still considered white... GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 15:52, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
I don't know about the UK, but in the US, my perception is that a significant part of the leadership of populism movements are more classist vs. racist at their core. Such makes it pretty easy to translate this into racism and other Other bashing for the rubes, as well parroting the trendy anti-immigration babble (much of such rhetoric targets unskilled labor, you see). But skin color matters less at a "classist" level... as long as you are of the right "class" and right "politics". (Your mileage may vary, of course, on exactly *how* much less.)
(This means that I wouldn't be surprised if many of the populists secretly hate the "white trash" vote they solicit, but I digress...)
MAGA does certainly have their hardcore white nationalist side, of course. Occasionally in Trump's term something has bubbled up to separate the "classist" folks in the administration versus the true hardcore white nationalists, the H1B visa brouhaha probably being one of the big examples of such.
It wouldn't surprise me if Nigel Farage, who is of pretty well off stock (public school; finance trader coming from a finance trading family), is similarly more classist in reality. But you Brits would know better. :) 47.197.76.134 (talk) 23:06, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
I'm not really getting what the distinction between classism and racism you're trying to make entails. Classism is a tool of racism, and racism is a tool of classism. Classists need for there to be a very small amount of the 'other' in their ranks, to act as a model for the rest of the 'others' to aspire to, which keeps them in line. But as soon as the 'classists' think there are too many of the wrong races in their ranks they seek to remedy that predicament. That's fear that fuels the 'Great Replacement' theory. The 'token' ethnic character trope has been obvious enough for a long time, so this should not be difficult to understand. The existence of the 'token' has been used to conflate racism and classism ad nauseum. "I'm not racist because I have a black friend!" thankfully no longer carries any of the cachet it may have in the past.2001:569:5968:4900:A5A9:3CA3:9781:5EB6 (talk) 08:22, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
It's not too hard: with classism, money / power / social position dominate social hierarchy. With racism, skin color and other "race" constructs dominate. Yes, there is a lot of overlap and "your mileage may vary" stuff. It's not all tokenism though. The "tech bro" community is a good example of a group which from my observation is more "class" than "race" without much tokenism; among visible ones that have leaned into MAGA, Indian Hindus like Vivek Ramaswamy and (libertarian) homosexuals like Peter Thiel are just as much of a part of the tech bro "upper crust" group as anyone else. (Don't ask "tech bros" about women, though. :) ) Given how homophobia and racism are pretty much running wild in MAGA right now, it's an odd fit. But it makes sense from a classism perspective.
But, to the original question... honestly, my "gut feeling" is that a Royal Family member could be (gasp!) black-skinned and Muslim-born, and yet possibly get a pass from at least *some* (not all for sure) of the Reform UK type "deport dem furriners!" crowd, as long as (big caveat here) he or she acts sufficiently British royal upper class in mannerism and pomp. (At the very least, such a hypothetical would show who are driven more by class, and who are driven more by race.) Not being from the UK, of course, I don't know if this "gut feeling" is right. I do know that there are *many* foreign-born Royal Family members, though all I know are of European heritage / white skin color. 47.197.76.134 (talk) 12:38, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
It is always very dangerous to import socio-politico-cultural norms/assumptions from one country and put them wholesale in another. It's why [for example] the BLM protests didn't make a huge amount of sense in the UK until it was diverted into prompting a showdown with our imperial past [such as the Edward Colston statue].
Anyway, from what I can tell the definitions of 'nationalism' have been 'crossing each other' on both sides of the Atlantic - that the USA is a nation where their civic nationalism is morphing into ethnic nationalism, while in the UK it is [roughly] the opposite. Part of this is due to ethnic demographics and country size; that in the UK none of our ethnic minorities have enough numbers/clout to sustain a total parallel society within the UK [unlike say the USA, where there is a whole setup for 'Black America' running alongside the mainstream]. QED: You will integrate, whether you fucking like it or not.
That's important; because I will argue us Brits [or more correctly, English] are less racist than imagined, but way more xenophobic. That the mass migrant waves [say the Caribbean wave between c47-c71] were opposed because they were clearly Others and well, we don't like things Not Like Us. The dark skin was an obvious marker of Otherness and as such, an easy marker to cite [ie xenophobia being expressed in racist terms]. But, as the decades [and generations] pass, both groups move to each other - They became more like Us, but We also came more like Them. However, in a classic 'wood/trees' situation, most of Us cannot tell how we have moved and thus forget that movement is possible.
We saw an excellent example of this from the last government. We had not just a non-white right wing Prime Minister, but non-Christian too! Yet while tons of the British people hated his guts and gave his party a history-making electoral thrashing very little of the dislike was due to his Indian heritage and/or his Hindu faith [at least, as far as I could tell. Think Sunak got more flack for his semi-Americanised habits than ethnicity]. Why? Because he passed 'the sniff test' of Britishness; he was One Of Us in a manner I doubt he would have passed as late as say, 1990. Similar to say Cleverly, Zahawi, Bravermann etc. That's the reason for the apparent cognitive dissonance of 'ethnic minorities' clambering to deport other ethnic minorities - it is nothing more than Us yelling to get rid of Them and promising Us Our lives will be better in every way without Them.
And it's this line Farage et al dance on - Farage himself is very skilled at it. Ever-deepening xenophobia and rigid defining of 'Britishness' which makes it very easy for genuine racists to flourish as long as they stick to the code. Example; the right-wing attacks on the Notting Hill carnival - you can attack it being 'full of crime/drugs/violence etc' and call for it to be banned 'because it might get unsafe' 'because it attracts the wrong sorts', just don't frame it in racial terms, and we're okay. Or the flying pickets of 'peaceful protestors' outside the asylum hotels who mysteriously are being corralled by neo-fascists and bigged up by Faragist electoral hopefuls. KarmaPolice (talk) 15:31, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
It should also be noted that UK politics has a specific role of 'right wing buffer', possibly with a touch of fogeyism, so far always chaps - they are *allowed* to say what other people sometimes think and act as a lightning rod. Examples would include Dennis Thatcher, Alan Clarke, and to some extent Prince Philip. There are also a few who move beyond the pale [2]. Anna Livia (talk) 09:35, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
Yes, and Farage's very persona is this 'fogeyish duffer'; the tweed, hacking jackets, mustard trousers, waistcoats etc. He looks like an character in an second-rate Agatha Christie adaptation [or Heartbeat]; like he's the duplicitous small-town solicitor/bank manager chain-smoking Cravens while driving up to Lord Ashfordly's in his Wolseley. Trying to signal to us plebs and proles that he's 'of the ruling classes' but not, because he's 'in the country', don'tyaknow [because we all know city folk are untrustworthy] while trying to cultivate a 'reassuringly traditional' image [the public smoking, the pint of ale (not lager or a whiskey) superglued to his hand etc] to almost pantomime levels.
In a way, he is quite similar to Trump - in that both have cottoned onto a persona which a lot of the respective public respond to - Trump as his 'billionaire businessman' while Farage went with the 'stodgy upper-middle class ruralite'. KarmaPolice (talk) 12:20, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
Excluding Prince Philip as a special case, the 'right wing buffer' is 'no longer a PM candidate' and is not a 'Tory grandee' (who may hold right wing views (or have a castle with a moat and floating duck houses etc)).
There is no obvious Labour Party equivalent (and the Lib Dems and their predecessors do not 'go' with the concept). There are 'firebrands', and particular groups (Trotskyite Militant Tendency/Militant etc) - Ken Livingstone, Arthur Scargill, Derek Hatton etc. Anna Livia (talk) 13:45, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
I think the 'Tory Grandee' has died because the Tory party has. I'll point out the following 'stab-wounds' 1/ 1997 electoral blowout [lost many experienced MPs], 2/ 1999 Lords reform [removed many hereditary Tories], 3/ 2016 Brexit [lost the pro-Euros], 4/ 2019 Johnson Purge [culling of the 'big beasts' who resisted], 5/ 2024 wipeout and finally 6/ the continued drive rightwards to be a ersatz Reform. 'Being a grandee' relies on you getting the experience to become a grandee, to continue to see worth in the Tory Party of today and to have a leadership which will actually at least fucking listen to your counsel. Whoever Badenoch is listening to now, it's not them - which might be part of her problem [she's short of personal experience for starters; she was only elected in 2017]. Though she's not really alone in this; as of 2024 only 27% of MPs have more than 9 years experience and 10% 18 years plus [this is an unusually 'new' parliament].
One of my pet theories is that also the base quality of Tory MP has declined over the decades. My experience is that rightish people are more motivated by money and the honest truth is that if you're a 'high flyer' chances are you'll do a lot better in the private sector. Plus, running for seats costs you time and money personally [estimates is between 10k and 100k each time] and also relies on you having the ability to take leave to do it. Therefore, most Tory MPs elected say, since 1992 are third/fourth-raters who 'didn't really have much better options' which meant that by the 10s second raters like Cameron and Gove are impressive in comparison and by now the third-rate Shapps is parading about like he's a grandee now. Labour has 'degraded' too, but for differing reasons. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:24, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Does Quantum Physics debunk materialism?[edit]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4C5pq7W5yRM

I've asked this question before on physics and other forums and I get answers ranging from "no" to "it's compilated. I know that some discoveries in QM challenge materialism but that's about it. The video is from an...iffy source and at a glance seems to be based on a misunderstanding of what observation means in QM. I don't think QM disproves materialism and definitely not realism, but some of the findings do challenge materialism like non locality, wave particle duality, etc. Just wanted a second opinion, physics is my worst subject (I couldn't even hack the 101 class in college).47.5.66.54 (talk) 22:43, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Looks like we are back on solipsism - again. I'm not going to spend 20 minutes watching the video. What is the claim in your words?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:27, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
I'll simplify, without watching the video...
Quantum physics "averages out" to regular physics on the macro scale. This doesn't prove or disprove anything about Materialism. Currently, there are limits to how small or how big we may look, we might never go beyond those limits, but that doesn't mean the physics we have is incorrect. CorruptUser 20:52, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

It's not solipsism, I don't buy into that. But I don't know enough about physics to understand if its true or not, and definitely not enough on quantum physics. I did hear that about quantum physics on the "macro" scale, that the probability of quantum phenomenon at that level of interaction is so vanishingly small it might as well be none.47.5.66.54 (talk) 01:09, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

non-locality, wave particle duality, and nothing else I am aware of in quantum theory challenge materialism. Let's look at the definitions... non-locality = a quantum mechanical concept describing how the measurement of one particle can instantaneously influence the state of another entangled particle, regardless of the distance separating them. wave particle duality = a quantum mechanical concept stating that fundamental entities like photons and electrons can behave as both waves and particles, materialism = the doctrine that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications.
If you are willing to allow that non-locality and wave particle duality constitute some of the 'movements and modifications' of matter, there is no incompatibility. If you're not willing to make that allowance, how come? 2001:569:5968:4900:A5A9:3CA3:9781:5EB6 (talk) 10:24, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Dumb Gab post of the day Numero Uno![edit]

https://gab.com/ReviveTruth/posts/115107179373844544 is the post. I shall provide a summary:

Caterpillars prove creationism because they have patterns on them. The poster does not believe that there is any possible way for a caterpillar to evolve with a pattern on it. ResurrectingDeadLinks (talk) 16:01, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Caterpillars are gross. Most of them don't even turn into butterflies, they turn into moths. 2001:569:5968:4900:7525:C984:58F8:865 (talk) 08:27, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
Troll 2607:61C0:700:2DD1:4C87:75DB:31F4:483A (talk) 20:54, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Documentary (1h 30) for everyone to check out[edit]

This is amazing. For context, the indigenous Kogui people are a native culture (not "lost tribe", for more information you have access to ethnological studies by Gerardo Reichel-Dolmatoff and others since the 1950s) living in the Sierra Nevada de Sant Marta in Colombia, where the Ciudad Perdida site (or Buritaca-200) is, with an extremely complex philosophy, comparable to ancient greek thought (according to the ethnologists, not me). Some here might find it "repulsive" at first (very "irrational", "religious"), but Kogui thought really is just describing the world through metaphors and myths, and their description has meaning and sense. I warn you, though: there’s much esoteric bull**** on the internet surrounding them, but I’m basing myself on ethnologists, ethno-historians and others, and kogis themselves. Ethno-historians, because the kogui are the descendants of the Tairona, a complex society of chiefdoms that is known for the "Ciudad Perdida" most of you have prob. seen already somewhere. The Tairona resisted Spanish rule for a long time (even though one of the first Spanish cities of South America was Santa Marta (1525), right next to them). They were conquered in 1600 as a result of punitive Spanish campaign after a Tairona victory, and the modern Kogi are the Taironas (the Spanish called them Tairona, really it was multiple close but different chiefdoms of the Sierra whose original names are unknown and who can’t archeologically be distinguished) who fled to the eroded, isolated places between 1000 and 2000 meters, to escape Spanish rule. Soon after, however, the Spanish basically left again and the Sierra became indigenous up until the independence wars. The Tairona were part of a pre-Colombian cultural space between the central Andes (Incas and consorts), Amazonia and Mesoamerica, called the "isthmo-colombian area" and peopled mainly by peoples of the Chibcha linguistic family und cultural area, characterised by a hierarchical way of thinking, a distinction between humans and animals (differently from Amazonian thought), "civilising" deities, and a couple more things. Among them, the muisca, famous for their metal offerings and the legend of El Dorado, whose language was also called "Chibcha" according to some sources, though that’s probably false (hence the name "Chibchan language family" and "Chibchan cultures", as researchers stopped using "Chibcha" for the muiscas specifically but for their larger group of cultures and entities in northwestern Colombia and Central America, some of which didn’t even know of each other in pre-Spanish times). Western conceptions differ greatly from the Kogui reality, though: what, to us, might be a mentally ill, abused and illiterate person and drug addict with malnutrition and winter depression ("winter depression" is the psychiatrical term used by some anthropologists to describe what we would see it as), is, in kogi society, a highly educated and intelligent, very prestigious (the most prestigious) individual (a priest), who, through sleep deprivation and inversion of the day-night cycle (as well as limited food and general retenue) in his childhood training at isolated places high up in the mountains with other priests or in caves, has been able to overcome the cycles that rule the earth for others (as dates that come in rhythms are the causes of events, and events aren't simply accompanied by dates, to the Kogi). The exact extent of the preparation of the Kogi priest (nor some details mentioned here) isn't presented as exactly in the documentary, but it gives a general idea. The documentaries main theme, the "ecological Indian", while criticised, is accepted by and somewhat true when it comes to the Kogui. RationalwikianN.51 (talk) 23:09, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

No - TL:DR - try adding punctuation and brevityAloysius the Gaul (talk) 02:54, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
And paragraphs.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 06:48, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
I read it, and a lack of paragraphs made no difference to me. People have written many larger portions of text without paragraphs at the Saloon Bar that nobody has complained about. Anyway it says there is a documentary about an indigenous population in South America and the priests of this culture live an ascetic lifestyle that, in my opinion, sounds similar to spiritual traditions in India. 2001:569:5968:4900:7525:C984:58F8:865 (talk) 08:22, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
Yes, paragraph-free walls of text are not uncommon here. And they are always irritating.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 13:27, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
The film has a Wikipedia page -- Aluna -- for those who want a summary with paragraphs. 47.197.76.134 (talk) 13:32, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Transsexuals have their aggrieved serial killers now - how long till they are stigmatized as domestic terror ala incels?[edit]


Update 1: Time it took, about a week: - CNN - Trump DOJ is looking at ways to ban transgender Americans from owning guns, sources say York re (talk) 20:54, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Update 2: The assassination of Charlie Kirk happened directly after Kirk was arguing with someone claiming there were very few trans murderers, with Kirk trying to press it as an issue https://watchpeopledie.tv/h/shooting/post/379641/just-now-charlie-kirk-dead-in York re (talk) 05:08, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Paul is dead[edit]

Came across [3]. Anna Livia (talk) 12:40, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Article I have to update but I am not sure how to word it.[edit]

Louisiana Baptist University and Seminary recently got accredited by ASIC. I know that ASIC accreditation is worthless in the United States because it is not an academic Accreditor. --Trans Fem Agenda 16:05, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

That there are infinite natural numbers is the central property of infinity[edit]

If there are an infinite number of natural numbers, and an infinite number of fractions in between any two natural numbers, and an infinite number of fractions in between any two of those fractions, and an infinite number of fractions in between any two of those fractions, and an infinite number of fractions in between any two of those fractions, and... then that must mean that there are not only infinite infinities, but an infinite number of those infinites. and an infinite number of those infinities. and an infinite number of those infinities. and an infinite number of those infinities. and... (infinitely times. and that infinitely times. and that infinitely times. and that infinitely times. and that infinitely times. and...) continues forever. and that continues forever. and that continues forever. and that continues forever. and that continues forever. and...(...)...

Spacewizard9000 (talk) 15:51, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

You can stop anytime you care to, you know. It'll go on without you. Kencolt (talk) 20:38, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes ----- but are numbers real?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:29, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

What ever happened to that Nintendo chap and his Pokemon?[edit]


Participation on Wikipedia's political pages needed (sry)[edit]

Yeah… I'm not going to get praise for this, but, well, there's a debate on the admissibility of the Wikipedia article "Bloquons tout". I won't tell you what my account is, I basically just don't care and added a vote against deletion because… I am a supporter. Tell me whatever you will about this, most votes for deletion are just as ideologically locatable as votes against deletion are, as happens many times… If anyone wants to participate (this isn't Wikipedia, so no rule prohibits such an action, especially on the Saloon Bar), I happily invite you to leave a vote, as long as you have a Wikipedia account with 50 contributions, no matter the regularity or not of your contributions. The mobilisation will be happening on the 10th of September anyways, so this entire talk about deletion the people at Wikipedia apparently have is going to seem ridiculous afterwards… I think they deleted the yellow vests movement too at the beginning (from reading the linked page), in the end it's some users that legitimately care about Wikipedia rules, and many, many others (incl. me), who care about the 10th of September movement's (French social movement, by the way) visibility or not. You're free to vote according to your soul and consciousness of course, no matter if for or against deletion (the votes "for" are for maintaining the article on the linked page, just so you know, and the votes "against" are against the maintaining of the article, that is for deletion). New world (talk) 18:27, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

David Gerard quoted[edit]

Our long-time contributor User:David Gerard was quoted in a news story about the likely ill-advised planned launch of a meme-coin ("Trump Corruption Coin") by California Governor Gavin Newsom.[4] Newsom has been actively trolling Trump on Twitter in recent weeks.[5] Since the coin hasn't actually launched yet, it's unclear if this is just trolling or trolling and reality. Bongolian (talk) 19:37, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

He was also featured in an article in the Guardian back in May. KarmaPolice (talk) 21:31, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
in which Gavin Newsom explores the bounds of fucking a goat, but ironically - David Gerard (talk) 17:10, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Dumb Gab post of the day 2.[edit]

(https://gab.com/jrplum33/posts/115142984124317516) "if you support taxes YOU..............ARE STUPID AND GAY AND NEED TO BE DEPORTED." Well, I guess that means 95 or so percent of Americans are stupid and Gay now...also, you probably incriminated yourself. ResurrectingDeadLinks (talk) 23:43, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Troll 143.223.148.63 (talk) 03:03, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
He is "seemingly) serious. I have looked at his account, and there is no proof of him being a troll. Yes, the post is immature, but not every immature post is a joke/troll. ResurrectingDeadLinks (talk) 03:17, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
I strongly advise you to not make these posts. Giving oxygen to minor trolls and morons is frowned up here. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 11:07, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

I CANT BRING MYSELF TO ROLE MY R'S[edit]

I'm from Europe, but unlike other people, I developed the tendency to basically pronounce a non-rolled Spanish r, instead of the same shit everyone else seems to be saying, and I just realised it wasn't normal. I want to pronounce Spanish correctly, however, and due to my accustomed r I just can't. I can't vibrate my tongue, and I can't not use my voice when trying to say r. When I want to get a very clearly defined r: I just pronounce my native r (which is just… an r) in a clear way. I always thought everyone around the world pronounces r like I do, but turns out many just don't. So how do I do this? I'm used to basically pronouncing the Spanish "r" in my native language (and I'm a monitory even there), but not "correctly" in Spanish, not rolled, and I can't stop using my damn neck when trying to pronounce the Spanish one. The double r and the simple r are both absolutely impossible for me. I can't even fathom the idea of making a sound solely with your tongue (isn't it going to break… like how do you just use your tongue? No voice, no lips, just the tongue). 80.187.114.96 (talk) 00:12, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

This would be better asked on the Wikipedia Reference Desk or Reddit, IMO. 143.223.148.63 (talk) 02:49, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
Try YouTube.[6] In my Spanish class, which was taught by a native Spanish speaker called it a 'trill', not a 'roll'. When you can say a short sentence with pero and perro, then you've got it: Pero no es un perro. ("But it's not a dog"). Though there is a difference between single and double r sounds, it's rare that the context does not make the meaning obvious even if the pronunciation is bit off. Bongolian (talk) 05:47, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
@Bongolian Are you an English speaking person? Because I natively (even despite some of my people not doing that) speak what I looked up and found to be the "uvular trill". Basically (call me chauvinistic, idk) when I see the letter "r", I assume the only correct way worldwide of pronouncing it is the uvular trill, this sort of "non-rolled" r, as I see it. English and Asian languages are weird exceptions to me. And, to me, the Spanish basic r and double r are just variants of the "normal" r that are rolled/trilled, but with a different mouth positioning apparently. I probably should change this mentality, but I just CAN'T. My brain categorically REFUSES to comply to any new logic of the letter r. And I can't really stop using my damn voice. I basically never use only my tongue to pronounce a letter, and I am very protective of my tongue… why would I try to put it to pieces by flapping it around? 80.187.114.96 (talk) 11:03, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
"R" is actually pretty complicated. There are at least two (probably more) ways of using it in the UK, and that's before you consider the US. If you get to languages like Russian then you have a back-of-the-throat "R" in addition to the trilled Spanish "R". But every language is almost certainly going to have sounds - both vowels and consonants - which are not present in your native language. It is not uncommon for new speakers to think that there is something "wrong" with the new language in that it requires them to learn these new sounds. I see that it is hard and frustrating for you to make the Spanish "R" - well, you just need to keep at it. (And it won't damage your tongue.)Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:25, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
@Bob M OMG thank you SO MUCH! I finally did it (though with the help of a Spanish-speaking friend who explained to me how to correctly follow the internet instructions (I wasn't following them correctly when it comes to tongue positioning…). Now, I just need to be able to pronounce it in the middle of words (at the beginning of words it's easy, but especially when the simple r is in the middle of a word, I just can’t for now, but it’ll resolve itself anytime, I'm sure). Cheers! 80.187.84.136 (talk) 19:19, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
Great. now you jus need to get "ñ" worked out and you are all set.
In point of fact, I would say that it is much easier for English speakers to learn Spanish pronunciation than it is for Spanish speakers to learn English pronunciation.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 05:40, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
I got the ñ and double l sounds figured out pretty quickly (with double ll I mean the very quick "jumping" on the letters, like very quick "die" or "dio", with y being that way too but less so. My Latin American friend told me many people have "bad" language use and insisted on teaching me that, so I'm thankful to them). 80.187.102.186 (talk) 16:37, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
Throat rolled "r"; try making the khkhkh sound in your throat like you are preparing to spit. Then relax your throat while doing it, and make the vocative sound (the difference between P and B or G and C)
Front rolled "r"; you'll make a D sound, but stiffen all but the tip of your tongue. Go for something like the word "droll" if it was pronounced with a hard D instead of "jroll". It's ok to be forceful at first, you'll relax as you learn. CorruptUser 19:52, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
And then there are the 'rs' of the Mac the Knife song in the 1931 film version of Der Dreigroschenoper. (Available on YT and elsewhere) Anna Livia (talk) 23:05, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Trump boat massacre[edit]

So recently Trump ordered an apparently illegal strike on an alleged Venezuelan drug boat. However, Venezuela alleges that the video of the strike in question was actually a deepfake. So, what's more pathetic? Bragging about committing a war crime, or bragging about committing a war crime you didn't actually commit? Antares (talk) 13:38, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

There are at least some hints (nothing 100 percent confirmed) that Venezuela is actually becoming a narco-state[7] and their government is known for its own cosnpiracies. I'm not saying that Trump is telling the truth, but I wouldn't be surprised if Maduro is in fact the one that is actually lying. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 15:08, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, neither party here is a reliable narrator. The Trump regime, for its part, has changed its narrative about the strike at least twice now. Antares (talk) 15:11, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
Indeed, if one side is obviously "bad" it does not necessarily make the other side "good".Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:19, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
FWIW, the BBC doesn't think that the deepfake claim holds any merit. Antares (talk) 16:34, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
I have heard some reliable experts in relevant areas of the law say that the attack was not justified (e.g., law of the sea pertains in international water, no indication that the boat was armed, drug smuggling is not a capital offense, the boat did not attack first), and amounts to state-sponsored murder. Bongolian (talk) 17:10, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Gun Rights in the Industrialized World[edit]

In 1800, there was no ATF, or background checks, or anything remotely close to the regulations we have now. Guns were in nearly every household. Yet, gun crimes were more rare than today*. What did they have figured out that we didn't?

I suggest there's a different reason; Industrialization.

No, not Urbanization or anything like that, just the price of guns.

In 1800, a rifle would cost $200 in nominal dollars, in a time when skilled craftsmen were being paid $1/day. This meant that a middle class worker would need to save for years to purchase their rifle, kind of like buying a car. And if you weren't a skilled worker? It'd take even longer. So you had a system where people could only get firearms after already establishing their career and possibly their families, after they were already past the peak crime ages.

Today, we manufacture guns in massive factories for cheap; you can get a rifle for as low as $400, and cheaper for a handgun. You could purchase a gun with your very first paycheck from working a minimum wage job, without ever having established a career or skillset, before you are even out of high school. In this regard, the young and/or poor now have similar access to firearms that once required being middle class and/or adult. So it really shouldn't be surprising that gun crimes have become more common.

So my question becomes, how do we

  1. Return gun crime levels to a lower rate
  2. Allow honest, upright citizens to continue owning firearms
  3. Allow young, poor people to have same/similar rights/opportunities as the middle class

CorruptUser 17:55, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

In many other countries of a comparable economic-social level to the US the number of major gun-crime incidents is *far less than the US* and far more newsworthy; some are politically inspired or done by 'the nutters.' (Crossbows, black-powder and other weapons are very minor) A measure of gun control is accepted.
It may be what is reported in the news - but the number of incidents in the US seems to be much higher than in the past. Anna Livia (talk) 18:32, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
Regarding guns, the problem currently for the United States *specifically* is that guns have become both a proxy for paranoia instead of a tool (gotta scare you so you can buy more guns!) and a symbol of masochism identity (not just the NRA type, the gangbangers tooo). Big cultural issues there.
It's difficult to say how to fix this. Industrialization, yes, but I see the massively stupid amount of guns America has as a sign of consumerism specifically. In the music world, there's something called "gear acquisition syndrome" for folks who seem to spend more time acquiring shiny new music toys than actually making music. Likewise, "gun acquisition syndrome" seems to be a part of certain corners of gun culture. Welcome to American capitalism... gotta spend your paycheck, now!
The above unfortunately prevents a sensible conversation to be had on "what guns should be for military / police, and what should be for civilians"? Most industrial nations tend to regulate (in some form) automated gun features more than the United States. Partially because yes, it's cheap to get massive amounts of firepower. Bad when derps acquire it to mass shoot for whatever reason, bad too for the criminals that use these for whatever reason. Even the United States has *some* regulation -- machine guns were "banned" (read: heavily regulated actually) after the Prohibition era, because apparently "gangs use these guns, folks" was a message that worked then, but not now. But, gun manufacturers gotta sell their guns... so here we are.
The full answer to "return gun crime levels to a lower rate" IMHO lies with improving the United States policing overall, though. (Not really a gun thing fully, maybe a little but not as a whole.) There may be other factors, too. Homicide per capita if I recall actually peaked in the 1970s; the lead-crime hypothesis here suggests that even something as simple as environmental factors can contribute to homicide rates. 47.197.76.134 (talk) 18:40, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
Another historical factor is the increasing lethality of guns: musket (ball and powder) < rifles/handguns with premanufactured bullets < revolvers < automatic/semi-automatic weapons < metal jacketed bullets. Even the decades-old US national ban on fully-automatic weapons has become quite weak, now that there are known ways of turning semi-automatic weapons into fully-automatic weapons. UK and Australia were able to clamp down on gun culture, so superficially, it would seem to be not insurmountable for the US to do so. I don't have much hope for that anytime soon due to the cultural divide that has persisted since the beginning of the nation. Bongolian (talk) 20:07, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
The gun that gets most of the attention, the AR-15, was invented nearly 70 years ago. Guns haven't really gotten much deadlier since then. They've gotten lighter, which is another huge issue because child soldiers, but not really deadlier.
But going back to my OP, how do we reintroduce the "filter" we once had on keeping guns away from irresponsible people, without basically codifying some sort of classism or other bigotries into our legal system? CorruptUser 02:45, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
I would point out that in most of the "industrialized world" it's pretty difficult to get hold of a gun. The US is somewhat of an outlier.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 05:44, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
I think one of the issues with American 'gun control' is that the 'anti' stock answer is primarily a technocratic one; 'ban assault weapons', 'magazine limiters', 'licencing' etc which side-steps the true crux of the issue - America has violence and anger issues. That while the BoN is right in pointing out the fetishisation of guns [GAS exists in my experience in every hobby I've ever seen from fitness to home baking] but the truth is that even if every American civilian gun rusted up overnight you'd just end up seeing loads of people attacking others with blades, bats, crossbows etc. Why? My two pence worth...
1/Mental health crisis. Anger. Paranoia. Depression. Extreme stress. Poorly/non-treated disorders. Millions of Americans 'losing the plot' in a myriad of ways, then deciding that Weapon Of Gun is 'the solution'. Shooting the fuckers who 'made your life hell'. Or just yourself.
2/Drug/alcohol crisis. Often related to previous.
3/Societal stresses. Unemployment. Ill health. Poor/no housing. Even the most stable of mental foundations can crumble over decades of carrying a ton of stress/worry on your back [qv: Falling Down].
4/Owner irresponsibility. How many mass shootings was done by someone stealing a legal weapon from someone they know? Why the fuck wasn't those weapons locked away? But no, the 'ma fweedom' extremists shoot down any suggestion that they should be legally made to keep their pieces secure. They are harlots - demanding power [of gun] without any damn responsibility.
Gun violence is a symptom of a sick America, not the cause. Treat the true causes and they will rapidly decline in number. KarmaPolice (talk) 08:59, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
There is certainly an enormous difference between between most European countries and most US states as the map shows. For all the social differences, it is difficult from a European perspective, to imagine that the allegedly easy availability of firearms in the US is not at least partly involved.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 09:35, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
Aye, the availability of firearms makes it easier to maim/kill so will capture some folks who'll balk at personally sticking with a blade but not simply pointing and pressing. As well as reducing mass shooter events. But I stand by my previous logic. Plus, we all know reducing guns is a political non starter.
Lastly, there are voices 'on the left' who are arguing (with some justification) that the rise of the New Order means it's time for us to arm up. And in a classic authoritarian move, Orange One wants to ban owners of a minority he hates. What minority is going to be the next to be disarmed, eh? And no, you instantly exclude yourself from the debate of you say 'that can't happen here'. KarmaPolice (talk) 11:02, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
The thing is: when I compare List of countries by intentional homicide rate vs. Estimated number of civilian guns per capita by country... my casual observation suggests that poverty and inequality are far better predictors of homicide than gun ownership in itself. (I don't doubt that the ease of access of firearms in America causes issues, it's just not the only thing going on here.)
Googling around, I found this document from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. This suggests the following factors for higher homicide:
  • Development levels -- the lower the development level, the higher the homicide rate.
  • Large young male populations, especially for those with low education and high unemployment rates. Criminal gang activity is attractive in this environment.
  • Income inequality -- the higher the inequality, the higher the homicide rate.
  • Gender inequality -- the higher the inequality, the higher the homicide rate.
  • Legal weakness. A strong security and justice system that respects human rights. Weaker law leads to higher homicide rates.
Many of these are uneven patterns. But, in general, the pattern seems right. Give young men good jobs, a solid background to succeed, and the ethos to temper the worst of the macho animal instinct... you'll see less homicides. If you wreck schools... turn the rule of law into a corrupt farce... have a society that benefits only an Elite Few... have Taliban like views of women... and have a large amount of angry young men... you get gun violence.
While this only covers homicides, I bet tackling the above factors would help a lot of other aspects of crime.
The thing is, compared to some developing countries, America's crime rate is not that bad. America stands out among "rich" countries, though. My "armchair guess" is that the biggest factor of the above that applies to America is inequality (which leads to many of KP's social ills). A secondary guess would be the elements of American law infected by systematic racism/classism etc... America tends to have "strong" law (we arrest lots of people!) that nonetheless is not as well trained as it could be, and also has a lot of "rules for thee not for me" elements. The later weakens American law considerably.
Fix these things, and you'll probably fix a heck of a lot of crime (easier said than done I know). Of course, it doesn't help the situation when the ruling class loves to exploit racism etc. to get votes, reinforcing both the "inequality" and the "uneven law" elements. 47.197.76.134 (talk) 15:03, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
I (for one) and not arguing that guns are the single source of America's bizarre murder statistics. For one thing there are (almost) always multiple causes for any social situation and for another there are other countries with equal or higher rates of gun ownership. Nevertheless - and I don't think anyone is arguing with this - having a shitload of guns on top of whatever other problems the US has does not seem to be helpful.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:27, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
@KP, with regard to the alcohol/drug crisis, federal law already makes it illegal for illicit drug users to own a firearm, though the same is not true of alcoholics. Given that 50% of homicides involve either the murderer or victim being drunk, that's worth an update, maybe we could treat drunk gun-wielders the same we treat drunk drivers? I don't know exactly.
Back to my original question, what's the best way to replicate the 19th century's filter of "must be the type of person capable of holding a steady job for years to own a gun", without either trampling on the rights of honest citizens or enshrining inequality into the law?
There're obviously more than one possibility, I'm thinking something like "if the military would reject you, no gun". CorruptUser 22:03, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
So people who have asthma, diabetes, or flat feet should not be allowed to own a gun?2001:67C:2628:647:32:804:0:162 (talk) 03:10, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
Flat flooted people are allowed in the army, but I was thinking more like "failed the psych eval", not "too old". Like I said, I just want something that brings back the equivalent of "responsible adult that's well integrated into society" without codifying a class system based purely on wealth, sex, race, etc. CorruptUser 03:57, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
-I think we need to differentiate crimes involving guns and crimes caused by guns. I think drugs is an excellent example; they use guns as they are there -they'd still deal even if they didn't (qv UK). Our higher knife crimes can be seen as 'frustrated gun crime'.
-'Oh but that's illegal' is a pathetic and stupid answer. But more importantly, America has no registers to look at, it does not deal with pieces not from a proper retailer, does not answer if they bought them 'before' and due to the supreme shittiness of your health system many millions go undiagnosed/treated. Result - the law it almost pointless.
-Yes, 'being incapable with a firearm' should be a crime. And a quick check tells me it is in many places in America. This is where propaganda and peer pressure comes in - to encourage responsible gun ownership, similar to how drunk driving became both socially unacceptable and where folks would confiscate their keys etc.
-In an ideal world, having gun licences would be a good start. Every 2/3 years, you reapply and after a quick medical and a couple vouching for you you're go in and do the mandatory gun safety course, reminding you as a responsible citizen you must keep your pieces secure etc. I would also put it into law that if someone steals your piece for a crime, you're liable too unless you can prove you were responsible re storage. KarmaPolice (talk) 09:45, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
There is also a cultural issue (or several) - if most people consider 'guns (and crossbows, black powder weapons etc) are to be used in particular contexts (military, some police in some contexts, target practice, certain hunting, 'dis-armed if historical etc) by suitable persons (and (great-)grandfather's WWII weapon is kept in the attic and not mentioned) there will be much lower rates of weapon-related-violence than 'do them Yanks have Freudian-substitute issue?' Having shooter drills in schools ('and they do nowt about it' is seen as wrong on many levels inlarege parts of the rest of the world. Anna Livia (talk) 15:53, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Our AI spambot friends[edit]

See RationalWiki:Technical_support#the_AI_spambots_again - David Gerard (talk) 17:29, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

French edition rename[edit]

Hello, I recently started a translation of templates (notably navigation sidebars) in French, and chose to call the wiki RationnelWiki in the French translations. I wanted to ask for permission to change RationalWiki to RationnelWiki elsewhere on French articles (including moving the page RationalWiki (français) to RationnelWiki. Also wanted to ask if I had the right to create my own template categories (already created Category:Modèles de barres de navigation for my French sidebars). Avionfoudingue (talk) 03:33, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

"RationnelWiki" sounds a little weird. How about "WikiRationnel" or "RationalismeWiki"? New world (talk) 11:33, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
Icon fedora.svg * dons Mod Hat *Icon fedora.svg
@Avionfoudingue As a French speaking moderator and Board member, I expressly forbid you from unilaterally changing the name of RationalWiki in French. It is called RationalWiki in French, English and every other language written in the Latin alphabet. End of. Spud (talk) 12:28, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
Pedantic point of order; if you're speaking as a Board member, surely you should be putting on your Board hat [tricorn?] instead? KarmaPolice (talk) 13:56, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
@KarmaPolice If there were such a template, I would have used it.Spud (talk) 11:11, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Anthropic's grand copyright theft proposed settlement[edit]

You may have heard that the generative AI company agreed to a settlement of a $1.5 billion total payment to authors that it stole copyrighted works from (it sounds like a lot but it's a drop in the bucket for these AI companies). The settlement still needs to be approved by the judge in the case. The settlement would work out to more than $3000 per author, which is substantial for potential beneficiaries given that many authors make very little from their books and because the proposed settlement appears to include "works", which means both books and journal articles are included. Most academic journal authors make $0 from their publication and no longer hold copyright once the article is published. If you've ever published a book, a book chapter, or a journal article. It's worth checking if you might be included in the lawsuit. The Atlantic has a database of works that were stolen, which is searchable by author.[8] If you find yourself there, the litigating law firm has a sign-up form for potential beneficiaries (i.e., potential class action members).[9] I was in the database for an obscure publication, for which I do not hold copyright. @David Gerard is in the database for two of his books. Bongolian (talk) 18:32, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

is it ethical to be a billionaire/ have billion dollars? etc[edit]

I’m curious to know what is the consensus on this topic is currently from this community. Ive been out of the loop for a while and have come across videos that make me ponder the question.Senxaur 13:16, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

There is no ethical way to make a billion dollars. Antares (talk) 13:08, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
I'm skeptical about the existence of a transcendental ethic. My opinion is that it depends on how the money was acquired (and I don't know the most common way to acquire a billion).
If someone's fortune was acquired through political capture, crime, and rent-seeking, it's clearly unjust. On the other hand, if someone acquired their fortune in a, let's say (I hate that word) "meritocratic" way, that is, by providing goods and services that the population decided to pay for, I don't see any injustice (see my Essay:Greatest_economists_of_all_time#25_John_Bates_Clark), because they became rich by the choice of other people, who decided to give their money to them. There is still at least one more way to become a billionaire: inheritance. This is probably the most controversial of the three. I don't have the time or patience to write about it.
It's also important to keep in mind that "just" doesn't necessarily mean good. For a long time, economists believed there was a trade-off between equality and efficiency, which would partly explain, for example, why Americans, despite being richer than Europeans, were becoming even richer, even if the catch-up effect predicted that Europe should be growing faster. The trade-off probably exists, but it is far more controversial than previously thought when Arthur Okun wrote his book decades ago, with new studies arguing that inequality generates, for instance, political instability, which affects economic growth in the long-term. The cause of this instability is still unclear as far as I know. If it is caused primarily by envy and not by the rent-seeking mentioned above, it is perhaps fair to say that such instability would not be unethical.
Finally, I would like to recommend an article, Mankiw's Defending the One Percent [10] and Stiglitz's book, The Price of Inequality, which address both sides of the debate. A Theory of Justice by John Rawls and Anarchy State and Utopia by Robert Nozick are also interesting reads on the subject, even if I don't like these two books as much as used to. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 13:24, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
Becoming a billionaire involves some degree of exploitation somewhere along the line, which I consider to be inherently unethical. The billionaire running Amazon isn't the one actually delivering the packages and manning the warehouses, he just makes bank off their underpaid labor. The very existence of billionaires is itself offensive too. Elon Musk could give away most of his money and still be a wealthy man. The sheer inequality this implies is obscene. Antares (talk) 13:36, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
Is capitalism inherently unethical?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 13:47, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
(EC) I don't think that giving people jobs is unethical. There is, of course, a power imbalance between employers and employees, but institutions that protect the second group already exist. We don't live in the 19th century anymore. The relationship between employers and employees is much more blurred today, with both sides profiting from it. Saying that a group is "underpaid" is very difficult, you can see again my entry on J. B. Clark. As I said before quite a few times, there is indeed a strong case for a much higher minimum wage in the US.[11] Maybe there is also a case for better regulations due to the risks that some workers face, I don't know. But saying that there is some sort of exploitation in a mathematical sense is much harder. The rest of your argument was already answered in my first post. If you don't like how these people get rich (here we're assuming that they belong to the second group that I mentioned, which isn't truth as far as I know) then you can blame people for buying goods from Amazon. They would still be extremely rich even if their employees earned much more, don't you agree? GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 13:51, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
For the record, as I said many times before, I do think think that the rich should pay more taxes, and these taxes should be used to provide goods for the poor. That's, in my opinion, a good way way to fight inequality. But that doesn't make labor relationships exploitative, and it isn't a good case against billionaires. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 13:58, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
(EC) Putting it in another way. Do you think that Amazon's workforce would be better of without Amazon? We well never know for sure since we can ask Amazon to stop working and check how their former workers would fare, but usually people choose the best jobs available to them. If you want to improve their condition, giving them education, for instance, seems a better way. Whether we like it or not, the reason why people often choose their jobs, is because they can't find better ones. Also, I did say that there is a power imbalance, right? I didn't read your paper, but I think it is compatible with my argument based on the abstract. Apparently, they are talking about South Africa (a much poorer nation than the US and Europe), so maybe there these power imbalances still resemble 19th century capitalism much more. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 14:16, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
Oh, wait. You removed the link to the paper. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 14:16, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
I decided I wasn't in the mood for a debate. You can read it here if you're curious. Antares (talk) 14:21, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Ok. For the record, I don't think that your argument is weak this time. Capitalism can be exploitative and it often is, but I think that this problem can be fixed, and ditching all billionaires doesn't seem to be the best solution. Disputing the ethics of the modern market economy is much easier than disputing its efficiency (even if the latter can also be done with good arguments, of course). GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 14:24, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

All economic systems are 'exploitative' in the respect labour never gets 100% output from their labour. Some will need to be sliced off, if only for the capital fund for future investment, to support the retired workers, the sick etc. But folks don't see it this way normally - that it's only 'exploitative' if someone take an unfair slice. And that's where the debate comes in (when a fair slice becomes unfair).
I will argue that it is almost impossible to earn 'fairly' a billion dollars. The chances of you being able to earn that much via labour alone is incredibly small which means our billionaire is mainly ear ning via holding of capital assets. Which most likely shall be administered via your behalf by faceless managers who shall be motivated to squeeze your RoR to be as high as possible (qv 'Jacksons Arm's, The Iron Heel). KarmaPolice (talk) 15:00, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
Billionaires are to me more of a "symptom".
I would argue, personally, that there have been some billionaires that are not any more exploitative than anyone else in the capitalism system. The large money came from a combination of (usually) novelty, hard work, and luck. In many cases there really was some true innovation going on. Yes, now in these enshitified times, there are issues. But much of them are due to the natural issues present in monopolies, which many of these billionaire owned companies are. (If we're going to reach for "good old days" yearns like MAGA does, why not "Make Trust-Busting Great Again?")
Still, having an economic system that creates such a wide disparity between entrepreneur and ordinary worker however creates significant problems even with the innovation going on. So from my point of view, I'd rather focus on the disparity than focus on the net worth number.
Presently in the US, the "high money class" has an outsized influence in political discourse, which is a big net negative. This is especially notable when said class produces propaganda promoting their interests, and especially if the propaganda is anti-science or bullshit economics. This was most famously seen with climate change denialism, which was rather obviously fueled by fossil fuel interests. Likewise, there is a direct correlation between the anti-vaccination movement and the US "wellness industry", which is now of a size -- ~$2 trillion -- far greater than legitimate R&D. The present anti-democratic kleptocracy musings of the money class are merely the natural conclusion of a class of people that are getting further and further disconnected from the "ordinary folk".
The other problem is, the vehicle that produces this wealth -- the markets -- has become... shall we say... far more "speculative" and "casino like". Much of the *really* predatory industries that produce billionaires can be found in this sector; there may be innovation, but it's often of a "playing with numbers" variety that is of little use for the "ordinary folk". The wingnut welfare circuit producing high-money-class propaganda tried to obfuscate this, but it was this "casino-ization" of the real estate market that directly caused the Great Recession. The financial industry is an important component of business, but I do share the Paul Krugman point of view that the number-juggling gambling portion, the one that got the big salaries, contributed much to inequality but little to the economy of the "ordinary folk". Today, we're seeing the end-game of this with cryptocurrency, a "fine tulip" that, speculative nature aside, has proven to be a very attractive vehicle for the criminal element but is of zero use for the corner store.
So, from my point of view, it seems to me like much of the "billionaire problem" would be corrected via a more progressive tax system and more financial regulation to taper the "casino" elements. I'm sure the wingnut welfare nuts will moan about those things, of course... 47.197.76.134 (talk) 16:35, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
'As they say' - whether you have 'enough money' or a billion dollars/other currency you can still live only in the present, eat one meal and wear one set of clothing at a time: sometimes the billionaireship lasts only until others enter the industry or the value is largely notional. (How much are the UK Royal Castles and the Crown jewels actually 'worth', and could the monarch sell them even if not constrained?)
There is also Veblen's Conspicuous consumption - if you have much money you are expected to spend/donate etc (whereas we ordinary people are free to choose.
The most ethical way of being a billionaire - acquire some hyperinflation currency/stamps (but the actual users of the money at the time did suffer) Anna Livia (talk) 20:07, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
I take issue with the idea that billionaires are just a symptom. Billionaires bought red state legislatures to pass anti-union ("right-to-work laws"). Labor unions and labor rights are fundamental to functioning democracies, and billionaires of the entrepreneurial ilk are uniformly opposed to unions. Entrepreneurialship is often built upon various types of theft (stolen ideas, patents, or shoved-out founders). It's true that some billionaires are worse than others, but it seems that the more money one has, the more money one wants — and at any cost to others. Once there is a critical mass of billionaires, the oligarchy is formed and along with it economic inequality, opposition to democracy, and support for strongman rule that will keep them eternally in the comfort which they think they deserve. Category:Oligarchic escapes and paranoia are other symptoms of billionaires. Howard Lutnick, currently Secretary of Commerce under the big rump, is an interesting case-in-point: mentored by the founder of Cantor Fitzgerald, had himself promoted to partner after the founder died, kicked out founder's family and installed himself as owner, wouldn't pay the families of his staff who were killed in the 9-11 attacks (even though his company Cantor Fitzgerald was merrily trading stocks throughout 9-11). Several scoundrels became billionaires after betting on the misery of others (credit default swaps) during the 2008 financial crisis. How did the crisis begin? Billionaires paid some lobbyists and Congressional reps to deregulate. Bongolian (talk) 04:49, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
I am sure that billionaires will do all they can to rig the system to make themselves "better" billionaires.
But isn't there a problem with this process? Wealth acquisition is to an extent a zero sum game. While wealth may be being created by some mechanisms I'm betting that it's not being created at the same rate that it's being hovered up by the mega-rich. If so, as they continue to get richer the poor, do indeed, get poorer.
Then, at some point, there will be no one around with the money to buy iPhone's from Amazon or electric vehicles from megalomaniacs. When all the wealth is held by the top 10 percent or even the top one percent - won't the system break?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 09:38, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
@Bob M I don't think that's actually happening. Check The Elephant Curve if you want to see some evidence against the "zero-sum" argument. Some people think that Thomas Piketty's conclusions on his book on his The Capital in the 21st Century (i.e. the r > g dynamic causes wealth to grow faster than the economy, concentrating capital in the hands of a few) means that the rich are squeezing out the poor, but I think that he actually meant that the gap is widening, not that the economy is a zero sum game, but this conclusion has been disputed too.[12][13]
The diagnosis that concentrate too much wealth leada to power and that this can distort the market system is something that even diehard libertarian economists studied, such as George Stigler and regulatory capture and James M. Buchanan and rent seeking. I don't think that their solutions would work very well to solve the issue, but they are still better than what most of the mainstream right seems to believe today. Turns out that being pro-market means being antibusiness too (I give all my Internet money to anyone finding a single quote of Adam Smith supporting businessman). GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 10:36, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
Having said that, I would say that "the system" has indeed broken twice in American history, through these extremely rough timelines:
A) At the end of the Gilded Age, for various reasons, the go-go capitalist mood broke. This led to the OG Progressive Era.
B) At the end of the Roaring Twenties, for various reasons, the go-go capitalist mood also broke due to the Great Depression. World War II European fascism shenanigans then helped further neuter the fascist shenanigans of the American business bigwigs.
I would say that the former is probably more comparable to the current climate than the later. We have a new shiny thing (information technology) that is producing comparable bubbles, busts, and oligarchs. Just like the new shiny thing back then, railroads. Finance (outside regulated boring areas, which thankfully do exist today) is getting awfully shaky now, just as it was then. And, just like then, politicians increasingly look bought and are serving corporate / oligarch interests, not of the people. 47.197.76.134 (talk) 12:37, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
You left out the US Civil War, before which, wealth in the antebellum South was highly concentrated in the relatively few owners of large numbers of slaves.[14] Bongolian (talk) 19:07, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
I think folks are missing the real point of the issue; that this is a discussion regarding ethics. Now, if we accept the premise that 'money' is a kind of ration-ticket for resources and to some extent the amount of money in the economy is a finite sum [so a loose 'zero-sum game'] a billionaire is clearly holding a fuck-ton of ration-tickets in a society where a lot of people could really do with some more tickets. Now, it's argued that the billionaire helps in this by investing their ton of tickets into the production of more tickets, but this is at least partly obsolete; we no longer live in a 'ticket-short' world where the 1%'ers wallet was the main source of investment tickets. Even more importantly, a lot of those investment tickets go into either 'store of wealth' and/or 'rent-seeking' activities [real estate, stock market, IP, M&As, crony capitalism etc] which not only does not help in the increase of tickets being produced in 'the real world' but can hurt society by inflating the prices of stuff both people and business actually need [for example, property] as well as keeping the poor in that position by denying sufficient resources to be able to possibly bootstrap themselves upwards.
Therefore, I will argue that unless proven explicitly otherwise, the top 1% are a net drain on the general economy. So this leads to the question; how much is 'too much'?
Now, each country would have a different rating, but my rating for the USA is the absolute top limit of $20m. That this guarantees not just a upper-middle lifestyle for a couple in retirement and real estate/physical assets of about 1m [main home plus vacation home and furnishings] but also enough wealth to 'set up the kids/grandkids for life' [which I consider a natural desire] - that is private education, fully-paid college, a 400-500k home and a trust fund which would provide an modest eternal safety net for each.
Anything more is just plain unnecessary. That once you go over a certain point in anything, money cannot buy more quality - they're just Veblen goods. That the law of diminishing returns always kicks in; difference between a £10 steak and a £25 is out of this world, the 25 to 50 considerable but less and so on to the point there is almost nil increase between a £100 one and the £600 one at the Savoy. But that's the point; you go to the Savoy not because it's '100% worth it' food/service/decor etc but because it appeals to the inner snob, that we can say 'we dined at the Savoy'. Art is similar; I love the painting 'The Boulevard Montmartre at Night'; I have a full-size print on my wall. Cost £200, all told. The original would cost me perhaps 10m. I'd enjoy the original more, but not 50k times more.
But the truth is; those who go past the 'that's enough' limit by their own actions are usually driven by a combination of egotism and megalomania; that if they cannot personally live forever, they want to build a damn dynasty. That they want their names to join the podium of 'old money plutocrats', perhaps with half an eye on that most supreme of examples; the old British aristocracy [quite a few can trace their 'wealth lines' all the way back into the mediaeval mists]. But they know all about the 'Three Generation curse' and other examples of plutocrats who lost their wealth or just found it diluted to nothing down the line. Which in real terms means trying to rake up as big a fucking pile as physically possible, stashing it in as many different places as possible and do their best to cook up ways to guard it against taxes, stupid descendents and black swans.
Which leads me to the question; is it ethical to allow a hereditary plutocracy to arise and embed itself so firmly that it can fuck about with any aspect of a nation's life they so desire? KarmaPolice (talk) 15:14, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
I think the $20m limit is overstated. Creating trust fund babies, which this amount would enable, encourages aimless lifestyles, what amounts to a mini-plutocracy class. The "Veblen goods" that you mention (I presume you mean conspicuous consumption) is actually worse in some respects than Veblen described. Expensive wine tastes taste awful (or so I'm told). Having the original 'The Boulevard Montmartre at Night' on your wall would come with a mandatory free case of extreme paranoia, which the billionaire class are loaded up with. Large amounts of inherited wealth is not ethical because it fuels the oligarchy. If one accepts democracy as more ethical than most other forms of practical government, then oligarchy is clearly not ethical. Bongolian (talk) 20:09, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
*shows cigarette packet*
1m 'Founding couple' house, small holiday home, personal assets.
2m Founding couple's retirement fund (100k a year for 25 years, @ 5%)
1m Contingency (gifts, charity, emergencies).
4m Total.
Per kid/grandkid;
.25 Early education, care.
.25 College.
.5 First home.
.6 trust fund (30k a year @ 5%)
1.6m per person.
Assumes reproduction rate of 3, so 9 persons.
14.4m 'for the kids/grandkids'.
18.4m Total assets.
(points out 20m was 'absolute limit', taking into account large family, one or more descendents being disabled etc).
Would this create a load of mini-babies who'll coast through life? Sure. But it will also provide a decent trampoline upwards if any of the 2/3rd gen were desiring/capable of it. Or provide a cushion if any wished to take a low-paid but socially useful job, like in education, science, the arts etc. Money don't buy you happiness, but sure as hell a reasonable but not luxurious mortgage-free home and a lifetime modest stipend means that a lot of the money-related stresses should be clear without 'it going to their heads' [or becoming an oligarch class]. And from my experience, you'll always have some folks in this world who will 'coast' regardless of actual SoL. KarmaPolice (talk) 22:13, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Are we witnessing the end of Social Democracy in Europe?[edit]

Government in France is collapsing. And of course, leading countries in Europe are in both societal and economical crisis since long now. Not surprisingly, more and more governments are preparing people for war. The obvious effect is that social welfare will be cut down in favour of military spendings, something that will only add to distrust at Liberal governments and values (a damage already done by Trumpist ideological insurgence) Alexk (talk) 01:55, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Social democratic countries were doing fine last time I checked. Governments come and go, but institutions remain. In my opinion, the main challenge that social democracy will face in the next decades will be dealing with a declining workforce. Immigration, of course, can fix this issue at least to some extent, but Europe doesn't seem to want immigrants, so unless we have a huge leap in productivity (no, I don't think AI will do that) or Europeans start having more babies (giving how pathetic were the results of spending 5 percent of your GDP in pro-natalist policies in Hungary I doubt that they will) some major cuts will possibly happen in the next decades, but that doesn't mean the demise of a very good system. Personally, I think that social democracy is, from an intellectual and political standpoint, in a much better position than 30 years ago. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 00:40, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
Being the best-working system we have tried in the last century (with some bad examples, like Greece) doesn't mean it will be on the winning side (see Weimar Republic). Major cuts alone mean that established Socialdemocratic instititions in Europe will be striked from both Left and Right-wing populists, with nationalism already on the rise, capitalism entering its self-eating stage, and total war with Russia on the way.Alexk (talk) 01:55, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
I think one of the key issues is that a lot of the 'social democratic' parties died as such some time ago; that being down to them morphing into Third Way/Neoliberal 'let's tinker about the edges' parties in the desire to court the votes of the well-heeled who like all people doing well for themselves, will shove a pick in the skull of those who threaten to spill their drink. So they latched onto managerial/technocratic solutions, hoping to improve things without spilling that drink. This became a kind of 'doom loop'; the more 'technocratic' the party became, the more it attracted technocrats, which by it's very nature became more and more suspicious of actual public participation in politics - that like everything else, they want everything 'neat' and 'managed'; a managed democracy where you only passively vote 'on the skill of the captain' and you're never bloody allowed to actually question the direction the ship is going. This became more lethal a loop as in many nations the 'mainstream right' either imploded or were hijacked by the populist/reactionary right, which drove the rightist technocrats into the 'leftist' party, which not just strengthened the technocratic lean but also shunted them rightwards. And because Third Way was at best a dubious ideology success-wise and is a total fail now, our technocrats usually spend their time trying to explain away poverty etc via graphs [which isn't new; David Lloyd George 120 years ago derided the British Conservatives as 'trying to feed starving men with harvest statistics'] which shows they are either disconnected to 'the real world' or worse, simply don't give a fuck of the human element. And why the rightists can [with some evidence] attack these parties as being 'the Establishment' [ie the party of the managers and technocrats who run most of the country] and harvest a lot of the discontent which traditionally was 'ours'.
Or for a TL:DR version; the mainstream leftist parties fucked up the day they decided that having a heart in politics was bad and having public participation in party politics was even worse. And herein lies the solution; that if they re-discover their hearts, that they actually start welcoming back the noisy, fractious and somewhat uncontrollable public participants [and accepting this every partial chaos as a feature, not a bug] and allow genuine two-way conversations to happen again, they will continue to lose ground on all flanks until they become an electoral irrelevance.
Anyway, I *do* see several major productivity gains in the works for Europe. You're 100% right to be wildly suspicious on AI [and it's sibling, robots] but both do have their part to play. Computing power and LLMs can reduce humans in data-driven roles, while chatbots will cut the numbers of call centre workers and personal assistants. Jeeves the bot won't do your physical shopping for you, but there is no fundamental reason now why warehouses can't be much more automated than they are presently. And this isn't even taking into account the swathes of Euro economies which have not embraced previous waves of productivity gains; from computerisation to electrification, leading to the obvious solution of increasing capital density [for example, the UK per-head has a third less capital than Germany, and it shows in our SoL]. Other innovations will be more... contentious, such as making greater use of tech such as modular/flat-pack buildings, 3D printing, GM crops etc which threatens our 'traditional way' of doing things. Even simply suggesting that we [as a continent] consume less meat/dairy so that land can be used for more legumes [so we can become more self-sufficient and need fertilisers less] kicks up a shitstorm, esp in countries such as France where 'our food' is a political third rail.
Demographics offers both challenges and advantages economically - and the latter is rarely mentioned. A stagnant population size means that there isn't a constant rush to add more homes, transport links, utilities etc [meaning the labour-force will be on a 'replacement of end of life' projects only, and thus smaller] or to constantly increase production of foodstuffs etc while older citizens consume less products per-head [clothing, furniture etc] which means less workers in these sectors. As for changing the birthrate; it's no secret how to do it, sociologists have known 'the answer' since the 1960s [the USSR was the first nation to show this issue] - that modern, industrial society which has economic output as it's core goal ends up throwing a ton of 'hygiene' factors which strongly discourage having children [or more children]. Hungary's attempts didn't really work because they were very biased towards who they wanted to have more kids [guess what, LGBT, the poor, foreigners, the unmarried or the womb being over 30 need not apply], a lot of it was loaded into loans [with some shit T/Cs attached], was draped with right-wing rhetoric and most importantly, didn't really answer any of those hygiene factors. [Interestingly, I have seen it argued that it was the reduction of teen pregnancies in Europe which finally pushed our birthrate under replenishment levels]. KarmaPolice (talk) 12:07, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
That's an interesting point. Indeed, a stagnant population means that the government can spend less in housing, even on education and probably on many other things, and focus on healthcare, pensions, etc... And yes, I have little doubts that a smaller birthrate is better for the economy than teen pregnancies. By the way, how do you see the "guns versus butter" problem that our friend mentioned? GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 12:59, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
Also, this is piece by Foreign Affairs is a very interesting take on a declining population.[15] While the author works for the American Enterprise Institute, and right-wing organizations are known for advocating for pro natalist policies (at least when it comes to while people) he argues that, despite the many challeges that a declining population means, the doomsayers are also wrong. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 13:09, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
The current (and recurring) government crisis in France is definitely not an example of the European social democratic malaise that has become known as Pasokification for the simple reason that Macron and his party are not and have never been social democratic, but are liberals of the social liberal/neoliberal variety.
Macron’s supposed interest in the “flexicurity” systems of the Scandinavian labour markets has always focused solely on the flexibility part (easy to hire/fire), but little on the accompanying security (relatively high unemployment benefits etc.), which is just one example of him not being a social democrat, but a liberal.
That said, there has been a long crisis in European social democracy, but it’s varied and has had different result, from the marginalisation of previously strong social democratic parties in Greece and the Netherlands to significant decline, but not exactly wipeouts in Germany and France to the weird morphing of the Danish Social Democrats to something like a “moderate” version of the Danish People's Party, while regaining/retaining power, just like the Norwegian Labour Party has been able to regain/retain power. Not to mention that social democratic parties have done fairly well in Portugal and seem to have bounced back in Spain after being challenged from the left by Podemos/Sumar.
The main weakening of Western/Norther/Southern European social democracy, i.e. those outside of the (former) Eastern Bloc, came with the societal changes in the 1970s and ‘80s and the subsequent surrender of key ideological points to the centre right by the New Labour inspired course changes in the 1990s and 2000s.
The patterns in Central and Eastern Europe are different yet again, due to some of their social democratic parties springing from reformed, post Soviet, communist parties and their political developments being much different from the already diverse patterns in Western Europe. ScepticWombat (talk) 14:04, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
- The key issue is that the forces of capitalism hate the idea of a 'static population' and an 'older population' because between them have echoes of turning the country into a steady-state economy [older people do not only consume a lot less 'stuff' but are also more resistant to fads/novelty which is a major factor in consumerist churn]. It would require a considerable change in outlook; that companies would have to focus better on developing genuinely better products than simply trying to trick them into buying crap, that market conditions would generally be very mature [as relatively few new consumers would be coming on-line] and they'd have to put more heed into actually training and retaining workers than their traditional 'don't need to do nowt, there's more where that came from' mentality which is riddled in the care, retail and logistics sectors [esp if Europe remains relatively hostile to external migration]. It's why the likes of the AEI are so 'pro bump'.
-[non-paywalled edition]. Most of the points they raise I've already noted and generally speaking, that article cites the issues rather than proffering solutions [so is safe]. For example, a lot of that 'saved spend' on child education you mentioned will need to be ploughed back in to adult education - that we already need the capabilities to reskill/refresh older workers skillsets and if Europe's workforce is going to be even older and working older too. And socially there's 'challenges and advantages' too; on one hand it threatens to bake in an elderly perma-majority electorally [which could spell disaster] but on the other hand it might spur the making of more multi-generational co-living housing stock [thinkpiece] which can nail both 'childcare' and 'senior care' issues to mutual benefit.
- In the general 'guns/butter' debate; I pick the third option - machines. That Europe probably could have afforded both if it wasn't due do the massive upshoot of national debt due to the bank bailouts and then Covid. So what we have to do is work to increase our capital stock to get growth at a higher speed than traditionally and therefore, better-placed to sort out our structural deficits. This appears what the Germans are attempting, though they do have the advantage their total debt ratios are still well below 100% - other countries simply do not have that 'breathing room'. What's more, Euro membership is a partial straightjacket; like we all learned when Greece hit the skids - it couldn't devalue and had austerity imposed on them from outside by technocrats who didn't really give a fuck about social cohesion or the fate of the Greek politicos who had to accept it. But if put into a either/or situation; it has to be the guns. The mid-east is falling to bits, the rusted tiger which is Russia is slowly chewing through Ukraine, it would only take one major event to send tens of millions of refugees tramping up to the Med and knocking on our collective door and America should be expected to be somewhere between at best an unreliable ally, at worst an actual adversary. We can either delude ourselves that some or none of those things are in fact true [and so continue to do nothing] or we face up to the plain fact there's no fucking point discussing our welfare systems etc if we find ourselves drift into a war with Russia, a bunch of far-right cretins take power across the continent and/or we find ourselves hamstrung due to lack of economic resources. KarmaPolice (talk) 16:57, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
The collapse of the French government doesn't come in a vacuum: Macron called for new elections, when he had what could be called an implicit absolute majority. He lost said absolute majority. The left "won" the election (that's usually what coming first means). Now, he had two options of non-agression, or "coalition" or whatever: the entire left, from LFI to PS, or the far-right. He decided to name a minister from the LR party. The problem: LR + macronist alliance doesn't equal absolute majority. He needs more deputies. And so, in the name of "stability", the completely illegitimate and frankly not democratically elected Bayrou government was supported by the PS (the "social-democrats", …), the macronists, LR and of course the National Rally. Still, the only ministers came from Macron's alliance (already fairly liberal-conservative and centre-right since Darmanin was interior minister) and the traditional right-wing, LR. Of course, the "traditional right-wing" means very far-right leaning, to say the least, ministers. The true Gaullists from LR, with an understanding for the need for a providence state (the right-wing concept of social justice) that assures socio-economic equality, were not very involved. Macron needs to accept something: the left won, and the left isn't extremist, so he needs to name the prime minister the left agrees on (they lastly agreed on Lucie Castets as prime minister, but Macron named Barnier instead). Ok, let's say LFI is "far-left" to Macron: what about the other 3? The communists too? Ok, let's say the greens: oh, turns out Macron considers the greens far-left too. So Macron just wants a coalition with the Socialist Party and LR, and his supporters, which implements his politics. The problem: he lost the election. So this is sort of a problem now, this thing with calling elections and all for no apparent reason except creating chaos. Well, hey, the left apparently has a solution: letting it govern without Macron, but with a pact of non-aggression. You say no compromise is possible then? Well, a pact of non-aggression doesn't mean Macronists have to vote for left-wing legislation. They could just vote for the left's government staying in place, the left could avoid using article 49-3. The government won't last, you say? But that's the entire point of a pact of non-aggression. Why the left? Again, we have to remind people always, but the left came first, and therefore, in such a situation, has a little bit more legitimacy than the far-right (but Macron decided he prefers the far-right). So, there is a solution, why doesn't Macron try it (he only named LR and macronist governments so far)? Well, because Macron doesn't recognise he lost his own election, and therefore believes in possibilities (a minority government with no hope nor legitimacy, a hypothetical "grand coalition") strictly ensuring his politics (which lost at the last elections he called himself) continue. And then, he tells the French people they are "stubborn", he believes the opposition needs to "compromise". Compromise with the person trying to stay in power at all means? Really? How can you even do that? You tell Macron: "Here are alternative solutions to the debt crisis", and he calls you an extremist for not supporting his policies. He even managed to call the PS extremists during the last elections. So Macron is, in my opinion, a case which can't be compared to others. He is the principal representative of the "presidential monarchy", and the government collapse is linked to his behind cameras intrigues at the National Assembly. Also, today and on the 18th, fairly important (though, at least form my observations, seemingly not as important as the yellow vests) mobilisations took/take/will take place, against Macron, and the entire French left, from NPA (Trotskyist) to PS (social-democratic, centre-left) support the social movement. New world (talk) 14:46, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

On the shoot down of Russian drones by NATO forces[edit]

Any ideas what may come next?. Article 4 (consultation between allies) has been invoked and the drones were reportedly ones for reconnaissance, not equipped with warheads. Looks like Putin is provocating again given the number of drones, and I doubt Trump will do anything. Panzerfaust (talk) 13:36, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Whatever happens next there is no chance that NATO will activate article five over this. It might really have been a mistake by either Russia or possibly Belorussia.
It seems that Poland needs to improve its anti-drone defenses though. It looks like around 23 flew in and they only shot down three or four - something like a 20 percent success rate. And with NATO's help. If the attack had been serious they would evidently been overwhelmed. They probably need to ask Ukraine for some training on that!Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 13:52, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
Start worrying when Katyn (and the other missing soldiers) get mentioned in the Polish media. Anna Livia (talk) 16:13, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
Putin tested Trump - and [so far] he has failed the test. Let's show the Orange One's response on Lies AntiSocial;
“What’s with Russia violating Poland’s airspace with drones?”
Trans: I am a slightly deaf/senile old man who does not actually believe what I am being told. Chances are, even if you speak louder/slower I still won't believe you.
“Here we go!”
Trans: If done in flesh, this would end with either an eye-roll or sigh. I love Putin, and those nasty wussy Poles are slandering him again.
Message to Euro capitals. 'Take note; Trump doesn't have your corner. Fucking back down over Ukraine or else.' KarmaPolice (talk) 16:51, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
He does indeed sounds like a confused old man in the first part of the post. But I think you are over-interpreting the second, "Here we go" part. It's just the confused old man still rambling. Obviously, though, what he ever subsequently does will be claimed by him to be whatever the "Here we go" was supposed to mean. It's the usual trick of throw all the shit at the wall and then claim that whatever sticks was the plan all along.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:23, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, the last bit could mean something anything everything or nothing. But judging from the fact he did absolutely fuck all afterwards and knowing as we do the supreme man-crush he has for the Bloody Czar it's not outside the realms of possibility. KarmaPolice (talk) 21:57, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
If Putin was sending a message it was answered with extreme prejudice. It reminds me of the joke about two guys running from a bear. One guy says "I don't think we can outrun it," and the other replies, I don't have to outrun the bear,...." You don't run if you can fight. Don't forget, the EU is full of angry white men who don't speak Russian.Zatoichi (talk) 18:57, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Revolution in Nepal[edit]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/sep/10/nepal-gen-z-protests-corruption


The government of Nepal has been overthrown. This should be a sign to the Trump regime that people won't tolerate corruption. --Trans Fem Agenda 15:58, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Well, this episode unfortunately does provides lessons on what Elite Autocratic Wannabes should *not* do. As in:
  • Don't cut off social media like the Nepalese elite did. Just mold and shape it, via outrage bait propaganda / bots / etc. Russia shows you how to do it right!
  • Don't take thuggery *too* far. Although it is difficult to figure out "how far is too far"; many authoritarian states get away with massive amounts of state-sanctioned violence and thuggery. Nonetheless, it is clear that the police killing 19 protesters on September 8th (and injuring many more) just made things worse for the Elite. Far worse, in fact.
Nepal is a "hybrid regime", which is an ostensible "democracy" that has authoritarian features to keep the Elite in power, such as election rigging, media intimidation, the suppression of political opposition, a non-independent judiciary, widespread corruption, etc. Basically what the Republicans under Trump want to be! (Although Nepal is (by a fair bit) more authoritarian and corrupt than the Trumpsters at this point.) A "hybrid regime" though is the most vulnerable type of government to coups, at least according to the Wikipedia article on Coup d'état. Something for those "democratic backsliding" Republicans to chew on, I suppose...47.197.76.134 (talk) 18:42, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
If Trump continues down the road he is going then revolution could come to the United States. I can see an armed uprising in the future. --Trans Fem Agenda 20:21, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
They won't 'chew on it' because they have zero self-reflection, real knowledge of history and think 'all libruls' are very weak/cowardly and won't fight for anything. Alas, this [in my book] increases the risk of major political violence because they have zero respect for their enemy - they think they'll never, ever bite back. KarmaPolice (talk) 22:01, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
What Greek leftists have to report: "A pro-monarchist nationalist movement is violently couping against a pro-Maoist government. Smells like Colour Revolution."Alexk (talk) 23:40, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
Isn't the current government lead by Marxist-Leninist CPN (UML), who don't get along with the Maoist opposition party CPN (MC)? Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 05:13, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
While there have been pro-monarchy protests in the past in Nepal, I don't see a whole lot of "pro-monarchy" about this in the news so far. (The current Wikipedia article mentions a little bit but it does not seem like the focus.) "From afar via news articles" it seems like a very disorganized, chaotic mob movement.
The only name I've seen floating around as a "representative" of the mob in a few articles is the mayor of Kathmandu, Balendra Shah, who is an independent. But my perception is that him being "representative" is stretching things considerably. 47.197.76.134 (talk) 13:16, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Also - the Niccolo Machiavelli quote from The Prince about it being 'better' to do one big act against a person than many little ones. Anna Livia (talk) 09:40, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Question[edit]

I want to start hacking at every use of the word 'anti-Semitism' and revise it to 'antisemitism'. If I were to manually do this, would it be controversial or disruptive to any end? To (talk) 16:24, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I had the category renamed as such before, & put the reasoning on the category talk page. At worst it would flood the recent changes with edits. Chillpilled (talk) 16:27, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
Even the Michael Coombs page still has some there. Can't edit it out though, lol. To (talk) 15:03, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Charlie Kirk Dead[edit]

We are not sure until a death certificate gets made, but if he's truly dead, then I feel bad for his family. ResurrectingDeadLinks (talk) 20:27, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I think most of us can separate our views of his views (and others) from sympathy/empathy towards the family. Anna Livia (talk) 23:12, 10 September 2025 (UTC
I saw the video, and there's no way he lives through that. Won't miss him, but I doubt anything good comes out of this. Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 20:44, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
Seems like it's been confirmed (っ◔◡◔)っ ♥ Natsuki Marx ♥ (talk) 20:48, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
(Edit conflict-he was apparently confirmed dead right after I first tried to post this) I'm pretty sure I saw the fencing response, so I'm fairly sure he is dead.-Flandres (talk) 20:49, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
It's been confirmed. Apparently he was answering a question regarding gun violence at the point he was shot. I don't care this is ghoulish, but I've not seen this level of irony since my fundie dickdead of a cousin had a fatal heart attack while haranguing/lecturing a group of people about eternal damnation and the afterlife. KarmaPolice (talk) 21:53, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
That's not irony. The killer planned to attack during a gun question.Whattheheck (talk) 19:02, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
I posted to the talk page as the event appeared on the BBC page - the death happened shortly thereafter.
The claimed suspect has been released - how soon before the conspiracy theories start? Anna Livia (talk) 23:12, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
It's already begun. Trying to find some real juicy words on X. Even ones calling for the DNC to be declared a terrorist organization or for it to be dissolved. In all honesty, all this is doing is creating a martyr on the Right. Anything similar to this or the Trump shooting, or worse, and there is going to be little reconciliation between the parties.Patty Pat 23:23, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
Welp, I think this may just be a big enough deal to overshadow the Epstein Files saga2001:67C:2628:647:35:402:0:207 (talk) 00:29, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
Doubtful. Mass shootings and targeted assassinations rarely effect American politics and discourse that much.-Flandres (talk) 00:53, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
2 months ago: Trump and other Republicans mock Democrats after Minnesota lawmaker killings. So, Utah Senator Mike Lee, how does it feel now it is your state?
It is shitty that Kirk got murdered. I definitely don't want to see this sort of thing. However, I have zero sympathy for Kirk; the horrible gun / conspiracy culture that Kirk helped amplify in America; his cynically malicious use of American Christianity as a vehicle for such; and the Othering game Kirk (and many of his ilk) played then and plays now. Kirk enriched himself by playing with the fire of fueling American fascism, and Kirk paid the price of playing with this fire. "Fuck around, find out" as they say. (And this applies no matter what the ideology of the murderer is, which is unknown at this time.)
I have no idea where things go from here or how to minimize the presently increasing political violence (at least practically and politically speaking). It would be nice if those who are in Charlie Kirk's "paradigm space" realize that a culture of violence just makes things worse for everyone, as proven today. From what I see, though, this ain't happening. The amplified us vs. them rhetoric from certain shithead figures continues, turned up to 11. (Even if they in reality this heated rhetoric puts themselves in greater danger, too, like everyone other political figure!) So it goes. 47.197.76.134 (talk) 01:20, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
The outpouring of prayers worked as well as always. Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 03:01, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
Though I am not a sociopath, my left-wing sense of humor awoke when I heard the report of the shooting and I smiled, until I heard that it was likely fatal. When I heard Kirk was dead, I wanted to vomit. I didn't like his politics, but in America he was entitled to say what he thought. He didn't deserve to be killed. The fact that I did not support his political opinions bore no relation to my ability to feel regret for his death. The far right now rises to the narrative that liberals and democrats are responsible for political violence. I would not be surprised for a right-wing conspiracy to eventually transpire. I understand that Kirk's relations with Nick Fuentes were so bad that Kirk's security wouldn't allow Fuentes to approach him at public gatherings. I think Fuentes accused Kirk of "betraying Trump." This is not evidence of such a conspiracy, but it does suggest it is unsound to believe that only a left-winger would want to assassinate Kirk. Zatoichi (talk) 03:29, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
There's billions of videos of the uncensored shooting on watchpeopledie, from tons of cell phone captures. The shooting occurred during an argument about how big an issue trans mass shooters are, not even making it up. It happened in the middle of that specific argument York re (talk) 05:26, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
Never liked the man but no one should go like this. TheNFLGuy (talk) 01:27, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

They have shooter drills in US schools; they shoot politicians; apparently a leading cause of death in children is 'playing with guns' etc etc.

How soon will gun laws be introduced -'Blowing in the wind my friend.' Anna Livia (talk) 09:47, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

I also saw the uncensored.video, and that is the truth of gun violence. Yeah, Charlie Kirk has rhetoric that encourages gun ownership over fighting gun violence. Yeah, Charlie Kirk has rhetoric that calls out 'empathy' as libtarded in and of itself. So no, I will not mourn Charlie Kirk or really care about his family. It doesn't really matter what I say about gun control, I'm staunchly in favor of all rifles being registered to a gun club, but this is going to go sideways from a real middle ground. Suffer the little children, I am as close to an antitheist as it gets by fore I go bothering other people about their wasted beliefs, but I have no sympathy for a man who advocated so heavily for this exact reality. It's obviously not, what I as a fucking wildly left, avowed peacenik, and just, always against the death penalty. I don't want to live in a world where Charlie Kirk, as abhorrent as his rhetoric is, I don't want to live in a world where people use violence as a means to enforce rhetoric. I saw the uncensored video, I saw Kirk DIE. It's awful, people will tell you not to, but you gotta look it in the face, you gotta know what it looks like. Kirk was not a good force on humanity, but this action is fucking incorrect. Torrent (talk) 10:26, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
Well said. Knight CommanderIn ServiceTo HerGoatness 10:31, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
I kinda marble mouthed a opinion, so rather than editing before a response, I do want to clarify. Christian Dominion politics are really stupid, and that's a real reason I despised Charlie Kirk. Torrent (talk) 10:49, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Putting aside all moral considerations, there is a big problem with a world in which your political opponents get shot. The problem is that your political allies might be up next. This is not a good development.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 10:52, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

is that not also some kind of secular moral consideration? You don't kill people for disagreeing with you, or rather, You just don't fucking kill people. What extra weight must that carry? I already heard today 'Oh yeqh, the peaceful and tolerant left' like, I'm not tolerant of this, why the fuck am I, as a full on Charlie Kirk hater for a decade now supposed to act like he was a good guy? but I've known kirk for a decade longer than a lot of these people just now finding out that a 'public speaker' got shot and he had a family. The US is radicalizing very slowly, but as I warned here about January 6th, I'm reading the tea leaves again, it's going to be stupid and bad when the pot boils again, centrism is the frog, the water is boiling. People who don't know Kirk's history will get glazed and not like this at all. People who are avowed Christians will not understand this as anything other than an attack on Christianity. I am going to say, South Park made fun of Kirk, which broadened his notoriety. Anybody who knew Kirk from 2012 on would have done this a decade ago. This is most likely dorkass reactionary bullshit from a kid who is terminally online. a long range shot doesn't come from an anti gun leftist. Torrent (talk) 11:17, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
I somewhat agree with Torrent on this one; that 'being murdered' doesn't automatically whitewash you. In these cases, it's best [in my opinion] to damn them with faint praise, such as 'sympathetic feelings to his wife and two young kids, neither of which will remember him. This is a warning sign of what happens when you have professional bigoted jerkwads going about stirring up hatred against different groups irresponsibly.'
Anyway, I think there's major risk of him being not just whitewashed, but also puffed up too. I don't think we was important enough for folks to do half-flags etc. He wasn't an elected official. He wasn't the head of a genuinely massive [people-wise] org. Nor was he breathtakingly brilliant/innovative. Or had been on the scene long enough to really cement a unique legacy. He was [as our own page says] a second rate pseudointellectual who found a gravy-train/cock-massager by going about 'debating' students [perhaps the least-skilled demographic re: debating tactics/BS detection], trolling university campuses [and bullying them with 'fwee speech' arguments to get in if blocked] and then parading himself in Dominionist echo-chambers like he'd gone into 'the belly of the beast' and due to the grace of THE LORD and his own brilliance came out to tell about it. I know how orgs work; it's quite easy to 'build a large national org' if you have enough money to do that [and Turning Point have many secretive sugar daddies]. Plus, the average size of an American college is something like 6,500 students, so if you can scare up 0.5% of them to join your org [which wouldn't be hard as it seems about 10% of Gen Z adults are Dominionists], that's like 32/33 members - then allowing to set up 'chapters all over the country' which can then be used as flying crowds to be deployed when needed [where the money is the lubricant ensuring it all works right]. At best, 'Turning Point' only built itself off of the pre-existing white MAGA-Fundie students in the university system who were already feeling 'isolated' and 'suppressed' because they were outside of their fundie bell jars [unless they were at an actual fundie college too, obs]. Ie: Kirk was already preaching to the choir. The fact he was young and 'a good debater' [sic] meant the old farts who rule the fundie world saw him as a means to 'get down with the kids' so they signed him up and found the daddies. That's actually really important because 'being a commentator/speaker' became their full time job while their 'librul' opponents simply don't have the funding to do similar [again, this is one of the key advantages of the right; in lieu of daddies 'we' must donate a lot more to orgs so they can hire more professional organisers/speakers/propagandists]. KarmaPolice (talk) 12:48, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
Sadly, it seems that various mainstream media outlets have already begun to whitewash Kirk’s reputation by portraying him as simply “a controversial debater” with this BBC obituary being just one example. I chalk this up to yet another example of the pernicious effects of “both sideism” masquerading as journalistic neutrality and objectivity that has plagued certain sections of the media landscape for years. ScepticWombat (talk) 13:27, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
Unfortunately, in "mainstream media", you are fired if you even hint that Kirk's rhetoric played a role in his murder.
(This is a great example of why the only people that watch cable news these days are 65+ year old farts. There is a lot of bullshit on the Internet, but also a lot of independent outlets that do a hell of a lot better job covering the news than print or television, and won't wimp out at this sort of thing.)
Fox News talking heads, meanwhile, are calling for war and revenge. So it goes, and we don't very much about the assassin yet! The only thing we know is that the person is "of college age", "blended well into the campus environment", and used a high-powered bolt action rifle. Meaning: from my perspective, there's more than a decent chance that the assassin profile is not what the permanently enraged MAGA crowd imagines in their head... 47.197.76.134 (talk) 14:55, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
Talking of 'old farts', heard some Clinton-era throwout [didn't catch his name] who let the GBeebies presenter to peddle the line 'it's all the left's fault because they hate free speech' and then did the usual mealy-mouthed lament about how 'that we need to work together' and bitching about those 'radicals' who didn't give arse-licking eulogy for Kirk. Then went on about how 'both sides worked together during Sept 11th' but utterly forgetting how partisan it became soon after what with the Patriot Act, the Iraq War etc. Oh, and he totally ignored the fact when that that Minnesota politco was killed 'the right' was nastier.
They really do have no fucking clue. He was the prime example of why the 'establishment Democrats' are being eaten alive. Ever-so eager to be 'moderate', 'reasonable' and 'crossing the divide' regardless to what 'the opposition' are actually standing, their political rollerskates get caked in shit as they follow them into the swamp [and then bit we're 'extreme' by not following them]. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:43, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
Welp, Bomb Threat at DNC HQ in DC. It's going to get worse before it gets better, isn't it? Edit: looks like it was fake CorruptUser 19:23, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
Did you think otherwise? MAGA is going to weaponise this. At very least we're going to see lots of police attention being re-directed even more to investigate 'far left organisations'. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:26, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
People concerned this will lead to some mass repression of organized leftists, despite the shooting being lone wolf, seem to have missed that effective leftist political parties were banned from US ballots or otherwise systemically oppressed over a half century ago, with people having to swear oaths against left-wing parties, and their leaders imprisoned, partially under laws specifically designed to do so from Wilson and FDR. By the late 1970s "left-wingism" had taken a hard turn toward social issues no capitalists feel particularly threatened by, and the most prominent 1960s left-wing activist with at least some class consciousness killed themselves in the 1980s. Since then it's just been a parade of Democratic Party lobbying groups that have barely anyone in them outside major cities. There's hardly anyone organized to oppress at this point, it's mostly be symbolic if there was some repeat of all that. Almost entirely what is left is just anger from random, often non-partisan people toward this country's lurch toward psychopathy and selfish indvidualism. York re (talk) 19:47, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
MAGA will be writing the definition of 'far left' via a weaponised DoJ etc. And as I've seen them label Biden, Harris, Pelosi as being 'far left' etc your optimism is on shaky ground. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:57, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
If it turns out that the shooter wasn’t a clear cut leftist, let alone the kind of “deranged, woke Marxist” the wingnuts are fantasising about, the MAGA crowd will either invent some conspiracy theory of “the sky is actually green” level of delusion to make him one anyway or they’ll just ignore the shooter’s actual motives and background while continuing their persecution complex rhetoric and depicting themselves as an embattled and excluded minority, tyrannised by “the left”. Both approaches would basically follow the pattern of the MAGA reactions to the Trump shooting, as they started out being the former, then mainly switched to the latter.
And I totally agree with the conclusion that a lot of the “establishment Democrats” are completely deluded in their “let’s just work together” nonsense, as well. Nor do I expect any of them to highlight the disparity in the GOP reactions to this shooting and the Minnesota assassinations either, due to both these Democrats’ obsession with “politeness” vis-à-vis the GOP and out of their bizarre fear that calling out this GOP hypocrisy would be to “politicise” the latest shooting (as if the GOP isn’t already hard at work doing exactly that, just in the service of some quite different politics). ScepticWombat (talk) 19:58, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
I don't agree with Charlie on most things, and I also am not a big fan of "let's debate some random freshman college kid and then I'll claim victory" a la Ben Shapiro, but sitting down and calmly talking with people is literally what politics should be. CorruptUser 22:17, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
RE: Karmic's statements on Biden/Pelosi etc. "MAGA will be writing the definition of far-left". They can define things all they want, including calling the sky orange, but if the shooter was a leftist and there is an arrest of Biden, Harris, and Pelosi, (which would be wildly unpopular and deranged) that would not be "persecuting organized leftists", I maintain there isn't such a thing to oppress outside a small handful of Democratic Party lobbying groups in major cities. York re (talk) 04:53, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
That is silly, in what world? "MAGA will be writing the definition of left" is already happening. Nancy Mace blamed democrats, called them leftists and said there's no reason to talk about republicans, and I honestly don't care. Democrats are maybe left of republicans? MAGA is fascist, who is persecuting politicians on either side of the aisle? Why is this a biden/Pelosi conversation? I am going to ignore this and encourage you to add a new topic, because this is strange. Torrent (talk) 08:52, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
From my perspective, in this situation, political leaders and media figures should be playing different roles. Barack Obama issued a tweet deploring political violence and praying for Kirk's family. Nothing wrong with that. Being the "adult in the room" is part of the leadership role. At the same time, there has been a lot of media articles whitewashing in the media Kirk's role in spreading conspiracy theories, undermining democracy, and attempting to censor-by-mob-pressure and bully opinions Kirk disagreed with. Of this, I disagree with the "mainstream media" ethos. I know there's a "speak no ill of the dead" philosophy among some, but to me, it is irresponsible to not acknowledge Kirk's outsized role in creating the inflamed culture that likely helped fuel Kirk's assassin (whatever culture that was, the chances are good IMHO that some hot pocket bullshit on the Internet fueled it.) You don't have to go overboard, but you don't have to downplay his role with mealy-mouthed phrases like "provocative opinions".
I do think that the pundits, politicians, and other figureheads right now aligning themselves with the "RAHR LET'S GO TO WAR WITH THE LEFT!" are... well, being just stupid reactionary jaw jaw-ers, as usual. Personally, I actually don't think this assassination will change much at this time. From what I see, ordinary folks (regardless of what they feel about Kirk) already deplore this sort of political violence. Meanwhile, the people that are foaming at the mouth urging for a war with the left (actual ideology of the perpetrator notwithstanding)... already were foaming at the mouth at "the left", and have been for years, if not decades. Before the Kirk assassination, this lot was foaming at the mouth at some black guy who allegedly murdered a white girl a few weeks ago... and then, of all things, a fuckin' Cracker Barrel logo redesign. So the perpetually angry crowd has a new subject to get angry about. What's new there? Keyboard warriors will foam at the mouth on social media, probably a few will be nutty enough to commit violence. That's already the current situation.
What's truly disgusting with this current environment is that multiple Republican politicians -- the folks that in theory should be acting like "adults in the room" -- have degraded to the level of the keyboard warrior slobs. I mean, as much as I disagreed with the GOP politicians like Dubya on back, one difference between the GOP then and now is that Dubya never publicly would have had the foam-in-the-mouth reactionary anger that some of the MAGA-verse politicians have today. (But that's a consequence when one sets up propaganda networks to keep the rubes perpetually angry. The rube anger ended up swallowing the political party whole.) 47.197.76.134 (talk) 12:56, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
- Thing is, it's not 'politeness' the old Dem/centrist farts are doing - you're perfectly capable of politely giving a 'reasons you suck speech' without a trace of personal attacks etc. It's a kind of warped sense of politeness, in which it is 'wrong' to cause offence or upset to anyone. I'm going to blame this on what I'll call an 'entitlement culture', that MAGAs believe whole-heartedly that they have the right to never be upset/triggered/contradicted/made to feel stupid/uncomfortable etc and our dumbarse 'centrists' bend over backwards to cater/reinforce this [ironically, they have the same disease they criticise a lot of the left having]. I am actually sure some actively weaponise this; in the same manner abusive partners do - that the moment they get any pushback it's time to get LOUD AND ANGRY and then blame the other party for 'look what you made me do!'. It's like a political codependency; that our farts now unconsciously see a major, perhaps their sole job now is to stop the right-wing blow-ups and to moderate their utterly shitty behaviours.
- Yeah, Kirk/Shapiro's strategy for 'debating' is basically, intellectual exploitation. They're hitting up uni campuses etc for the exact same reason shitty guys trawl student bars for dates - they're looking for inexperienced women to fuck/fuck over because it's so much easier. And would we be okay with that situation, hmm? Their whole debating style is also shit; a combo of Gish Gallops and throwing out of stats - I have a couple of relatives who 100% believe that 'discussing issues' with others is like this. It's not, because that style is not much more than 'statements of position'. A genuine debate [a la 'this is my truth, tell me yours'] never really convinces the other participant of the rightness of the other, but it can help to understand how they reached 'their truth'. It's why one of my main tools is that of 'lexical semantics' - repeatedly making them define particular words ['woke', 'entrepreneur', 'feminism', British' etc] to ensure we are in fact discussing the same thing.
- I think our new red link doesn't get how authoritarian systems develop - growing over time, not a flip of the switch. Now, the New Order has managed to great success cow the mainstream media, Corp America, academia, the civil service and foreign 'allies'. But; they have not yet [as far as I can see] managed to cow the American people themselves. That they retain the 'democratic habit' of free speech and political activity. Time for salami attacks. No, we cannot go from 'attacking Commies' to 'arresting Biden' overnight. But what we do is nibble away slice by slice; push the Overton Window smaller and smaller.
Pick the furthest slice. Denounce as 'far left', 'extremist' and so on. Watch as our centrist farts trip over themselves to dissociate. Plant stories about how bad they are in the tame media. Create a whirlwind of smoke, whataboutism and JAQing off. Start spinning the screws; make the 'costs' of remaining in the group [or continuing with actions like protests] go up. Rent-a-mob counter protests. Encouraging social ostracism. Make them worry about losing job etc if they remain. Increasing police harassment. Hit with repeated 'investigations'. Suspend org's banking services. Make them pay for the policing of their protests. Don't need to ban it, merely make it so marginalised and hated [say like with the Communist Party USA during the Cold War] and riddled with police agents it's utterly neutralised. Then rinse and repeat on the next target.
The totally insidious thing about this is how it warps the public's behaviour outside of the targeted groups. After a few examples of how protests were aggressively put down by police, you grow wary of showing dissent. Once you see the bruised face of an acquaintance after 'they fell down the stairs' with the police after they spoke out, you grow tight-lipped. When you hear of incidents where whole parties were arrested for 'anti-state activity', you grow suspicious of people you cannot vouch for. As you hear of people losing their jobs for 'political activity', your public and private 'faces' will diverge more etc. Already, there are reports that minorities are becoming more concerned about attending 'No Kings' protests because they fear they will face ICE retaliation, while more academics are losing their jobs because they are teaching things which the New Order doesn't like. KarmaPolice (talk) 14:42, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
So, the connection to Fuentes' Groypers is solidifying.

The shooter appears to be a Groyper. Zatoichi (talk) 18:24, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Plausible but by no means conclusive, he was some subtype of gamer. Groypers are just a particular type of political gamer. Bella ciao is popular among games outside groypers. Slav squat meme was posted in 2018 before any political association, the birthday costume could mean anything. It's also plausible he's a right-winger, but tons of right-wing tendencies hate supposed facsists. Right now I'm going with "unintelligible/individualized/other", like Crooks. Most people don't fall neatly in political boxes. York re (talk) 19:13, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm seeing some leftie communities jump to the "groyper" or MAGA conclusion -- I think that's really, really hasty. Mind you, you can't rule that out that this guy was a groyper, but the only thing I can say for sure is that he seemed to be a gamer and he used some phrases popular in troll culture. I think it's safe to say that he was way too online. (Did he realize that only a small sliver of folks would recognize shit like the OWO bulge "copypasta" crap?) My guess also is "doesn't fit a neat box" politics too, but it's not a confident guess. We'll see.
What *did* happen was that the assassin ended up being a white dude from a good old Mormon Christian Republican household. This was not the skin color mental image the reactionary pundits had in mind, and seems to have quieted the "I WaNT tO Go To WAR WITH THE LEFT soooo baaad!!" pundits down some. (I think Megyn Kelly tried some weaksauce shit about his one semester in college radicalizing him because colleges turns you woke or something... pretty pathetic outrage bait, Megyn.)
I'm sure that the perpetually outraged culture war folks will learn nothing from this and move onto the next outrage shortly. 47.197.76.134 (talk) 20:35, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

An effective idea for gun control in the US[edit]

https://engc.us/club-info/membership

Let's start here, membership to a gun club. Not a militia, not an exact insurance policy, but if you can get pulled over driving in the US and not have up to date license, registration, or insurance, you can get in trouble. Not haul you off to jail trouble, like driving a car irresponsibly (i.e. drunk driving) but driving a car is accepting inherent risk, and wince we can't regulate whether drivers are responsible or not, we require by law extra protections to prevent property damage or personal injury, because misuse of a half ton hunk of metal running on 200 horses worth of power will fucking obliterate anything unlucky enough to cross its path. Do people need cars? Yes.

So now, we've got the question of gun ownership. Do you have to register or tag your guns? No. Are you allowed to buy any gun for any reason if your person hasn't been flagged? Yes. are you required to have a gun safe? No. Are you required to pass a gun safety test? No.

Do not get me wrong, I have been around gun nuts and have fired guns with them, a majority really care about gun safety, but this isn't about that, this is about what we do when shit goes sideways.

So let's move on to gun registration. If you want to own certain gun modifications, like a suppressor, you have to register the suppressor to a gun club. Now, I'm not of the opinion that people would be committing quieter gun crimes if suppressors were free market no regulation, and I understand they don't 'silence' the gunshot as in movies. However, I do think modifications to guns should be registered and given to a broader, communal oversight. The same for rifles, if you want a hunting rifle, register with a gun club, log your use. I mean, I don't believe in a practical application as a perfect solution. Would every really care? Would they log all of it? That's not exactly important, it's forcing these lone wolf shooters into a slightly larger community that also enjoys guns and says 'what are you doing with your gun?' And of course people can lie and go commit atrocities, but they will have to commit harder to the lie, which is a deterrent, and it would be easier to find them.

Treat guns like we currently treat gun modifications like suppressors, which are like the nun chucks of the late 80's, just, not a real problem, the real problem is adjacent. It's not going to end gun violence, but it would make a difference. Torrent (talk) 09:32, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

fucking make a federal fund for gun clubs to run as a social service. Every single one would be socialized, I don't care, pay these assholes to keep their guns in check. Torrent (talk) 09:45, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
'...And that, students is how the Democrats in Congress were tricked into getting the state to fully fund and organise the paramilitaries which Trump Sr used to institute the New Order. The 'Gun Clubs' were almost immediately entirely dominated by devoted MAGA members, who then used it to deny arms to anyone who was not a firm Trump supporter. With ATF forces working to disarm as many 'unAmerican' people as they could locate, the 'Red Hats' were used to intimidate, attack and on occasion abduct during the final free elections of the Republic. Once the MAGA majority was installed in Congress, it passed the 'Restoration of Law Act' which granted the paramilitaries official powers as 'reserve ICE agents'. Now granted official status and up-armed with military grade equipment, the 'Red Hats' were the backbone of the mass, bloody crackdowns which the military had refused to do 'on a matter of honour'...' KarmaPolice (talk) 12:25, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

They shoot politicians, there was the Incident of Trump's Ear, they shoot kids by the classroom and nothing is done, and there are people who put gun ownership is their right above all else. #What if anything# will change their minds (insofar as the activities of what is in their skulls can so be defined)? Anna Livia (talk) 12:41, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

That is a really strange way of looking at it. The right to form a gun club wouldn't be political, it would be a form of beauracracy. Nobody would be able to hold a political stop on a gun club. Torrent (talk) 10:29, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
Pray tell who is currently politicising the bureaucracy? What plan called for doing that? KarmaPolice (talk) 10:34, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
Okay, so, it really only takes one person to form a gun club. It's a registration process. In theory, which is how you get bullshit through all beauracracy, you could still have a gun club of one, you just have to register it. I don't think worrying about the nuts denying arms to people is a fair slippery slope argument, and you can just say Donald Trump. I'm aware of project 2025 but it doesn't include gun reform. I'm putting forward shit that is already in place and suggesting expanding it, not saying remove the second amendment or let fascists hoard the guns. I'm saying a gun is a tool to explicitly end life. It is insane that it is not treated as such in regulation and privilege. I don't know where you're getting this idea that all gun clubs would be militant right wing and refuse ownership to anyone left of them. Torrent (talk) 10:53, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
Maybe you misinterpreted my "pay them" comment. Pay them cost to administrate, not to expand or activate or anything. Don't pay For their guns or their ammunition, that's not what I mean, I mean pay them to keep that shit in check. or don't pay them, it's not like I'm writing actual legislation here, I want something done to make US gun reform happen, if you have a better solution, Take Maslow's Hammer from my hand It's been so bad for so long, I'm open for any better suggestions Torrent (talk) 11:28, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
Are you REALLY so naive as top think that it wouldn't BECOME political? It would be a classic authoritarian move..... and right now the authoritarian movement in the USA is a fascist cult of personality..... Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 00:05, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Fascism is a mental health condition[edit]

Some common patterns of an unhealthy individual:

  • - Paranoid and convinced of great conspiracies frustrating their attempts, which is often required to combat their own general lack of efficacy.
  • - A seeming inability to function without constant conflict since it is the only way of relating to others that they understand or seem prepared to engage in.
  • - A tendency to over-exaggerate the harms they have suffered so that they can then cyncically over-react in retaliation to others
  • - violent outbursts and an inability to moderate their emotions that often creates a further lack of efficacy.

By comparison:

  • - Fascist rhetoric and thinking is almost always conspiratorial, engaged in cherry-picking and confirmation bias, that is almost neurotic in it's ability to see "threat" in everything from gay men existing to full blown "jews control the world" antisemitism. This is despite many members of fascist organisations being alcoholics and drug addicts abusing cocaine etc. Often their life is a fucking shit show BECAUSE they're a coke-sniffing nazi, not because of immigrants.
  • - Fascist movements and countries tend to be obsessed with their military, often to the neglect of many other parts of society... and if all you have is a bag of hammers... then all your problems tend to get treated like nails,
  • - Standard for all sorts of abuse on both a personal and international scale is that acts of cruetly are usual preceded by the perpetrator positioning itself as "the victim" so it can justify ever more bombs, bullets, punches, whatever. Israel - Palestine, Russia making out to be some poor victim of the international community, never admitting that it's just a power-hungry machine at the stage.
  • - Both for fascist groups and nations they often frustrate their own attempts by being too violent too early and being outted as extremists who the public largely dislike. The dangerous ones are the one's that can keep their mask on and not go "mask off" by throwing the nazi-salute "too early".

I genuinely think there is something here in that the dysfunctions of fascist society often mirror the dysfunctions of its hard-core adherents. Maybe I'm full of shit though? I'd appreciate people's thoughts on it even if they don't buy it,

Tikitime2 (talk) 17:42, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't think "mentally ill" is a good way to describe "fascism".
The core of this sort of authoritarianism usually ends up following two principles at the "rube level". There are others, but an awful lot derive from these two:
A) Us vs. them. There is an Us. There is an Other. We are good. We fear other.
B) Fear. Only strongman can save us from Other, who is enemy.
Sorry, these are very human traits. That even includes if you add element C, Hope, the "Mystical/Symbolic Thingy Also Will Help Save Us From What We Fear" part, which often is a pretty decent chunk of "fascist" style authoritarianism. I would never describe Fear of the Unknown as "mental illness" by any means. (I would say that this is even the default instinct of most animals, humans included).
A better word, perhaps is..."uncivilized"? Human civilization has tended to do *much* better when it is working together and ignoring superstition, stereotype, and closed-minds, compared to eras when the later dominated thought. 47.197.76.134 (talk) 18:50, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
I'm talking specifically about fascism, I know this is a very strange thing for a rationalwikian to say but I don't actually feel like "authoritarianism" is really meaingful. It's too broad to really explain any particular political ideology including fascism. The traits can arguably be seen in liberals as much as they can be in socialist and in fascists. Like the concept of an "in-group" is inherent in ANY form of politics and libertarians are just as prone to indulge in great-man hero worship as anyone else.
I think Fascism has a certain disordered characteristic precisely because it is (to used nakedly marxist terms) often a tactical alliance between the petit-bourgeois and the lumpen-prole. The "privilleged" Nigel Farage's leading along the coked dealing football hooligan fans of Tommy Robinson et al. It is often the most chaotic people in society in some of the most desperate conditions being manipulated by some of its most cynical and careless.

Tikitime2 (talk) 19:54, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

To partially paraphrase a weirdo sci-fi author, Fascism and Communism are immune disorders. When too many people are excluded from society for weirdness of varying degrees, you get socialism, and when the weirdos take it too far and implement a purity spiral, you get communism. When boring normies react to the weirdos you get populism, and when they take populism too far they get fascism. You need both the normies and weirdos, and socialism and populism, in a sort of balance. You have to make society include everyone capable of producing, but you also gotta let society produce. When
So no. Fascists are not mentally ill. That's Communists. Both are dangerous for different reasons, and should be opposed. -CU 24.186.106.204 (talk) 20:22, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
Gee It's almost like human brains are biologically hardwired for repressive dictatorships2001:67C:2628:647:32:504:0:1F6 (talk) 21:47, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
Kinda, yes. People care about safety, their next meal, getting laid, than they do their other rights. Many people are "natural slaves", in that they don't want to make important decisions for themselves because it's overwhelming. "The government that governs best is that which governs least" isn't possible because the vast majority of people are not 115+ IQ high-agency Liberal/Libertarian types who just want to live and let live. CorruptUser 23:45, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
"Communists but not fascists are mentally ill" and "most people are natural slaves" are both wild-ass statements to make. Antares (talk) 01:54, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
1) Many, not most. Something being natural is not the same as being good. It's the duty of society to protect people from falling into slavery, because it ends badly for everyone.
2) The Far Left has worse overall mental health than the Far Right. CorruptUser 06:40, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
No. Just no. The far-right has a very clearly defined ideological tradition, with a vocabulary taken from biology and fundamentally capitalist ideals taken from the traditional right-wing, in order to promote their racist and communatarian ideas. They believe that their "community" is the only "people" that exist, while in democratic-republican thought there are no "white" or "black" or whatever communities, and religion is irrelevant to public affairs. In a functioning republic, there is one unified people, one national community, and no so-called "true people", which is something the far-right can't cope with (that's why they are fundamentally dangerous for any republican form of government). Consistently, in Western Europe, there has been a tendency to "exclude" the historical nazis from humanity, to see them as "insane". In truth, they were, on the contrary, very much like you and me. This is why it's so scary to think that what seems to be "normal" human beings have the mental capacity to commit such atrocities simply for such vane concepts as "race" and "nation". To understand what's going on now and what has been going on for a long time with the far-right, you need to ask "why", not "how": to the nazis, just like to our modern managerial class, by the way, human beings are simply numbers in competition with each other. Violence, weapons, virility, all of this is part of this ideal of competition. I suggest you read the work of the French historian Johann Chapoutot, a specialist on these questions who explicitly states the danger of calling the historical nazis "crazy", and who makes parallels with modern neo-liberalism. You are right that there is always a certain conspiracy to it, though: "Jewish" finances, the "deep state", freemasonry, would supposedly be "effeminate" forces that "weaken" the "nation" (the community the far-right party supports: in the case of, let's say, National Rally, it's the Christian-white "community", which would represent the only real French "people" according to them). Once you are surrounded by enemies everywhere, all violence becomes justified: the "menace" to the country is the justification for breaches of human rights and deportations (of "only 'illegal' immigrants" of course, whatever that's supposed to mean. To the far-right, it means all immigrants, as they think of them all as dealers and criminals and rapists and assassins etc.). The far-right ideology is centred around the group, its "cohesion" and the supposedly "natural" competition (encouraging force and masculinity) between groups. The problem supposedly are the minorities and hidden conspiracies which endanger the groups cohesion and force: due to the supposed "mortal menace" of the group, persecutions up to genocide (as we all know) would be justified to them. Nazis were/are not crazy, they are still present in our times: The idea of human "work force" as a material good is taking back shape. After the fall of the Weimar Republic due to economic liberalism, after WW2, at least in France, a politic of solidarity was installed by the joint Gaullist and communist provisional government of the French Republic (1944–1946), which continued roughly until the presidency of Valéry Giscard d’Estaing in the 1970s, when things started to change again in favour of a liberal ideal which today wants to remove the reforms of the National Council of resistance and the provisional government. The ideas of the far-right are still very much present, and we shouldn't be too confident that we're safe from another regime similar to the ones of the 1920s and 1930s. New world (talk) 00:04, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
Paragraphs?
I also have a firm dislike of fascism, but looking at the list above it would not be difficult to simply flip it around and then claim left-wing positions are signs of a mental disorder.
For example:
Unable to identify conspiracies leading to a lack of efficiently.
A desire to avoid conflict resulting a failure to resolve issues.
And so on. I won't continue as It would me entail writing bizarre things I don't believe. But you get the idea.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 06:37, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
@CorruptUser well that's understandable since far-left movements are disproportionately populated by people likely to have been traumatised and generally suffer ill mental health. See Trans-people, rape-survivors, people with disability, queerness or anyone non-white. My case is not that mental health is "better" on the left but rather that fascism itself constitutes the symptoms of a mentally unwell individual. As far as the left and mental health is concerned... well a hospital is full of injured people, that doesn't mean hopsitals cause injuries or that hospitals "are" injuries. Correlation not causation in that case.
@Bob I'm not sure that flip works quiet so well as the left is not nearly as homogenous as the right is. Huge qualitative differences between how anarchists, marxists (even maoists vs dengists for ex), and social democrats think where-as the difference between various flavours of far-right is usually more a difference of preferred degree of violence (except maybe anarcho-fascism). For example: some left wing groups are notoriously and unhelpfuly combatative and some left wing groups are naive almost to the point of smugness. So that kind of monolithic understanding is especially limiting. Then again, you do get some particularly weird variations of fascism too I suppose? So maybe not as homogenous as is sometimes assumed?
@New world I agree with your characterisation of fascist ideology and don't think it is particularly contradictory to mine. My aim here is not to "other" it from "healthy liberal politics". I see liberalism and fascism as essentially co-symbyotic. Liberalism is the politics of managing and facilitating capitalist society, which produces inequality and wealth accumulation. This creates economic insecurity, status anxiety and resentment among those at the bottom. + lobbying creates a politic situation where everyday people experience liberal democracy as corrupt, indifferent or un-responsive to their core needs. Add to that that privately owned media that tends to be (for obvious selfish reasons) largely anti-tax & regulation, ensuring progressive politicians have to fight uphill in battles which they will lose more often than win because of the resources stacked against them. Meaning the core issues that are causing the anger (failures in health policy, crumbling infrastructure, spiralling costs of living, enviromental degradation) are rarely addressed to a sufficient enough degree that will disarm the fascist cause.
Capitalism produces the social and economic conditions that lead to fascism. It is one of the neurosis that develops as liberal society is torn up by the system it defends. That doesn't mean anyone has to suddenly adopt some tankieish love of the USSR or whateverthefuck btw and I think it's perfectly understandable to say "I can see that capitalism and democracy may actually pretty uncomfortable bed-fellows... but holy shit the thought of 20th Century style revolutionary leftism also terrifies me." Tikitime2 (talk) 11:50, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
French Revolution doesn't really scare me, neither does French social model, nor the reformer Robespierre, nor the reformist-revolutionary socialism of Jean Jaurès (which dominated/dominates the French left since the beginning of the 20th century). If by "revolutionary leftism" you mean state communism, that would have scared me 50 years ago, but today, not. It doesn't seem like it's going to come back anytime soon (let's see when Trump invades Venezuela how big that menace is today. My estimate — it's as small as the centre-left will be in twenty years). Oh, and, when talking about the URSS, never forget that Western Europe basically betrayed/abandoned Gorbatchev, leading to the current regime (installed by great democratic that was Yeltsin, liberator of Russia and friend of the west, as any 1990s journal will tell you). The revolution of 1917 doesn't scare me either, as it had potential to create something great, but the usual opportunists took control, at the head of them Staline. Generally, I find the "necessary" link between capitalism and republican democracy to be total bull****. "Liberal democracy" is called a republican regime, and the republican form of government isn't necessarily exploitative. In a very French way, I admit, I don't know that much (nor am I currently planning to learn) about the rest of the world, but: the French model of the "social republic" and the French left's republican socialism are an alternative model to the authoritarian and anti-republican (and often undemocratic) ways of liberalism. Socialism isn't necessarily the orthodox Marxism that argues for "dictatorship of the proletariat" (the defining characteristic of the far-left: here, the far-left is openly calling for one "community" to dominate over other components of the people), it can just be nationalisations and an alternative project leading to an auto-gestionary organisation. Another important component of republican socialism is, well, the republic: a more direct democracy, with an emphasis on referendums and protests, needs to take shape, through a citizen revolution (different from the socialist revolution), mixing demonstrations and elections. Once you insist on your ideas and get a couple of academics on board, you can achieve what France has achieved at least in name so far: "France is an indivisible [me: later defined as meaning the country has no communities, but only one people], democratic [meaning the sovereignty of the people and not whatever "liberal democracy" means], laic [me:meaning the separation between religion and the state, and the freedom of consciousness of the youth of the republic by prohibiting religious symbolism at schools], and social [me:a principle ensuring free school, free and public healthcare, and a tax system ensuring everything which is taken by the state gets reinvested into public infrastructure and solidarity] republic [me:a republic: a system of the four aforementioned principles, including but not limited to the democratic principle]", first phrase of first article of the French constitution(s), beginning of the deceleration of the right of man and of the citizen. So democracy and capitalism aren't necessarily a good fit. New world (talk) 13:30, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
You do realize that the French Revolution pretty quickly became a murderfest, right? If you are the type to think Revolutions are nothing to be scared of, when it comes time to line people up against the wall you aren't going to be one of the ones holding the rifles... CorruptUser 14:12, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
Before the revolution which brought Europe republican ideals (what—are you going to claim that without France, the United States would have brought those? Not that they weren't a fairly upright republic at that time, anything else would be an anachronism, but never would history have been better without the revolution), people were literally living under feudalism and were being tortured by the king for simple "blasphemy". Tortured. And across the hundreds of years of that torture, that's a lot more deaths than the revolution brought. It was, and this is the consensus among French historians, by the way, the necessary change to France, which at the time (not today) wasn't going to come without violence. Oh, but if you would have been there, the king would still reign over France probably. Yes, very obviously the first republic was far superior to the ancien régime, and very obviously it isn't a "failure" of the revolution if the anti-republican Napoleon (a precursor of the later Boulangist far-right under the 3ed republic and even today's French far-right ideas) wouldn't have taken power and reestablished monarchy through a coup d'état. Also, while the level of violence is obviously not comparable to that of very authoritarian regimes, I highly suggest you to participate at an important protest in France: if you're unlucky, like I was once, you might get serious injuries, if you're lucky they will throw tear gas at you, your children and your wife (if the family is there) for no apparent reason other than "somewhere a person threw some object at a car—the car was clearly endangered and in need of protection" (they literally always use "protecting objects" as an excuse, even if the "danger" is a bottle of beer or something). They (the CRS) beat up tourists, working people and high schoolers and university students without distinction, they literally throw tear gas in front of pre-schools and elementary schools, and in cases like these, protesters sometimes decide to fight back. But no, I, like most other protesters in France, don't support a violent revolution, but a peaceful, citizen revolution through pacific protest and voting urns. New world (talk) 15:11, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
"the far-left is openly calling for one "community" to dominate over other components of the people" @New world I'm not really sure if that is actually true. I feel that has been largely over-blown by the projections of nervous liberals who see the dictatorship of the proletariat simply as a dictatorship of revenge. And france has all the same problems as everyone else does under liberal-capitalism as far as I can see. Though I might be misinterpretting you? Tikitime2 (talk) 18:27, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
Oh, France has many problems, but it also has a solid social system built on a very integrated ideological framework (it's present in schools, universities, politics, cinema, literature, etc.). I'm not trying to say France is perfect, but, at least compared to Germany, the United States or any other Anglo-Saxon country, we have indeed (no matter how much the far-right complains about it) a left-wing subculture of which French leftists are proud of: in France, calling our system "socialist" isn't an insult if done by a leftist. Tell me another european country where that is the case? (All I can think of would be the Scandinavian countries, but I feel like they have had a big move rightward). France has immense racism problems, and yet one of the most diverse populations in Europe. In other countries, they still insist on Muslims converting to the "Leitkultur" (which France sort of does too, but in a different manner, without telling Muslims they have to convert to Christianity, for example). Useless "naturalisation" ceremonies for new citizens, unrestricted economic liberalism and the absence of opinion plurality (they call everyone else "populist conspiracy theorists", yet the result of their politics will be a coalition with the far-right anyway) are fairly new. While France has horrible views on societal issues, on social (socio-economic) issues it isn't that much off from what the left wants. And when I say we want social justice, I mean: most other European countries' populations want policies considered basic and not discussable in France. All this to say: we (French leftists) have reason to have some hope, and our country definitely has potential to represent a humanist, non-aligned, and social voice in the world, independent of the United States, Russia, and the US-vassal Germany. Not like the Spanish, German or any other European left is nearly as influential as the French one is. On your other point: "Far-left" is only "far" (extremist) if it is anti-republican (unless you use the vague definitions some sensationalist media use, where the far-right becomes the "populist right" and the populist leftists would necessarily be "far-left"). Extremism=anti-republicanism, at least in democratic republics, and, at least here, being against the republic means you don't respect its principles and its culture: the far-left want to put one "community" (the proletariat) over others. At least for now, that just isn't going to work, and I doubt it ever will, but it's not like you're fundamentally "extremist" is you supported it in the 1930s: Léon Blum (PM of the Popular Front) was a revolutionary Marxist and didn't bring much harm, quite to the contrary. So I guess you have a point there. New world (talk) 19:25, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
Let's suppose that fascism is a mental condition and is added to the DSM. OK. Then what? It is a chronic pathology of human society that appears to be contagious. This step would do nothing to solve the problem of fascism, because people with clinical disorders, apart from phobias, do not recognize they have a problem. So, you can't make them better, there are too many of them to incarcerate, and even if you did, they occur naturally and would replace themselves in society. See, the trouble with fascists is, if you try to correct them they will try to kill you.Zatoichi (talk) 19:31, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
@Zatoichi Viewing fascism through the lens of mental health rather than politics is not about simply getting it listed in a medical manual. It is about getting an accurate understanding of how to reproduces, its effects on society and how to treat it. I'd argue A LOT of really ineffective interventions intended to strengthen our democratic culture to combat fascism in recent years failed to understand the fundamentally pathologic nature of the fascist worldview and ended up pursuing a course of action that actually played to fascist strengths.
The Internet, TV and Radio were all hailed as tools of progress that would advance human compassion and understanding and all of them either fell short or ended up exarcerbating misinformation. IMO they made the fatal assumption that simply more information would result in more rational and compassionate politics. In this tradition a lot of internet platforms have tried to tackle far-right sentiment by hosting these rational debate/discussions (Jubilee) that often had the intention of hearing out very right wing individuals and then present them with alternative perspectives in the hope of creating more converts or at least vaguely "contributing to the discussion".
But when you work in a therapeutic setting with someone who has severe paranoia or PTSD, you typically aknowledge that the emotional distress is real while helping them to see that... their husband is NOT going to kick in the door/they're not all recording you. What you don't do is tell them is that their fears, anxieties or frustrations are rational. When people treat fascism as a political phenomenon instead of some sort of neurotic state of antisocial dysfunction they legitimise it far more than it deserves. The fascist use the aknowledgement of "yes fascist group X's fears have a grain of truth to them unfortunately but" as legitimisation and then simply tune out what follows. I think the failure of many well-meaning liberals to understand fascism as a contagious force that reproduces itself through irrational impulses that in large enough quantities will completely negate honest dialogue, has meant they have put far too much stock in reaching out. Though I know I'm FAR from the only one to have made this point. Tikitime2 (talk) 17:23, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
Fascism is not the term that I would use for the mental aspects phenomenon; this is a fuzzily defined political system that often happens to takes advantage of what I called "Othering" above to secure its power. If you look to the social sciences... "other" happens to be a term used from a philosophical standpoint, at least if the Wiki classification is correct. Another term is in-group and out-group, used in psychology / sociology. The term for what happens to out-groups at their most extreme is dehumanization. So this type of stuff had been studied and there's names for it and you'll even find papers on people trying to figure out why people are this way.
The thing is, as I see it, everyone pretty much has some in group / out group ideas in their head to some degree. It just so happens, of course, that some of the "far right" frame "liberalism" (of the American social kind) as "mentally ill", too! In group / out group in action from "both sides"! So... who's right here? "Them"... or "us"? As far as I see it... neither. This us vs. them compartmentalization is a very human trait -- not a rational trait at all, as you say, but animal instinctual. The heavier Othering certainly has negative effects on society, so I think that "minimizing dehumanization" is an absolutely great goal to strive for. But throwing around phrases like "mentally ill" at one political side alone will yield no progress here, methinks.
People who have heavy dehumanized outgroup paradigms certainly are susceptible to propaganda that exploits such. I think this is the real issue when it comes to "fascism" or many other authoritarian systems... on the "using the Other" part, it's not a mental illness, it's a crass exploitation strategy to get the rubes to support something that ultimately often is against their interests. 47.197.76.134 (talk) 18:46, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Good news: California is finally going YIMBY after all these years (at least tosome extent)[edit]

Housing was one of the very few policies that IMO the GOP was better than the Dems (that didn't make them good, their disdain for public housing is also one of the reasons why America faces such a huge housing crisis). According to the LA Times, the project is in Newsom's desk.[16] This can be indeed a great moment. Also according to the LA Times:

Residents fear the zoning changes would alter single-family communities and force residents into competition with developers, who would be incentivized under the new rules to purchase properties near transit corridors.

This sort of reasoning is pretty much why I can't tabe NIMBYism serious. No one is forcing residents to move or sell their houses. They can keep them. The reason why people usually sell them after zoning changes is because land prices rise. Hardly a bad deal for them too. I'm not saying that these policies changes are perfect, but they are probably a step in the right direction. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 18:44, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

thank. goodness. this is long overdue. The G (talk) 04:10, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
However, there are risks of 'densification' (which will be the net result of loosening zoning rules). Suburbs were invariably not built with the infrastructure (road quality, sewers, power lines, parkland) to take significantly heavier loads, and most are not designed to support 'different styles of living' ('burb apartment blocks need to be 'walkable' etc) and most importantly we are increasingly appreciating the ecological benefits of them (habitats, cooling heat zones etc). There is a big danger (as seen in the UK) where the Powers That Be think all they need to do 'to sort the housing crisis' is to allow denser builds. No, that's just the start. KarmaPolice (talk) 08:31, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Blocking and automatic TPA removal[edit]

Why do admins of the site automatically remove talk page access (TPA) when blocking? I understand why for obvious vandalism accounts, but I'd recommend to avoid immediate removal of TPA for edit filter blocks, disruptive editing (that isn't necessarily vandalism), and anything that would have a reasonable portion of block reviews accepted. With the current system of automatic TPA removal, you can't really appeal a block and you are forced to wait it out (sometimes not an option) or evade the block. 2A02:6EA0:D33B:6282:0:0:0:13 (talk) 01:12, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

I have never as a mod either seen or done any immediate block of any account which was not an obvious spammer, vandal or banned user socking. All other bans go through the procedure which gives the accused full 'right of reply' and said banning then goes to a vote. KarmaPolice (talk) 08:35, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
I tend to block only if I happen to be first in the queue (stupid names etc).
As some people may not understand the nature of RW/have a weird sense of humour/English is not their first language etc perhaps there could be 'a comment from the relevant RW spokesperson(s) as to what the issue is', a block for a short time for said persons to reconsider what they do, and if they misbehave thereafter then a more permanent block? This would require minimal extra work. Anna Livia (talk) 11:32, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
I look forward to our IP editor providing a handful of examples. I guess it's possible they exist - but claiming a thing happens frequently is less convincing than demonstrating it happens.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 13:42, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
It might be an idea to leave the mod page (or something) with the lowest level of permissions so if something does go wrong the blocked one can make a sock and appeal it. But methinks this is a convo that should be left to mods to decide. KarmaPolice (talk) 16:52, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Are there "levels" or "kinds" of knowing or is it more an "either or" thing?[edit]

Sparked by some guy on a spirituality forum that argued that knowing is limited and I said nothing is beyond knowing because then how would you know it to be so.

He argued there are kinds or levels to knowing and used the ocean as an example where one can have an experience of it but not know it. But to me that's defining knowing as knowing every detail about something and we don't do that. We usually refer to knowing OF something not it's entirety, or some identifying aspect of it.

There was also some bit about experiencing a quantum field or the galaxy but not really knowing it, I can't really remember.

But to me you either know something (or a fact) or you don't. There isn't really a level or kind to it, you either do or don't. They said the experience of pure love is beyond knowing but my response was "if you didn't know what it is or was like then how could you know you achieved it"? It's either you do or you don't know. If you want to extend that to knowing everything about something then you could argue that we don't know, but even then that's still having knowledge of particulars, it's not a level or kind thing. You do or you don't.

I guess I'm wondering if that's true, because to me it just seems more like a semantic game he was trying to play just to make what seemed like a point.47.5.66.54 (talk) 23:13, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

If his explanation involves "experiencing a quantum field or the galaxy but not really knowing it" - then you would probably be better off ignoring him.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 05:42, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

That sounds about right from what he told me, at least that was my first impression.47.5.66.54 (talk) 04:24, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

We have a page on the woo-woo type of other ways of knowing. As far as science goes, one can think of levels of knowing, roughly bottom to top: 1) I read and understood this concept from a quality media source. 2) I have college training in the general subject and I read about this specific subject. 3) I read and understood the subject in the original scientific papers. 4) I'm a professional in the field and I've published about this subject. Bongolian (talk) 05:28, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
To actually engage with the point raised: it is possible to question whether you can "know" anything with a hundred percent certainty. In epistemology it is often claimed that knowledge is a subset of belief. But then we are left to ask - why do we believe anything?
Evidently that takes us to the question of how much evidence we have - because this is what informs our belief. And with better evidence we are more justified in our belief and are in a better position to claim that we "know" something.
So I would disagree with our IP editor about knowledge being binary, but I certainly wouldn't follow the quantum woo rabbit hole which someone seems to want to open for him.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 10:37, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

ASIC accreditation[edit]

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/man-given-job-of-closing-bogus-colleges-was-sacked-by-university-ss33g8nkjmp

I was updating the Louisiana Baptist University and Seminary article. I updated it because LBU has ASIC accreditation. ASIC is known to accredit bogus schools such as Atlantic international University. This makes me wonder why LBU didn't try TRACS accreditation. It would make more sense. --Trans Fem Agenda 15:40, 16 September 2025 (UTC)