RationalWiki:Saloon bar
To do list • Vandal catcher • Stubs • New pages • Lonely pages • Dead ends • Filter log • All public logs • Articles for deletion • Duplicate articles • Brainstar candidate articles • Drafts |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
To do list |
---|
- - Currently, there are 5 pages marked for deletion
- - and 2 pages marked for demotion.
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:
- Go to demonstrations. You can find local events here: https://www.mobilize.us/mayday/map/
- Join your local Indivisible organization (https://groups.indivisible.org/).
- 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.
- 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).
- Vote and encourage other people opposed to this administration to vote.
- 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/).
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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
Is this user worth taking seriously?[edit]
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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- What the fuck are you talking about? Antares (talk) 04:30, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
IP becomes uncivil. |
---|
|
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Quite sure that horseradish opens the sinuses faster CorruptUser 19:59, 27 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)
- What, foreign languages, the English language or languages in general? KarmaPolice (talk) 20:52, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
- Language acquisition --Trans Fem Agenda 20:38, 26 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)
- 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)
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.
- @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)
- 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)
- 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 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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].
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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.
- 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)
- 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].
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- The film has a Wikipedia page -- Aluna
- 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)
- 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)
- And paragraphs.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 06:48, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
Transsexuals have their aggrieved serial killers now - how long till they are stigmatized as domestic terror ala incels?[edit]
![]() |
---|
There's been a number of transsexual mass shooters over the last decade, nowhere near a majority of mass shooters, but same with incels, nowhere near a majority. What's notable about some of the recent trans serial shootings is that, in their writings, they blame their own shootings on gender dysphoria, and/or lack of people helping with their orientation. This includes Audrey Hale, a Christian school shooter who killed literal children out of self-professed gender dysphoria, and has hundreds of pages of semi-manifesto material describing how she felt radicalized to violence by feelings of inadequacy, both sexual and social, born from their gender orientation. Robin Westman seems her copycat, but unlike Hale, went a bit further in her writings, claiming she was brainwashed into being transsexual. By the second self-identified incel shooting, people were calling incels a domestic terror threat, so why not trans people yet? Well I'm sure some people are at this point, but it's not that common. One reason is that no one has built up any radically violent transsexual forums yet. However, there are fan accounts of Hale though and likely will be soon of Westman as well. It would be a bit ludicrous to confidently claim with certainty that none these numerous fan accounts are definitely not organized or reposting each other. r/truecels, the first radically self-described violent incel forum, didn’t organically start as a large, active community. It was basically a tiny group, Marjan Siklic and a few others, until external amplification by watchdogs, media, and feminist forums drove traffic, attention, and notoriety. That “hyping” created the perception of a larger, more dangerous subculture than actually existed at the start. Feminists were extremely active in building up r/truecels into r/incels and subsequently driving nearly all of incels.me's traffic to incels.me, by far one of the most extreme and violent incel forums. I am not making this up and this can be easily verified. High-traffic feminist forums like r/inceltear have provided tens of thousands of advertisements (yes, obsessively repetitive criticism with direct links is advertisement, *no matter the intention*) for the tiny violent incel forum. This effectively constituted outbound links as they never censored the URL, prominently displayed in their constant advertising. No other area of the internet provides anywhere near that amount of outbound links to the violent incel forum. And there is no question that the vast majority (I estimate over 95%) of effective outbound links to incels.me/co/is were by the supposed "watchdog groups" and their media counterparts. While doing so, they routinely broadbrushed all incels as violent. And by doing so they helped congregate attention around incel communites that could be stigmatized as terrorist-like, creating a negative media feedback loop that self-justified their assertion of most incels as violent. This further gave them material to use as justification for governments to investigate or pay themselves to read entertaining forums. There's probably some deranged, violent trans forum out there, if there were a group of people as sick as modern feminists to build that up as representative of a "trans ideology" that "defines people who think they are transsexual", they could begin to duplicate the institutional stigma given to incels. Modern society already has some stigmatizing discourse toward transsexuals in modern parlance. Some prominent pundits already regularly refer to to transsexualism as fake, not real, and would define it as "people who believe they are trans due to psychotic mental illness or ideology" rather than "people who are transsexuals". This type of stigmatizing discourse is already in place for self-identified incels and involuntary celibates, calling them "people who believe they are incel due to psychotic mental illness or ideolog" and almost never "people who are involuntary celibate". People also call transsexualism an ideology due to this bigoted mindset. In much the same way people call inceldom an ideology. York re (talk) 23:03, 29 August 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]
![]() |
---|
A few years ago there was a guy named after a Nintendo character (I want to say Mario but I know I'm probably wrong) who was making Pokemon fan fiction, whatever happened to that? I miss reading that nonsense. NoMoreMAGA (talk) 21:18, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
|
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)
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)
- 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 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)
- @Bob M OMG thank you SO MUCH! I finally did it (though with the help of a Spanish-speaking friend who explained to me how to correctly follow the internet instructions (I wasn't following them correctly when it comes to tongue positioning…). Now, I just need to be able to pronounce it in the middle of words (at the beginning of words it's easy, but especially when the simple r is in the middle of a word, I just can’t for now, but it’ll resolve itself anytime, I'm sure). Cheers! 80.187.84.136 (talk) 19:19, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
- "R" is actually pretty complicated. There are at least two (probably more) ways of using it in the UK, and that's before you consider the US. If you get to languages like Russian then you have a back-of-the-throat "R" in addition to the trilled Spanish "R". But every language is almost certainly going to have sounds - both vowels and consonants - which are not present in your native language. It is not uncommon for new speakers to think that there is something "wrong" with the new language in that it requires them to learn these new sounds. I see that it is hard and frustrating for you to make the Spanish "R" - well, you just need to keep at it. (And it won't damage your tongue.)Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:25, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
- @Bongolian Are you an English speaking person? Because I natively (even despite some of my people not doing that) speak what I looked up and found to be the "uvular trill". Basically (call me chauvinistic, idk) when I see the letter "r", I assume the only correct way worldwide of pronouncing it is the uvular trill, this sort of "non-rolled" r, as I see it. English and Asian languages are weird exceptions to me. And, to me, the Spanish basic r and double r are just variants of the "normal" r that are rolled/trilled, but with a different mouth positioning apparently. I probably should change this mentality, but I just CAN'T. My brain categorically REFUSES to comply to any new logic of the letter r. And I can't really stop using my damn voice. I basically never use only my tongue to pronounce a letter, and I am very protective of my tongue… why would I try to put it to pieces by flapping it around? 80.187.114.96 (talk) 11:03, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
- Try YouTube.[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)
- 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)
- FWIW, the BBC doesn't think that the deepfake claim holds any merit. Antares (talk) 16:34, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
- Indeed, if one side is obviously "bad" it does not necessarily make the other side "good".Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:19, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, neither party here is a reliable narrator. The Trump regime, for its part, has changed its narrative about the strike at least twice now. Antares (talk) 15:11, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
Gun Rights in the Industrialized World[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
- Return gun crime levels to a lower rate
- Allow honest, upright citizens to continue owning firearms
- Allow young, poor people to have same/similar rights/opportunities as the middle class
- The murder rate was much higher in 1800, but when you factor in modern medical care turning most murder cases into either assault or attempted murder, we actually have far more violence today than in colonial times
CorruptUser 17:55, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
- In many other countries of a comparable economic-social level to the US the number of major gun-crime incidents is *far less than the US* and far more newsworthy; some are politically inspired or done by 'the nutters.' (Crossbows, black-powder and other weapons are very minor) A measure of gun control is accepted.
- It may be what is reported in the news - but the number of incidents in the US seems to be much higher than in the past. Anna Livia (talk) 18:32, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
- Regarding guns, the problem currently for the United States *specifically* is that guns have become both a proxy for paranoia instead of a tool (gotta scare you so you can buy more guns!) and a symbol of masochism identity (not just the NRA type, the gangbangers tooo). Big cultural issues there.
- It's difficult to say how to fix this. Industrialization, yes, but I see the massively stupid amount of guns America has as a sign of consumerism specifically. In the music world, there's something called "gear acquisition syndrome" for folks who seem to spend more time acquiring shiny new music toys than actually making music. Likewise, "gun acquisition syndrome" seems to be a part of certain corners of gun culture. Welcome to American capitalism... gotta spend your paycheck, now!
- The above unfortunately prevents a sensible conversation to be had on "what guns should be for military / police, and what should be for civilians"? Most industrial nations tend to regulate (in some form) automated gun features more than the United States. Partially because yes, it's cheap to get massive amounts of firepower. Bad when derps acquire it to mass shoot for whatever reason, bad too for the criminals that use these for whatever reason. Even the United States has *some* regulation -- machine guns were "banned" (read: heavily regulated actually) after the Prohibition era, because apparently "gangs use these guns, folks" was a message that worked then, but not now. But, gun manufacturers gotta sell their guns... so here we are.
- The full answer to "return gun crime levels to a lower rate" IMHO lies with improving the United States policing overall, though. (Not really a gun thing fully, maybe a little but not as a whole.) There may be other factors, too. Homicide per capita if I recall actually peaked in the 1970s; the lead-crime hypothesis here suggests that even something as simple as environmental factors can contribute to homicide rates. 47.197.76.134 (talk) 18:40, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
- Another historical factor is the increasing lethality of guns: musket (ball and powder) < rifles/handguns with premanufactured bullets < revolvers < automatic/semi-automatic weapons < metal jacketed bullets. Even the decades-old US national ban on fully-automatic weapons has become quite weak, now that there are known ways of turning semi-automatic weapons into fully-automatic weapons. UK and Australia were able to clamp down on gun culture, so superficially, it would seem to be not insurmountable for the US to do so. I don't have much hope for that anytime soon due to the cultural divide that has persisted since the beginning of the nation. Bongolian (talk) 20:07, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
- The gun that gets most of the attention, the AR-15, was invented nearly 70 years ago. Guns haven't really gotten much deadlier since then. They've gotten lighter, which is another huge issue because child soldiers, but not really deadlier.
- But going back to my OP, how do we reintroduce the "filter" we once had on keeping guns away from irresponsible people, without basically codifying some sort of classism or other bigotries into our legal system? CorruptUser 02:45, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
- I would point out that in most of the "industrialized world" it's pretty difficult to get hold of a gun. The US is somewhat of an outlier.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 05:44, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
- I think one of the issues with American 'gun control' is that the 'anti' stock answer is primarily a technocratic one; 'ban assault weapons', 'magazine limiters', 'licencing' etc which side-steps the true crux of the issue - America has violence and anger issues. That while the BoN is right in pointing out the fetishisation of guns [GAS exists in my experience in every hobby I've ever seen from fitness to home baking] but the truth is that even if every American civilian gun rusted up overnight you'd just end up seeing loads of people attacking others with blades, bats, crossbows etc. Why? My two pence worth...
- Another historical factor is the increasing lethality of guns: musket (ball and powder) < rifles/handguns with premanufactured bullets < revolvers < automatic/semi-automatic weapons < metal jacketed bullets. Even the decades-old US national ban on fully-automatic weapons has become quite weak, now that there are known ways of turning semi-automatic weapons into fully-automatic weapons. UK and Australia were able to clamp down on gun culture, so superficially, it would seem to be not insurmountable for the US to do so. I don't have much hope for that anytime soon due to the cultural divide that has persisted since the beginning of the nation. Bongolian (talk) 20:07, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
- 1/Mental health crisis. Anger. Paranoia. Depression. Extreme stress. Poorly/non-treated disorders. Millions of Americans 'losing the plot' in a myriad of ways, then deciding that Weapon Of Gun is 'the solution'. Shooting the fuckers who 'made your life hell'. Or just yourself.
- 2/Drug/alcohol crisis. Often related to previous.
- 3/Societal stresses. Unemployment. Ill health. Poor/no housing. Even the most stable of mental foundations can crumble over decades of carrying a ton of stress/worry on your back [qv: Falling Down].
- 4/Owner irresponsibility. How many mass shootings was done by someone stealing a legal weapon from someone they know? Why the fuck wasn't those weapons locked away? But no, the 'ma fweedom' extremists shoot down any suggestion that they should be legally made to keep their pieces secure. They are harlots - demanding power [of gun] without any damn responsibility.
- Gun violence is a symptom of a sick America, not the cause. Treat the true causes and they will rapidly decline in number. KarmaPolice (talk) 08:59, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
- There is certainly an enormous difference between between most European countries and most US states as the map shows. For all the social differences, it is difficult from a European perspective, to imagine that the allegedly easy availability of firearms in the US is not at least partly involved.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 09:35, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
- Aye, the availability of firearms makes it easier to maim/kill so will capture some folks who'll balk at personally sticking with a blade but not simply pointing and pressing. As well as reducing mass shooter events. But I stand by my previous logic. Plus, we all know reducing guns is a political non starter.
- Gun violence is a symptom of a sick America, not the cause. Treat the true causes and they will rapidly decline in number. KarmaPolice (talk) 08:59, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
- Lastly, there are voices 'on the left' who are arguing (with some justification) that the rise of the New Order means it's time for us to arm up. And in a classic authoritarian move, Orange One wants to ban owners of a minority he hates. What minority is going to be the next to be disarmed, eh? And no, you instantly exclude yourself from the debate of you say 'that can't happen here'. KarmaPolice (talk) 11:02, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
- The thing is: when I compare List of countries by intentional homicide rate
vs. Estimated number of civilian guns per capita by country
... my casual observation suggests that poverty and inequality are far better predictors of homicide than gun ownership in itself. (I don't doubt that the ease of access of firearms in America causes issues, it's just not the only thing going on here.)
- Googling around, I found this document from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. This suggests the following factors for higher homicide:
- Development levels -- the lower the development level, the higher the homicide rate.
- Large young male populations, especially for those with low education and high unemployment rates. Criminal gang activity is attractive in this environment.
- Income inequality -- the higher the inequality, the higher the homicide rate.
- Gender inequality -- the higher the inequality, the higher the homicide rate.
- Legal weakness. A strong security and justice system that respects human rights. Weaker law leads to higher homicide rates.
- Many of these are uneven patterns. But, in general, the pattern seems right. Give young men good jobs, a solid background to succeed, and the ethos to temper the worst of the macho animal instinct... you'll see less homicides. If you wreck schools... turn the rule of law into a corrupt farce... have a society that benefits only an Elite Few... have Taliban like views of women... and have a large amount of angry young men... you get gun violence.
- While this only covers homicides, I bet tackling the above factors would help a lot of other aspects of crime.
- The thing is, compared to some developing countries, America's crime rate is not that bad. America stands out among "rich" countries, though. My "armchair guess" is that the biggest factor of the above that applies to America is inequality (which leads to many of KP's social ills). A secondary guess would be the elements of American law infected by systematic racism/classism etc... America tends to have "strong" law (we arrest lots of people!) that nonetheless is not as well trained as it could be, and also has a lot of "rules for thee not for me" elements. The later weakens American law considerably.
- Fix these things, and you'll probably fix a heck of a lot of crime (easier said than done I know). Of course, it doesn't help the situation when the ruling class loves to exploit racism etc. to get votes, reinforcing both the "inequality" and the "uneven law" elements. 47.197.76.134 (talk) 15:03, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
- I (for one) and not arguing that guns are the single source of America's bizarre murder statistics. For one thing there are (almost) always multiple causes for any social situation and for another there are other countries with equal or higher rates of gun ownership. Nevertheless - and I don't think anyone is arguing with this - having a shitload of guns on top of whatever other problems the US has does not seem to be helpful.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:27, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
- @KP, with regard to the alcohol/drug crisis, federal law already makes it illegal for illicit drug users to own a firearm, though the same is not true of alcoholics. Given that 50% of homicides involve either the murderer or victim being drunk, that's worth an update, maybe we could treat drunk gun-wielders the same we treat drunk drivers? I don't know exactly.
- Back to my original question, what's the best way to replicate the 19th century's filter of "must be the type of person capable of holding a steady job for years to own a gun", without either trampling on the rights of honest citizens or enshrining inequality into the law?
- There're obviously more than one possibility, I'm thinking something like "if the military would reject you, no gun". CorruptUser 22:03, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
- So people who have asthma, diabetes, or flat feet should not be allowed to own a gun?2001:67C:2628:647:32:804:0:162 (talk) 03:10, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
- Flat flooted people are allowed in the army, but I was thinking more like "failed the psych eval", not "too old". Like I said, I just want something that brings back the equivalent of "responsible adult that's well integrated into society" without codifying a class system based purely on wealth, sex, race, etc. CorruptUser 03:57, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
- So people who have asthma, diabetes, or flat feet should not be allowed to own a gun?2001:67C:2628:647:32:804:0:162 (talk) 03:10, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
- I (for one) and not arguing that guns are the single source of America's bizarre murder statistics. For one thing there are (almost) always multiple causes for any social situation and for another there are other countries with equal or higher rates of gun ownership. Nevertheless - and I don't think anyone is arguing with this - having a shitload of guns on top of whatever other problems the US has does not seem to be helpful.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:27, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
- The thing is: when I compare List of countries by intentional homicide rate
- Lastly, there are voices 'on the left' who are arguing (with some justification) that the rise of the New Order means it's time for us to arm up. And in a classic authoritarian move, Orange One wants to ban owners of a minority he hates. What minority is going to be the next to be disarmed, eh? And no, you instantly exclude yourself from the debate of you say 'that can't happen here'. KarmaPolice (talk) 11:02, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
- -I think we need to differentiate crimes involving guns and crimes caused by guns. I think drugs is an excellent example; they use guns as they are there -they'd still deal even if they didn't (qv UK). Our higher knife crimes can be seen as 'frustrated gun crime'.
- -'Oh but that's illegal' is a pathetic and stupid answer. But more importantly, America has no registers to look at, it does not deal with pieces not from a proper retailer, does not answer if they bought them 'before' and due to the supreme shittiness of your health system many millions go undiagnosed/treated. Result - the law it almost pointless.
- -Yes, 'being incapable with a firearm' should be a crime. And a quick check tells me it is in many places in America. This is where propaganda and peer pressure comes in - to encourage responsible gun ownership, similar to how drunk driving became both socially unacceptable and where folks would confiscate their keys etc.
- -In an ideal world, having gun licences would be a good start. Every 2/3 years, you reapply and after a quick medical and a couple vouching for you you're go in and do the mandatory gun safety course, reminding you as a responsible citizen you must keep your pieces secure etc. I would also put it into law that if someone steals your piece for a crime, you're liable too unless you can prove you were responsible re storage. KarmaPolice (talk) 09:45, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
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 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)
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)