RationalWiki:Saloon bar
To do list • Vandal catcher • Stubs • New pages • Lonely pages • Dead ends • Filter log • Articles for deletion • Duplicate articles • Brainstar candidate articles • Drafts |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
To do list |
---|
Progress & Regress Pokémon — Help Wanted
Hey, I've been working more on my Progress & Regress Pokémon concepts, and I'd like to get some feedback on them. I'm also running out of ideas to expand with (I'd like to end the chains with a Fire/Rock Progress Pokémon and a Poison/Fighting Regress Pokémon, to be hard-countered by Crimsolusion and Azureality, respectively), so I need some more ideas on things RationalWiki endorses and opposes. Luigifan18 (talk) 17:47, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- …Hello? Luigifan18 (talk) 18:48, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- I'll check it out. Carthage (talk) 06:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- I can hardly wait. (I also need some help fleshing out the ideas I do have. Like, for instance, was Leavanny really the best Pokémon to turn into the avatar of hippies? I still have some doubts about that.) Luigifan18 (talk) 05:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- I have nothing whatsoever against you Luigifan (I'm a big Ingress player) but if you expect RW to endorse your Pokémon enthusiasm I think you may have to wait a long time. :-( Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:04, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- …Can I get some feedback on my ideas, please? Luigifan18 (talk) 04:35, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- I got a Gameboy and Pokemon Red as a Christmas present back in 98. there were two other kids in my 5th grade year who knew anything about pokemon, and they liked the anime, so they were making Pokemon noises at each other for fun. You have to understand that this is incredible for me, not the first I've seen it but do you really get what being a fan of Pokemon would afford you in the late 90's? The game was awesome, the fandom was getting beat up. To see somebody so confidently be like 'don't y'all know Pokemon?' Like, no, I don't. I know about around 150 pokemon. But I am a little jealous of current anime fans. Their taste is bad, but everybody's taste in everything is bad, so whatever, at least they get to watch anime without being called the f word. Torrent (talk) 10:18, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- …Uh… should I take this to the saloon bar talk page? Luigifan18 (talk) 17:46, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
- Any ideas on what sorts of woo I can represent with a Grass/Ground-type? (Aside from herbalism, since Creikipath has that covered.) Luigifan18 (talk) 03:50, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Bob M By the way, what does Ingress have to do with this, aside from being developed by the same people as Pokémon Go and using basically the same servers? Luigifan18 (talk) 16:21, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- You walk about and interact with locations in the real world. All the PoGo gyms and poketops were originally imported from waypoints created by Ingress players. I only mention it in the context of having nothing against these games in principle. But, as I said, I kind of doubt you will get the community very interested in this.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 11:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Things are progressing pretty smoothly, but I do need a few more ideas. Luigifan18 (talk) 03:43, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- BTW, I'm in the process of commissioning artwork of Azureality from BaeFakemon on Instagram (who previously drew my Paradox Dragonite idea, Noble Wish). Luigifan18 (talk) 19:43, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- I now officially have a rough sketch of Azureality! Would anyone like to see it? Luigifan18 (talk) 15:43, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Here's another rough sketch. Luigifan18 (talk) 03:59, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- I now officially have a rough sketch of Azureality! Would anyone like to see it? Luigifan18 (talk) 15:43, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- BTW, I'm in the process of commissioning artwork of Azureality from BaeFakemon on Instagram (who previously drew my Paradox Dragonite idea, Noble Wish). Luigifan18 (talk) 19:43, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Bob M By the way, what does Ingress have to do with this, aside from being developed by the same people as Pokémon Go and using basically the same servers? Luigifan18 (talk) 16:21, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- Any ideas on what sorts of woo I can represent with a Grass/Ground-type? (Aside from herbalism, since Creikipath has that covered.) Luigifan18 (talk) 03:50, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- …Uh… should I take this to the saloon bar talk page? Luigifan18 (talk) 17:46, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
- I got a Gameboy and Pokemon Red as a Christmas present back in 98. there were two other kids in my 5th grade year who knew anything about pokemon, and they liked the anime, so they were making Pokemon noises at each other for fun. You have to understand that this is incredible for me, not the first I've seen it but do you really get what being a fan of Pokemon would afford you in the late 90's? The game was awesome, the fandom was getting beat up. To see somebody so confidently be like 'don't y'all know Pokemon?' Like, no, I don't. I know about around 150 pokemon. But I am a little jealous of current anime fans. Their taste is bad, but everybody's taste in everything is bad, so whatever, at least they get to watch anime without being called the f word. Torrent (talk) 10:18, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- …Can I get some feedback on my ideas, please? Luigifan18 (talk) 04:35, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- I have nothing whatsoever against you Luigifan (I'm a big Ingress player) but if you expect RW to endorse your Pokémon enthusiasm I think you may have to wait a long time. :-( Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:04, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- I can hardly wait. (I also need some help fleshing out the ideas I do have. Like, for instance, was Leavanny really the best Pokémon to turn into the avatar of hippies? I still have some doubts about that.) Luigifan18 (talk) 05:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- I'll check it out. Carthage (talk) 06:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
…I dunno how much longer I'm willing to keep this open without responses. I'm currently waiting for BaeFakemon to finish the drawing. (And can someone please help me think of a few more ideas?) Luigifan18 (talk) 17:51, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- I've now got the finished drawings of Azureality, for those who are interested! (But seriously, if this continues to get no responses, I'll probably archive it myself and recreate it in the talk page.) Luigifan18 (talk) 17:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe a military or war one? It could be like a tank or bomber plane. maybe steel/dark or steel/fire. steel/dark with an ability that powers up fire type moves could work. Koafox (talk) 16:36, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- I already have a war one. It's named Inceruction, and it's Steel/Fire. Luigifan18 (talk) 15:08, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Hey @Carthage, did you ever check out the project? Luigifan18 (talk) 21:48, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Carthage? Hello? Luigifan18 (talk) 00:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- …I do wonder what the holdup is on Instagram… Luigifan18 (talk) 05:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- I just PM'd BaeFakemon; Azureality is due to appear on Instagram this week. Luigifan18 (talk) 18:13, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- …Maybe I need to send another PM. Luigifan18 (talk) 15:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Never mind, the Instagram post just came up! Luigifan18 (talk) 02:25, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- …Maybe I need to send another PM. Luigifan18 (talk) 15:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- I just PM'd BaeFakemon; Azureality is due to appear on Instagram this week. Luigifan18 (talk) 18:13, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- …I do wonder what the holdup is on Instagram… Luigifan18 (talk) 05:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Carthage? Hello? Luigifan18 (talk) 00:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Hey @Carthage, did you ever check out the project? Luigifan18 (talk) 21:48, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- I already have a war one. It's named Inceruction, and it's Steel/Fire. Luigifan18 (talk) 15:08, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe a military or war one? It could be like a tank or bomber plane. maybe steel/dark or steel/fire. steel/dark with an ability that powers up fire type moves could work. Koafox (talk) 16:36, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
After reading (and editing) the pages on numerology and new gematria, I can't help thinking that maybe one of the remaining Regress Pokémon should be based on it. Should it be the Ground/Grass one or the Fairy/Ground one? (Also, apparently none of the Regress Pokémon represent conspiracy theories yet. What?) Luigifan18 (talk) 20:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Common ground between rationalists and the alt-right?
…Anyone have any ideas what rational leftists and alt-rightists both dislike? All I've got is communism. (Conservatives don't like communism because it bashes their self-interest, and rationalists don't like it because it requires the absolute suppression of self-interest, which only works for eusocial animals like ants, bees, and mole rats — not for humans, so attempting to implement it results in shitholes like the Soviet Union and North Korea.) Luigifan18 (talk) 22:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- I think you might be conflating rationalism and rationality. A rationalist is a person that adhere to the epistemological view of rationalism, not someone that is "rational" (indeed, everyone thinks they are rational). GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 12:06, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- I did indeed mean "rationalism", but "rationalist[ic] lefties" would have been a bit of a mouthful. Luigifan18 (talk) 20:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- There are also definitely leftists whom I met who identify as a rationalist (of the less wrong variety) and as a communist on the internet. Many folks who self-identify with the term "leftist" rather than liberal, specifically do so because of their explicit support of socialism, or their sympathy for communist ideals. You have to remember that communism broadly speaking is like egalitarian "communal living" as an economic system. Small-scale "egalitarian" or "intentional" communities exist throughout the United States and elsewhere that live by the norms of "each according to their ability, and each according to their need" in small commune communities. The issue is with applying such norms nationally, or upon economies of scale. Not everyone who identifies as a communist is sympathetic to the model of state socialism practiced by the likes of Russia, or China. And folks sometimes can recognize the applicability of "commune-living" on a small scale, or among hunter-gatherer tribes (as what Marx would call "primitive communism") without embracing it as a political ideal on a national or international level. Even those who may identify themselves as social democratic, and may not fully embrace communism as a national political system, or even socialism for that matter, can still be argued to have some sympathies with these political philosophies regardless and hence the overlap between social democrats and democratic socialists in terms of supported policies. It is weird and kind of politically loaded to assume that to be a "rational leftist™" would entail some unnuanced rejection of communism as a general idea. It also seems to be at least partially crediting the alt-right as having some rationalistic commitments.
- I did indeed mean "rationalism", but "rationalist[ic] lefties" would have been a bit of a mouthful. Luigifan18 (talk) 20:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- And as with what GJK said accurately, rationalism is an epistemological view, and you are confusing rationalism with rationality. They are not both conflatable, and it should be said that "rationality" itself is a term with no consensus definition among those within cognitive science and philosophy who study the concept. What is rationality supposed to be here? Responsiveness to reason? Logical coherence in one's set of beliefs? And instrumental relationship between what means reliably produce what ends? And inherently valued state of being? The maximization of personal utility? Why would any of these definitions per se rule out any particular political philosophy? Some seem more inclusive to certain political philosophies over others, and some seem compatible with any particular ideology dependent on the particular ends of the individual who is applying it. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 00:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, social democracy, democratic socialism, socialism, and communism occupy a spectrum of equality (economic and otherwise), [enforced] altruism, focus upon the whole community, etc. There's a reason why Karl Marx called socialism an intermediary step before the full implementation of communism in the Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital, and that's because socialism is, in many ways, a "diet" version of communism. The idea behind why I think a rationalist could support socialism yet reject communism is that socialism (and its one-step-below variants, social democracy and democratic socialism) is workable in practice, but full communism, as you said, is not practical, at least not on a national scale (or anything above the scale of individual villages, really). Socialism, social democracy, and democratic socialism allow for some degree of reward for above-and-beyond effort, individualism, and other things that can channel humanity's innate selfishness in productive and communally-helpful ways, while still being… unamused with "look out for number one" antics; communism expects humans to behave like ants, with all effort being directed towards the well-being of the group as a whole, and then gets flabbergasted when humans turn out not to act like that. (BTW, I'm not crediting the alt-right with having any rational thoughts, let alone commitments; I'm asking what things they might dislike that might also be things that rational lefties would dislike. The two groups can and probably would dislike those things for very different reasons. For instance, conservatives tend to skip all the practical reasons to be skeptical-at-best of communism and zero in on it being a huge change to the status quo (which makes it scary) that seems to be out to hurt them in particular (which, to be fair, it kind of is…).)
- As for rationalism versus rationality, well, I do tend to conflate those and treat them as equivalent. I think I go a little more in-depth when I talk about Azureality (i.e. what I'm hoping will be the site mascot), but "rationality" and "rationalism" as I see it entails responsiveness to reason and evidence, i.e. a skeptical, empirical, scientific point of view. Rationalism is not hostile to ideas that came about largely through the exercise of solid logic, and can have a grudging respect for beliefs that are logically consistent even if their truth value is shaky-at-best when put to the test (for instance, the ideas behind the concept of qi). However, while rationalism can respect ideas that are logically well-formulated and conceived with good intentions (especially if the people who came up with those ideas legitimately didn't know better and lacked the ability to properly gain the information that could have helped them know better), that respect tends to go out the window when people start getting hurt and/or ripped off or when those ideas are presented as some sort of [empirically]-verified truth when they're not, and it does not accept ideas that do not have supporting evidence and/or do not pan out within perceivable reality; for instance, rationalism does not hate religion and attack it on principle (unless the religion in question is something really abhorrent and/or stupid), but given the lack of evidence for religious claims, it is strictly secular and does not incorporate religion into its philosophy. Luigifan18 (talk) 15:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Actually, Marx never claimed socialism as a interperiod transitionary state, That was something introduced by Lenin. One thing GJK and I would agree upon is that socialism is best thought of as a economic system where the means of production is predominantly under collective and/or public ownership as opposed to being predominately privately owned. Communism is therefore a proper subset of socialism, but socialism is not a subset of communism.
- And as with what GJK said accurately, rationalism is an epistemological view, and you are confusing rationalism with rationality. They are not both conflatable, and it should be said that "rationality" itself is a term with no consensus definition among those within cognitive science and philosophy who study the concept. What is rationality supposed to be here? Responsiveness to reason? Logical coherence in one's set of beliefs? And instrumental relationship between what means reliably produce what ends? And inherently valued state of being? The maximization of personal utility? Why would any of these definitions per se rule out any particular political philosophy? Some seem more inclusive to certain political philosophies over others, and some seem compatible with any particular ideology dependent on the particular ends of the individual who is applying it. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 00:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- As for the rationalism conception, that is way too broad. I know of philosophers who use that exact definition as a basis for moral naturalism. “Responsive” to reason is so vague, it’s hard to see who isn’t a rationalist besides those who have no language capacities and are completely indifferent to their sense experiences. You need to determine what is and what is not an appropriate response to reason and/or evidence. Regardless, by your definition, most philosophers throughout history could be conceived as rationalists, communists included. Also most philosophers of rationality (and many a cognitive neuroscientist) would discount one as being rational if they rejected inferences of classical logic. I don’t think you are really describing rationalism if implicit to it is a skepticism of logic, that seems to be a more radical empiricism than that of W.V.O. Quine - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 23:05, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- *sigh* Not skepticism of logic, that's just silly. I'm talking about skepticism driven by logic. Luigifan18 (talk) 02:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oopsies, I misread. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 09:05, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- Whoops, I was not aware that the idea of socialism as an intermediate step towards communism started with Lenin rather than Marx.
- For my interpretation of "rationalism"… if it helps, you can think of intuition and pure logic as being useful as starting points — the process of forming ideas that make sense, given what is known about the world. Then the next step of empirical rationalism is to see if those ideas actually work in the real world, i.e. experimentation. This is what I mean by something like qi being logical but lacking truth value — the underlying concepts are logical and consistent, but they fail to actually explain reality.
- As for zeroing in on communism, that is largely being used as an example of something that both rationalists and alt-rightists would dislike — the alt-right hates it because it directly challenges their ambitions to achieve complete… economic… domination, keep them there dirty minorities in their place, and/or rule like kings over all of mankind, and rationalists don't trust it because it's been tried several times and ended catastrophically damn-near every single time. Why communism seems to consistently fail is a subject for debate — I'm sure tankies would blame it on the U.S. and other capitalist nations relentlessly sabotaging and undermining communist nations like the USSR to force them to fail, but that sounds like a baseless conspiracy theory to me (if communism is really such a perfect and optimal way to run a country, one would think that a communist nation would be able to be a prosperous state and a great place to live, even with the rest of the world doing everything in their power to turn it to shit; it makes more sense to attribute communism failing to plain old weaknesses of human character that it doesn't account for, which results in stuff like government corruption and excessively-optimistic hair-brained schemes (like Mao Zedong's Great Leap Forward) that hamstrings it before it can even get going). Anyways, I'm sure there are other things that both rational, sensible people and fascist fundie nutters would have a noted dislike towards. Communism was just the first and main thing I could think of; to me, it is the prime example of something that the reality-based community and
the Religious RightTrump's coterie ofWorst People EverPeople With More Hate-Boners Than Sense would both dislike. (That, and I blame the Cold War for shifting the Overton window far enough to the right for fascism to not only become viable in America, but to get strong enough to flat-out utterly consume the Republican Party. (Well, I partially blame the Cold War. I'm sure McCarthyism and other facets of struggling against communism wasn't the only factor that made the American political climate scared shitless of anything left of center and hospitable to the far right; just one of the bigger ones.)) Luigifan18 (talk) 18:00, 26 March 2024 (UTC)- I think there are some conceptual problems from the outset here. Given the inclusive definition of communism here, including what Marx called “primitive communism” — not every historical attempt can be called a failure. Are the small intentional egalitarian communities that have populations of a few hundred people or less who have managed to sustain themselves for decades failures? What about the various hunter-gatherer tribes or horticultural tribal communities that survived for centuries sometimes even for millennia without any semblance of a class, state, or currency?
- If you are versed in communist theory as you claim, than the issue of “communism” here is not per se in the possibility of a classless or stateless society. There something more so the matter with the means to which states have tried to direct society towards an advanced communism that has consistently failed in the last century.
- Oopsies, I misread. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 09:05, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- *sigh* Not skepticism of logic, that's just silly. I'm talking about skepticism driven by logic. Luigifan18 (talk) 02:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- As for the rationalism conception, that is way too broad. I know of philosophers who use that exact definition as a basis for moral naturalism. “Responsive” to reason is so vague, it’s hard to see who isn’t a rationalist besides those who have no language capacities and are completely indifferent to their sense experiences. You need to determine what is and what is not an appropriate response to reason and/or evidence. Regardless, by your definition, most philosophers throughout history could be conceived as rationalists, communists included. Also most philosophers of rationality (and many a cognitive neuroscientist) would discount one as being rational if they rejected inferences of classical logic. I don’t think you are really describing rationalism if implicit to it is a skepticism of logic, that seems to be a more radical empiricism than that of W.V.O. Quine - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 23:05, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- That being said I think the sustainability of such an advanced communism is underdetermined, because as an end-point stage it has never successfully been reached. Every state project has turned into something that would resemble a capitalist market economy with more or less of a presence of state enterprise. To talk about a “communist country” is a contradiction in terms if used under its economic meaning. The only sense of “communism” that is applicable is as a ideological orientation of the ruling party. The problem with that being that none of these nominally communist states actually have a wholly consistent or shared ideology. Hence all the variations from Classic Marxists, Leninists, Trots, ML’s, Maoists, etc.
- There is also an issue of simply accepting state’s definition of itself. Is China really a republic? North Korea a democracy?
- Also “reality-based community” isn’t a genuine social group. Have a little more analytical of a mindset then relying on the positive association of terms. This is on par with calling one self a “goodist”. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 23:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
What the heck is "everybodywiki"?
…Huh. What is this "en.everybodywiki" that vandal cited in his "fishhook theory" tirade, and is it trustworthy? Now I'm curious. (I'm not restoring the vandal's comment itself because the way it was phrased was clearly more of an attempt to pick a fight than to contribute to the conversation, but I did take a peek at that link he posted, and it looks decent enough aside from a typo (and being a stub… and not being updated since 2020). Do we mention that subject on our horseshoe theory article?) Luigifan18 (talk) 15:12, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Just checked… yep, fishhook theory is there. Right in section 1.1 after the intro, even. Luigifan18 (talk) 16:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Horseshoe theory is hot garbage, and the article we have on it is hot garbage. "Anecdata". Seriously? That's your standard for evidence? Carthage (talk) 16:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Everybodywiki is a Wiki with no notability requirements whatsoever. Predictably, a lot of the recent changes therefore are self-promo spam.
- My take on "horseshoe theory" is that it has some "merit" mainly because binary "left-right" political classifications in itself are often problematic. But only because of that. It's like music genres - everyone uses these terms as shorthand. And by-the-numbers genre artists certainly exist. But when you look deep into the detail of many artists classified a certain way, though, it's often not like the genre stereotype at all. BobJohnson (talk) 16:55, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- I am inclined to say it's got something to do with the 'Overton Window' than anything else. Folks [of all stripes] who fall outside of it end up having rather similar views towards the various horrid mainstream anything - for example, a Nazi will bitch at 'the MSM' because it doesn't report how whites are being screwed-over by 'da Jews' etc while Communists will equally bitch at them being nothing but flunkies for 'international capitalists' but fundies also hate it for not taking seriously their claims that Satan is physically present on Earth right now and organising their minions to conquer the world. Occasionally, you can get a situation where several, unrelated groups end up hating the same person for overlapping reasons - good example being George Soros. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- I think Horseshoe theory is valid in that authoritarians often come to similar conclusions and use similar methods once in power no matter what ideology there is behind it.-Ryan1257 (talk) 00:23, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- I love how we keep pretending a theory considered garbage in political science is worth taking seriously, and the fact there are so many interpretations of this garbage theory just within this very thread doesn't make a charitable case for its analytical utility. Carthage (talk) 00:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- So we have different opinions on why extremists seem to come to similar conclusions, we just recognize a common phenomena and don't quite have any better term for it besides "horseshoe theory". How would you explain far right/left similarities, or do you seriously believe they are nothing alike?-Ryan1257 (talk) 02:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Horseshoe theory is oversimplified rubbish that does away with the political spectrum entirely. I think a better question we should be asking is if these similarities are stylistic or substantive. As for the problems with authoritarianism, that's just how power works. It's not limited to the "far left" and "far right," no matter how vague and useless such terms are (horseshoe theory ignores the top down axis entirely), as Tikitime illustrates on the horseshoe theory talkpage. So do I believe that authoritarianism is a real thing? Yes. Do I believe that horseshoe theory does a good job of explaining it? No, and neither do political scientists. Carthage (talk) 02:58, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- I think Bob's take is pretty defensible. If there is any merit to the idea, it is only because the left/right political spectrum is itself not particularly unambiguous or distinctive. I think it is more than possible to make "similarity" arguments superficially that can come off as equally compelling to someone of a particular political background simply because it permits them to hate on the groups of people they were already inclined to hate on anyway. Like it wouldn't be hard to make the argument to lefties that liberalism is openly compatible with and benefits from far-right authoritarianism based on the active interests of neoliberal institutions to help establish far-right dictators in South America during the Cold War, highlighting the subsequent gross human rights violations. I can hear the centrist cries of non-applicability already, given that such violations or policies weren't established domestically, but I can already predict the leftist response in not finding that particularly compelling considering that there is an open history of human rights violations against certain disenfranchised groups within the US, and the sheer fact that countries like Canada and the US founded upon liberal ideals, were also established through acts classifiable as genocidal. Then we can devolve into the discussion of the various leftwing atrocities and attempt genocidal acts until the cows come home, with nobody realizing how not fucking innocent any particular point of the spectrum is in any of this. We need to build a new house that is not made with the master's tools. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 03:20, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Horseshoe theory is oversimplified rubbish that does away with the political spectrum entirely. I think a better question we should be asking is if these similarities are stylistic or substantive. As for the problems with authoritarianism, that's just how power works. It's not limited to the "far left" and "far right," no matter how vague and useless such terms are (horseshoe theory ignores the top down axis entirely), as Tikitime illustrates on the horseshoe theory talkpage. So do I believe that authoritarianism is a real thing? Yes. Do I believe that horseshoe theory does a good job of explaining it? No, and neither do political scientists. Carthage (talk) 02:58, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- So we have different opinions on why extremists seem to come to similar conclusions, we just recognize a common phenomena and don't quite have any better term for it besides "horseshoe theory". How would you explain far right/left similarities, or do you seriously believe they are nothing alike?-Ryan1257 (talk) 02:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- I love how we keep pretending a theory considered garbage in political science is worth taking seriously, and the fact there are so many interpretations of this garbage theory just within this very thread doesn't make a charitable case for its analytical utility. Carthage (talk) 00:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- I think Horseshoe theory is valid in that authoritarians often come to similar conclusions and use similar methods once in power no matter what ideology there is behind it.-Ryan1257 (talk) 00:23, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- I am inclined to say it's got something to do with the 'Overton Window' than anything else. Folks [of all stripes] who fall outside of it end up having rather similar views towards the various horrid mainstream anything - for example, a Nazi will bitch at 'the MSM' because it doesn't report how whites are being screwed-over by 'da Jews' etc while Communists will equally bitch at them being nothing but flunkies for 'international capitalists' but fundies also hate it for not taking seriously their claims that Satan is physically present on Earth right now and organising their minions to conquer the world. Occasionally, you can get a situation where several, unrelated groups end up hating the same person for overlapping reasons - good example being George Soros. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Horseshoe theory is hot garbage, and the article we have on it is hot garbage. "Anecdata". Seriously? That's your standard for evidence? Carthage (talk) 16:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Anything which is 'overfitted' becomes 'rubbish', Carthage. Horseshoe is a fair (though simple) explanation of how various types of nutjobs can end up at similar conclusions. Consider it more a 'lie-to-children' answer for laypersons than a fully fledged pol/sci theory which you'd use in an academic debate. KarmaPolice (talk) 11:07, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Is it though? You run the risk of false equivalency with such oversimplifcations (as can be seen in our own article), especially when an argument can be made that they don't fit. An argument can be made that centrism just as easily runs the risk of authoritarianism as any other ideology used to justify power, as has already been expressed both here in this thread and elsethread. I am not convinced that this "confused, semi-illiterate" reading of politics is worth the digital paper it's being printed on. Carthage (talk) 11:06, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- However, you run the risk of folks not getting your argument at all if you subject them to a multi-minute, polysyllabic monologue detailing why at times folks on the fringes of political debate appear to end up holding suprisingly similar views at times despite being ostensibly being ideologically opposed to each other. Similar complaints can be made towards, say Occam's Razor, Dunning-Kruger, the Grass/Rabbit/Fox ecoystem, 'Outside Context Problem' and so on - that they are simplifications which some can either over-apply or not understand at all.
- This is basically the 'lies-to-children' debate; it is better to give 'children' [laypersons with no specialist interest/knowledge] a simplified, though technically incorrect view of the subject/issue so they can at least grasp the principle [and run the risk of overfitting etc], or do we try to drill them in the correct technics straight away, knowing full well that a large % will most likely mentally give up before they finish your lesson? KarmaPolice (talk) 16:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- Arguably the former suggestion is based in a kind of epistemic injustice and a slight sense of intellectual arrogance. People can be genuinely curious, and be provided with the epistemic capacities to understand a subject, or at the very least you can debunk common misconceptions. Something like an oversimplification, is not merely a simplification, as “over” is built in to the terminology it’s worth considering what could amount to such an overcorrection to be bordering on disinformation. As skeptics, we end up perpetuating the exact thing we are supposed to be committed to combating. “Lies to children” (putting aside the deep condescending nature built into the term) is often how pseudoscience gets born. It’s how a lot of quantum woo came to be. It is how climate change, framed as a inevitable apocalypse, motivates doomerism. This isn’t to say there isn’t a place for necessary simplification, but in stating that we have to keep in mind that simplifications can distortive, and over-simplifying can be overly distortive. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 21:07, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
JK Rowling... stuff.
Is saying that she is now spreading nazi propaganda an overstatement? https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/jk-rowling-holocaust-denialism-author Also could someone update the artical? Koafox (talk) 18:41, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- It seemed to be more in the realm of willful ignorance and/or JAQery from what I read. It's still a form of denialism I think. Bongolian (talk) 19:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- When I went to the X file, the link goes to a Smithsonian article. The article begins: "New Research Reveals How the Nazis Targeted Transgender People" followed by "Last year, a German court acknowledged the possibility that trans people were persecuted by the Nazis." Acknowledging a possibility is saying "could be true." It's not that far off a certainty. Certainly Nazis persecuted gay men. UncleKrampus (talk) 19:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- We have to recall that at the time, “transgender” wasn’t a coined term. The nazi’s likely didn’t make the distinction we do today, and falsely labeled all the sorts of people we’d classify as being LGBT+ today as being “homosexual degeneracy”. So to talk of it as merely a possibility they targeted trans people, downplays the reality. You absolutely would be targeted if you were assigned male at birth, dressed as a woman, and preferred to referred to as a woman. The Hirshfield institute wasn’t targeted despite of the advocacy of providing what we would call gender affirming care today, it was actively because of it. In addition to, the advocated acceptance of homosexuality. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 20:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- This feed into why I speak to “queerness” as a generality. Because these contemporary categories we have today to same-sex sexuality and cross-sex identification, I believe to be normal parts of human sexual variation have been interpreted under different conceptual frameworks over time. You rarely get a persecution of one, without the other. Anything that goes against the norms established by a dominant binary system for sex/gender, that deviates from what would considered typical heterosexual experience - becomes culturally suspect and other. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 20:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Compare: The Pink Swastika. Chillpilled (talk)
- Yes, this is somewhat speculative. We may well assume that trans population levels are constant over history. But that is done to make guesses possible, and is unreliable at best. Truly no Nazi used the term transgender. They were very familiar with the term for cross-dresser (transvestit). Today, a certain proportion of cross-dressers are transmen and transwomen, but not the majority it seems. We know trans people were persecuted by Nazis because we know cross-dressers were persecuted. UncleKrampus (talk) 20:55, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Reading the Institut für Sexualwissenschaft article, in the 1920s, Magnus Hirschfeld (who founded the institute) came up with the terms "transvestite" and "transsexual". Although (again according to another Wiki article, Transvestism) Hirschfeld was not completely happy with the term, yes, this is probably what transgender individuals would have been called back in the Nazi days. Even from my personal experience, this was the typical term used for transgender people only until the last couple decades or so. (The problem with that term from a modern perspective is that the term only describes outward appearance, so non-transgender individuals like drag queens / cross-dressers get lumped in with transgender individuals).
- The Nazis weren't that specific. They broadly targeted men who committed sexual acts with men [1], period, along with anti-lewd laws like Paragraph 183 that the Nazis used for targeting (among-others) cross-dressers and trans people. That meant there were some interesting gaps, eg lesbians were not prosecuted by any direct law (although of course crap did happen).[2] This is consistent with the modern era, where homosexual men and transgender women tend to be targeted a fair bit more than the reverse. BobJohnson (talk) 21:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- The term "transvestite" was used in some cases to refer to people wanting to change their sex characteristics at the time. I recommend this 2012 paper about it. Hirschfeld called them "extreme transvestites" or "total transvestites" to demarcate them from "mere" cross-dressers, but curiously, it seems that in most cases although this demarcation was acknowledged to have existed, usually the putuwanhrase "transvestites" was used as kind of an umbrella term the way we might say "transgender" now. Although he coined the term "transsexual", this was barely ulaised until Harry Benjamin picked it up and published "The Transsexual Phenomenon", which may itself be worth a read. Chillpilled (talk) 21:07, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- j.k. Rowling wrote resonant young adult fiction. I read ALL the books, I think they dropped off at three and I have not seen the movies. Figuring out that Harry is a horcrux and thus justa musta Been an awful entity to be around by no real fault of his dingy, whingy self, is madame author's most beautiful conceit. I was about the age of book 5 and Harry's terrible no good summer was stupid, Harry Potter was Confirmed an awful little bitch. Ms Rowling is very good at speaking to a ten year old and not much better than that. I don't think she's come to terms with that. Torrent (talk) 11:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- 10 was the age my mother introduced me to Ursula Le Guin. Never looked back, Earthsea is still a favorite and I've read through both Lavinia and The Lathe of Heaven; plenty more to go. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:57, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- I read the whole C.S. Lewis, I read 'a Wrinkle in Time' but my mom didn't wasn't me to read past the first story. I never got to read any Le Guin in my prime reading days. But I do really appreciate the Omelas parable and I really need to set aside some time to read Earthsea. I read the Hobbit but not the Lord of the Rings, I was like 8 and it made a lot of sense to me. The Potter series was the only bunch of books I read past about 12 because my mom kept handing them to me after she read them. I read Where the Red Fern Grows at about 9 and bawled my eyes out, it came up as 6th grade reading and we watched the movie? In the year 2000, the teachers were like 'these kids can't read a book, we gotta show em the movie or it won't make sense.' And that's how it went, but we didn't really have English teachers, we had 'Reading' classes. English lit was a little different, but I could not gives damn about Chaucer cause I had just started fuckin. Euro lit was actually a little different, we read Tartuffe aloud in class. Where was the term cuckold in your vocabulary in 2005? Anyway, public education is really bad, I know my cousins grew up being read the Potter saga as bedtime before they had to read it themselves. I don't have any spoon fed Potter saga, it wasn't cool til the movies, so much like pokemon, it was just something I was reading, I raw dogged the lit from start to finish. I choose my own house, I don't take some quiz to sort me. Hufflepuff, HufflePUFF, HUFFLEPUFF!
- 10 was the age my mother introduced me to Ursula Le Guin. Never looked back, Earthsea is still a favorite and I've read through both Lavinia and The Lathe of Heaven; plenty more to go. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:57, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- j.k. Rowling wrote resonant young adult fiction. I read ALL the books, I think they dropped off at three and I have not seen the movies. Figuring out that Harry is a horcrux and thus justa musta Been an awful entity to be around by no real fault of his dingy, whingy self, is madame author's most beautiful conceit. I was about the age of book 5 and Harry's terrible no good summer was stupid, Harry Potter was Confirmed an awful little bitch. Ms Rowling is very good at speaking to a ten year old and not much better than that. I don't think she's come to terms with that. Torrent (talk) 11:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- The term "transvestite" was used in some cases to refer to people wanting to change their sex characteristics at the time. I recommend this 2012 paper about it. Hirschfeld called them "extreme transvestites" or "total transvestites" to demarcate them from "mere" cross-dressers, but curiously, it seems that in most cases although this demarcation was acknowledged to have existed, usually the putuwanhrase "transvestites" was used as kind of an umbrella term the way we might say "transgender" now. Although he coined the term "transsexual", this was barely ulaised until Harry Benjamin picked it up and published "The Transsexual Phenomenon", which may itself be worth a read. Chillpilled (talk) 21:07, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, this is somewhat speculative. We may well assume that trans population levels are constant over history. But that is done to make guesses possible, and is unreliable at best. Truly no Nazi used the term transgender. They were very familiar with the term for cross-dresser (transvestit). Today, a certain proportion of cross-dressers are transmen and transwomen, but not the majority it seems. We know trans people were persecuted by Nazis because we know cross-dressers were persecuted. UncleKrampus (talk) 20:55, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Compare: The Pink Swastika. Chillpilled (talk)
- This feed into why I speak to “queerness” as a generality. Because these contemporary categories we have today to same-sex sexuality and cross-sex identification, I believe to be normal parts of human sexual variation have been interpreted under different conceptual frameworks over time. You rarely get a persecution of one, without the other. Anything that goes against the norms established by a dominant binary system for sex/gender, that deviates from what would considered typical heterosexual experience - becomes culturally suspect and other. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 20:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- We have to recall that at the time, “transgender” wasn’t a coined term. The nazi’s likely didn’t make the distinction we do today, and falsely labeled all the sorts of people we’d classify as being LGBT+ today as being “homosexual degeneracy”. So to talk of it as merely a possibility they targeted trans people, downplays the reality. You absolutely would be targeted if you were assigned male at birth, dressed as a woman, and preferred to referred to as a woman. The Hirshfield institute wasn’t targeted despite of the advocacy of providing what we would call gender affirming care today, it was actively because of it. In addition to, the advocated acceptance of homosexuality. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 20:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
The LGBTQ Grooming Conspiracy reminds me of the story The Boy Who Cried Wolf
Bigots frequently make false claims about grooming and pedophilia which leads to some believing them. If someone actually abused a bigot's kid, nobody would believe them as they claim it over and over. --Trans Fem Agenda 16:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- This bullshit harms real victims of grooming, as vital resources are being spent on a rehashing of the Satanic Panic. I don't think it's a coincidence that genuine abusers like the co-founder of Moms for Liberty have jumped on the groomer bandwagon. Carthage (talk) 16:28, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Nope, me neither. Work people up into a frenzy about false pedophiles and the real pedophiles can fly under the radar. Luigifan18 (talk) 16:33, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Carthage That was pretty much my point. When kids actually suffer from sexual abuse, people won't believe the victim. Kinda like false rape accusations- It harms actual rape victims. --Trans Fem Agenda 22:42, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- I was watching that "Quiet on Set" documentary, about how Nickelodeon in the 90s was full of abuse. What's said needs to be taken with a grain of salt; everyone is the hero of their own story. However, Drake Bell's story was a bit interesting. Spoilers ahead, I guess. Basically, Drake Bell's parents had a nasty divorce, and his dad ended up as his manager. A pedophile began grooming Drake, and the father became suspicious. When the father went to confront someone at Nickelodeon Studios, he was told that the guy was Gay; ergo, the dad was just being Homophobic and should shut his bigoted ass up. And then Drake was indeed raped for years by that guy. CorruptUser 06:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- "ergo"? - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 06:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Nickelodeon's suits didn't want to know; or more correctly they saw the allegation as a 'brand image / HR problem' than one of actual illegality and protection of persons one. Therefore, the easiest way to 'deal' with it is to turn the tables, attack the accuser [in this case, the father being a homophobe due to seeing 'Boys Beware' too many times]. And as [I assume] they had contracts, they couldn't even simply walk away without being sued into eternal penury. KarmaPolice (talk) 08:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- We have a page for that sort of thing, y'know… Luigifan18 (talk) 14:52, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- "Ergo", wolves will often immediately declare that the boy is crying wolf. And when it comes to Hollywood, which might as well be the wolves' den... CorruptUser 07:17, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- Nickelodeon's suits didn't want to know; or more correctly they saw the allegation as a 'brand image / HR problem' than one of actual illegality and protection of persons one. Therefore, the easiest way to 'deal' with it is to turn the tables, attack the accuser [in this case, the father being a homophobe due to seeing 'Boys Beware' too many times]. And as [I assume] they had contracts, they couldn't even simply walk away without being sued into eternal penury. KarmaPolice (talk) 08:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- "ergo"? - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 06:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- I was watching that "Quiet on Set" documentary, about how Nickelodeon in the 90s was full of abuse. What's said needs to be taken with a grain of salt; everyone is the hero of their own story. However, Drake Bell's story was a bit interesting. Spoilers ahead, I guess. Basically, Drake Bell's parents had a nasty divorce, and his dad ended up as his manager. A pedophile began grooming Drake, and the father became suspicious. When the father went to confront someone at Nickelodeon Studios, he was told that the guy was Gay; ergo, the dad was just being Homophobic and should shut his bigoted ass up. And then Drake was indeed raped for years by that guy. CorruptUser 06:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Carthage That was pretty much my point. When kids actually suffer from sexual abuse, people won't believe the victim. Kinda like false rape accusations- It harms actual rape victims. --Trans Fem Agenda 22:42, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Even just the rhetoric harms actual grooming victims. "Grooming", aside from its other meaning (hygiene), in terms of child sexual abuse was defined as "the action of attempting to form a relationship with a child or young person, with the intention of sexually assaulting them". It's kind of comparable to how "gaslighting" described an actual thing in interpersonal abuse between individuals, and was terminologically abused in such a way that it robbed the people who that niche understanding could have helped. I get where the comparisons came from (in either case), but they are generally unhelpful. The very fact that someone would rather score political points, rather than "be kind to our language", reveals that they don't care about grooming victims but rather about politics. This is not actually exclusive to the right-wing, as some of the left-wing clapback has irked me in a similar way; mirroring their abuse of the term is equally unhelpful even if they were the first ones to do it. Chillpilled (talk) 23:06, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- Grooming is actively moving an individual towards what is entirely expected of them. Gaslighting, I agree, has been incorrectly used. Gaslighting is a very specific type of lying, we extend that grooming in an Epstein/Maxwell sense is a very specific type of Grooming. As 'Gaslighting' kinda became a catch-all term for lying, grooming has become a catch-all term for the the Epstein/Maxwell end game and not just kinda.. I dunno, teaching kids how to behave? But, as we've given up the swastika to awful misuse, it's not like we're at a lack of terms to use to teach dumb as little kids how to behave. Baseless cries of 'grooming' kids are met with 'teaching' which are responded to with more baseless 'teaching and grooming' equivocation. I'd like for it to be as simple as calling it 'preparing' children, it's all the same concept. 'Preparing' does sound a little sinister, though, doesn't it? Torrent (talk) 12:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- Nope, me neither. Work people up into a frenzy about false pedophiles and the real pedophiles can fly under the radar. Luigifan18 (talk) 16:33, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Feminist Ethics, Epistemic Responsibility, and Scientific Skepticism.
During my master’s program so far I have been sort of writing quite a bit on epistemic responsibility, epistemic justice, and the harms of inferences based on insufficient evidence. I am kind of curious to how these issues relate to the concerns we have as a community about anti-science, but also, an intuition I have is that these issues intersect heavily with feminist ethics. I think that intersection maybe under-explored, but I am curious what others think about that. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 23:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- The phrase "feminist ethics," suggests a class of ethics that is underdetermined through the use of "feminist" as a modifier because it suggests a bias in favor of some feminist schema. Isn't there a bunch of different theories? Are you presuming that there is a correct one? I don't imagine that feminist ethics are better distinguished than are general ethics. Honestly, I can say one should treat a woman as one would want to be treated-- an obvious a corollary of the Golden Rule. I'm not denying feminist ethics exist, I just don't see how they diverge from general ethics in any non-trivial way. I don't think this wiki has an article on the subject. UncleKrampus (talk) 00:25, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- You may be misusing the term "underdetermined" in this context. Underdetermination means that it is more open-ended to various compatible interpretations (which may be what you are trying to allude to), rather than being particularly biased towards a specific interpretation (but in that sense all of ethics is "underdetermined"). That is what people mean about the underdetermination of data, that it is not determinate to a specific interpretation, that there isn't a direct inference from the observation to the theory. Feminist ethics does imply to some capacity that whatever ethical theorizing amounts to, it needs to be feminist. It may be less "underdetermined" then general moral philosophy. I understand what you are getting at though. There isn't some universal correct notion of feminist ethics that is being appealed to here.
- Feminist ethics within the philosophy may be framed as ethical theories concerned with or opposed to sexist exploitation and oppression. From an intersectional framework, you may take feminist ethics as being particularly concerned about sexist oppression as it intersects with other forms of oppression, i.e. racism, ableism, etc.; and how this may complicate certain ethical issues.
- In practice, what feminist ethics actually amounts to something different is the criticism it provides to moral philosophy as a whole, with a particular tradition of approaching ethics from the idea that there is some capital "R" reason, or "view from nowhere" that can be used to infer "objective ethical truths" from. That the history of excluding women (and other minorities) from the practice of ethical theorizing creates ideological blindspots or oversights, that may bias an ethical theory against certain disadvantaged people. Some would even claim that it undermines the very aim of having an objective or accurate moral theory in of itself because the exclusion of certain minorities already biases the project from the outset. That is why the "feminist" "modifier" is taken as necessary, that there is something arguably being improved upon given the dominant mode of ethical theorizing is demonstrably androcentric. Take "the golden rule", as an example from Kantian ethics, and look in particular to how Kant viewed women in terms of their ability to engage in ethics. The assumption that men were the ones who had the capacity of this Capital "R" reason while women lacked this ability, meant in that women couldn't do genuine moral philosophizing from the outset. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 00:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
As a resource explaining what feminist ethics amounts to [3] - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 00:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- And in that first paragraph from the SEP we have "That commitment results in a tendency, in feminist ethics, to take into account empirical information and material actualities." I think this illustrates a little bit of what I am getting at, given that scientific skeptics probably also believe that ethics needs to take into account empirical information and the material actualities of living human beings. My point is I think there is more of an overlap of interests rather than conflict, despite the reputation for sexism that scientific skepticism often has. These views can be reconciled, and I would argue should be reconciled. Ratiwki is an interesting case because we are a community based around scientific skepticism, that is also very sympathetic to, and often very explicitly pro-feminist. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 00:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- That's exactly what I meant by underdetermined. I wasn't referring to a particular bias. I wondered if you were doing just that. The project of feminist ethics, as it stands apart from general ethics: "feminist ethicists aim to understand, criticize, and correct: (1) the binary view of gender, (2) the privilege historically available to men, and/or (3) the ways that views about gender maintain oppressive social orders or practices that harm others, especially girls and women who historically have been subordinated, along gendered dimensions including sexuality and gender-identity."
- The consequence of such definitions, as I see it, is that the project itself is not epistemic but rather political. Politics is, of course a species of philosophy. One can criticize, but not correct the general public with theories. (1) Can argument eliminate the existential social realities of binary gender? The two sets are likely incommensurable, leading to more than one possible narrative. (2) Privilege is itself a form of currency afforded individuals by custom and essential differences, and resembles an economic system rather than a principled ethical theory. (3), social oppression due to gender distinctions is a species of unethical behavior not treated in general ethics due to the variety of meanings associated with social oppression. The main, material oppressions are economic by definition (e.g., pay disparities). The fact that oppressed people can be considered as a class is useful in politics, less clearly so in epistemology.
- This all suggests political philosophy is being brought to bear, or at least I suppose that is the practical consequence of it. Still, one may consider political epistemology. This does intersect with the social ideas you may have in mind. Often, political ideas are intractable and even more often, undecidable. UncleKrampus (talk) 02:14, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- As the philosopher may point out the project of ethics itself is ethical, not epistemic, and the project of ontology, is ontic, not epistemic. But if we are going to assert something like an ethics of belief, which is what the notion of epistemic responsibility amounts to, then it is possible for there to be both a dimension of the epistemic and that of the ethical. I am not entirely convinced that there is a way in which anyone can engage in a notion of ethics without inadvertently engaging with a notion of politics. There is no such thing as an ethical theory that does not itself have political implications, because no ethical theory is without implications about the distribution and exercise of power.
- This all suggests political philosophy is being brought to bear, or at least I suppose that is the practical consequence of it. Still, one may consider political epistemology. This does intersect with the social ideas you may have in mind. Often, political ideas are intractable and even more often, undecidable. UncleKrampus (talk) 02:14, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Epistemology itself has within in sub-disciplines of feminist and social epistemology. If we truly run with the notion that knowledge is power (at least a type of power, or is in some sense empowering) then politics will inevitably bare on the epistemic. Social systems determine what information is accessible. Ignorance is something that can be produced or maintained (think state secrecy, misinformation produced by states and corporate institutions, etc). Even science itself is dependent on funding, and to receive public funding scientists often have to pitch how their work is of benefit to society. The generation of knowledge, and its suppression comes down to the capacities of individuals and the social systems that grant them. Scientific skepticism itself is rarely politically neutral, we often make calls upon the regulation of alternative medicine, or push to have psychics accountable for fraud, etc. This very website itself has its origins in political tension, namely in that of conservative anti-science, the political associations of creationism, and the ideological motivations behind climate denial. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 03:00, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- so first, I want to say Don't ask the internet for criticism if you're doing a Masters'. That's not a question, it is very similar to Critical Race Theory, which is very essentially bonkers in that it questions whetheter all historical accountsare biased (which, come on, that's the easy one to admit as a person existent as a white man), and it is also strange, historical stories about race, gender, and ethics that don't include a not even a Christian, but a female, black, brown, red, or yellow, perspective; each minority are put down as some bunk critical history theory. You'll have to deal, it's not exactly written down, and that's not something I can help with.. Helping by being a decent man, we exist. The ideas of unburying history by means of unpublished works is really ambitious. I'm forever in your corner Torrent (talk) 10:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- I wasn’t asking for criticism, just asking for opinions about related topics. Also this topic isn’t about “critical theory”. I am approaching this almost entirely from the analytical tradition of philosophy, not legal studies scholarship. You are getting various academic disciplines confused for one another here. I am not trained as a critical theorist, I am not talking about critical theory. Though it should be said that of the literature I read on critical thinking, some scholars do take critical theory as simply being an extension and application of critical thinking. If that is correct then I would argue there is an element of anti-intellectualism going on with your post. Unsurprising considering how associated critical race theory is with certain republican moral panics. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 20:09, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- Daggers, you've stabbed me to pieces. Torrent (talk) 11:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- My apologies, wasn’t my intent. I was just trying to persuade you away from such knee jerk reactions and put you in a mindset to be more willing to reflect upon where these assessments come from. Like, why upon hearing feminist ethics did you think critical theory? I hope not to mislead you into thinking critical theory is completely irrelevant to feminist ethics, but there are plenty of scholars who work within such a field who do, in fact, reject many aspects of critical theory, while others may be more so inspired by it. Arguably, Kimberlé Crenshaw who mainstreamed the concept of intersectionality, is described as a critical race theorist. She is also a legal scholar, however, and upon describing the concept the intended audience was other legal scholars. Not gender studies, feminist philosophers, or other academics as a whole. But the influence is no doubt present within other disciplines. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 17:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- sorry for not getting back timely, but What I meant is I actually think you answered my comment really well. I meant what I said, my point was much less relevant to what you are working on and more a lateral statement of how anyone against the sole idea of there being such a thing as agency across all genders and races will argue. Because they will, and they do it constantly and boneheadedly, and I don't know how to crack that kinda 'anything but critical' thinking. Again, in your corner, on your side. I believe in your work and I respect your opinion. I was just kinda joking that yes, you nailed it. Guillotine, you're the boss, speak further on it if you can because I legitimately like it. Torrent (talk) 08:07, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- My apologies, wasn’t my intent. I was just trying to persuade you away from such knee jerk reactions and put you in a mindset to be more willing to reflect upon where these assessments come from. Like, why upon hearing feminist ethics did you think critical theory? I hope not to mislead you into thinking critical theory is completely irrelevant to feminist ethics, but there are plenty of scholars who work within such a field who do, in fact, reject many aspects of critical theory, while others may be more so inspired by it. Arguably, Kimberlé Crenshaw who mainstreamed the concept of intersectionality, is described as a critical race theorist. She is also a legal scholar, however, and upon describing the concept the intended audience was other legal scholars. Not gender studies, feminist philosophers, or other academics as a whole. But the influence is no doubt present within other disciplines. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 17:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- Daggers, you've stabbed me to pieces. Torrent (talk) 11:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- I wasn’t asking for criticism, just asking for opinions about related topics. Also this topic isn’t about “critical theory”. I am approaching this almost entirely from the analytical tradition of philosophy, not legal studies scholarship. You are getting various academic disciplines confused for one another here. I am not trained as a critical theorist, I am not talking about critical theory. Though it should be said that of the literature I read on critical thinking, some scholars do take critical theory as simply being an extension and application of critical thinking. If that is correct then I would argue there is an element of anti-intellectualism going on with your post. Unsurprising considering how associated critical race theory is with certain republican moral panics. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 20:09, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- so first, I want to say Don't ask the internet for criticism if you're doing a Masters'. That's not a question, it is very similar to Critical Race Theory, which is very essentially bonkers in that it questions whetheter all historical accountsare biased (which, come on, that's the easy one to admit as a person existent as a white man), and it is also strange, historical stories about race, gender, and ethics that don't include a not even a Christian, but a female, black, brown, red, or yellow, perspective; each minority are put down as some bunk critical history theory. You'll have to deal, it's not exactly written down, and that's not something I can help with.. Helping by being a decent man, we exist. The ideas of unburying history by means of unpublished works is really ambitious. I'm forever in your corner Torrent (talk) 10:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- Epistemology itself has within in sub-disciplines of feminist and social epistemology. If we truly run with the notion that knowledge is power (at least a type of power, or is in some sense empowering) then politics will inevitably bare on the epistemic. Social systems determine what information is accessible. Ignorance is something that can be produced or maintained (think state secrecy, misinformation produced by states and corporate institutions, etc). Even science itself is dependent on funding, and to receive public funding scientists often have to pitch how their work is of benefit to society. The generation of knowledge, and its suppression comes down to the capacities of individuals and the social systems that grant them. Scientific skepticism itself is rarely politically neutral, we often make calls upon the regulation of alternative medicine, or push to have psychics accountable for fraud, etc. This very website itself has its origins in political tension, namely in that of conservative anti-science, the political associations of creationism, and the ideological motivations behind climate denial. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 03:00, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Old new requesting auto-confirmation
Hi,
I had an account on this website last year DietResearcher, I created two good articles, one was Paul Saladino. I left my account last year because I was studying for University (I studied food science). I don't remember my old account password, it's been a year since I was active. There are two new articles I want to create on this website for others who are pushing food woo quackery. I appreciate if I could have access for auto-confirmation so I can create this article later tonight.
I realize users may be suspicious but I am not an impersonation, spoof or troll. You can heavily watch what I am doing. I would like to create the article later today if possible. DietResearcher1 (talk) 12:50, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- It'll cost ya, we're easily bribed. Cardinal Chang (talk) 18:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Assuming the Worst of People
This is something I have felt myself get into again and again over the years, where due to poor treatment (mostly due to the education system) and reading up on some psychology, I have assumed the worst of many people on this planet, assuming they all act out of selfishness, greed, or more. See the Dark Triad of personality traits: narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. A fourth trait, sadism, is sometimes included with the other three to form the Dark Tetrad.
As I iterated to myself before, the narcissism gives them the psychological push and reasoning to do what they do and making them as tenacious as ever, the Machiavellianism gives them the means to achieve their goals no matter the damage it does, the psychopathy removes any and all roadblocks to their efficiency (usually in the form of ethics, which they see as the roadblock) in achieving their goals, and the sadism is their raison d'être and reward mechanism for why they still go about their lives, as the glee extracted from the suffering of others becomes their reward for their behavior. This cycle of selfishness and power only feeds back into itself, and I suspect large swaths of the most vocal people and those in power are like that, only acting to boost their own egos.
It's quite a lot, but that's just something I want to get out there. TheEternalOutsider (talk) 13:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- It is only in our nature to tribalize the world as we know it. We are the good, they are the bad. It is very common. We have the racists, and the better people; the sexists, and the better people; the homophobes, and the better people, etc. While some people are better than others with regard to their empathic relations with others, it is sobering to accept the reality that everyone eventually belongs, for a time, to one of the worse groups. The best advice I can give is beware of catastrophizing. If people are generally bedeviled by negative personal qualities, then as a person, I must assume that I am also in need of improvement.UncleKrampus (talk) 14:27, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- It appears human brains have a hardwired ''negativity bias'; and this includes being much more liable to remember 'poor treatment' from others than fair dealing. It is most likely a defence mechanism; to counteract the general 'free rider problem' that all societies suffer from as well as guarding against individual screw-overs. It also appears that we are not the only species who has this; corvids such as crows and ravens do too.
- There is also the little issue that some societies on this planet are either toxic or at very least fairly 'sick'; that despite the surface claims, the 'rewarded' behaviours are negative and/or damaging to wider society. A good example is that of Donald Trump; a kid who was taught openess and empathy were weaknesses, a teenager shown that you can buy your way out of any problem, a young adulthood tutored that screwing-over business partners was a viable strategy and an older man who knows walking on people's spines to get whatever you want will neither be stopped or called out. And it is difficult to tell an American child that those traits/views are wrong the moment you see his 'achievements'.
- Lastly, I will caution you that basing general theories on human nature from observations at school is not wise. School is a hyper-competitive, unfair enviroment with screwed-up goals, riddled with hypocrisy, an emotional hot-house and works hard to crush originality and you cannot escape it. Trying to draw conclusions on how humans normally operate from that is like how biologists came up with the 'alpha wolf' theory on seeing how a bunch of wolves acted when shoved together in a zoo pen and thinking wolf-packs are like that in the wild [ie not at all]. KarmaPolice (talk) 15:34, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- Encountering and observing the never-ending circus of the heavily enshittified Internet was another thing that continues to conjure negativity and cause these assumptions. Forgot to mention that. TheEternalOutsider (talk) 17:02, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- I don't believe that is a coincidence. The likes of Xi, Putin et al ['at home and abroad'] want us to be at each other's throats, to not trust anyone, to not believe in anything positive, to feel alone, that everyone is a selfish [redacted] only out for themselves, to loathe Others etc. Divide and rule, with us all smothered under a blanket of depressing apathy, mainlining anger and resentment or turning inwards into OwnLife and ignoring it all. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- KP gave a useful example of a positive result of negativity bias in action. We are motivated to derive explanations for unpleasant facts. Very good. If we imagine the mind as a machine, then it is easy to comprehend the idea of data overload. There is no end of negative information and opinions available through media. Negativity is the message of interactive social media. The trick for you may be to just stop attending to it at your present rate. The negativity bias is like an AI assistant that selects ominous impressions from ones recent experience. It prompts questions such as, "this looks bad" for some reason, and "better think about a possible consequence." I often catch myself attending to very negative media, and decide to turn it off for its lack of utility. Try it, there's a lot of fun things to do.UncleKrampus (talk) 17:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- That's basically what social media AIs do; it notes 'oh, you looked at X' and then offers you more and more of X, shoving wafer thin mints into you until you explode. It's important to remember that fact; they are designed to be mental catnip so you keep on viewing them ads and over time, to build up a virtual picture of you so they can sell on your analytics to third parties. But yes; I also 'ration' social media, in a similar manner to how I ration news. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- There's probably an evolutionary component to negativity bias, too; people who reacted to bad things happening by getting upset and trying to stop the bad stuff were more likely to live longer and have more kids than people who kept themselves in a state of blissful ignorance or passive endurance. Luigifan18 (talk) 23:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- But that's an 'ends' problem, on a social level. The person who gets angrier than you gets the seat. It reinforces the idea of hierarchy. On it's face, it justifies a man having many wives. In practice, you get Mitt Romney. Being angry for no reason is a dumb trick people with power use. Torrent (talk) 09:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- There's probably an evolutionary component to negativity bias, too; people who reacted to bad things happening by getting upset and trying to stop the bad stuff were more likely to live longer and have more kids than people who kept themselves in a state of blissful ignorance or passive endurance. Luigifan18 (talk) 23:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- That's basically what social media AIs do; it notes 'oh, you looked at X' and then offers you more and more of X, shoving wafer thin mints into you until you explode. It's important to remember that fact; they are designed to be mental catnip so you keep on viewing them ads and over time, to build up a virtual picture of you so they can sell on your analytics to third parties. But yes; I also 'ration' social media, in a similar manner to how I ration news. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- KP gave a useful example of a positive result of negativity bias in action. We are motivated to derive explanations for unpleasant facts. Very good. If we imagine the mind as a machine, then it is easy to comprehend the idea of data overload. There is no end of negative information and opinions available through media. Negativity is the message of interactive social media. The trick for you may be to just stop attending to it at your present rate. The negativity bias is like an AI assistant that selects ominous impressions from ones recent experience. It prompts questions such as, "this looks bad" for some reason, and "better think about a possible consequence." I often catch myself attending to very negative media, and decide to turn it off for its lack of utility. Try it, there's a lot of fun things to do.UncleKrampus (talk) 17:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- I don't believe that is a coincidence. The likes of Xi, Putin et al ['at home and abroad'] want us to be at each other's throats, to not trust anyone, to not believe in anything positive, to feel alone, that everyone is a selfish [redacted] only out for themselves, to loathe Others etc. Divide and rule, with us all smothered under a blanket of depressing apathy, mainlining anger and resentment or turning inwards into OwnLife and ignoring it all. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- Encountering and observing the never-ending circus of the heavily enshittified Internet was another thing that continues to conjure negativity and cause these assumptions. Forgot to mention that. TheEternalOutsider (talk) 17:02, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- Lastly, I will caution you that basing general theories on human nature from observations at school is not wise. School is a hyper-competitive, unfair enviroment with screwed-up goals, riddled with hypocrisy, an emotional hot-house and works hard to crush originality and you cannot escape it. Trying to draw conclusions on how humans normally operate from that is like how biologists came up with the 'alpha wolf' theory on seeing how a bunch of wolves acted when shoved together in a zoo pen and thinking wolf-packs are like that in the wild [ie not at all]. KarmaPolice (talk) 15:34, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Is artificial general intelligence already here?
Two researchers argue that artificial general intelligence is already here:
https://www.noemamag.com/artificial-general-intelligence-is-already-here/
What do you think of the article? One of the authors works for Google, so I suspect that there is a conflict of interest going on here. Cuz I know that Big Tech companies love to hype their AI stuff. This was an assigned reading for a philosophy course I'm taking. AyeAight (talk) 06:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- There's no single definition of AGI, so whether it's been achieved is in the eye of the beholder. Current level chatbots seem to pass the weird-but-stoopid test, and the could-be-crazy-uncle-QAnoner tests. Bongolian (talk) 07:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- If it has been passed, it's kinda underwhelming TBH. Reality's a cold hard cynic... Carthage (talk) 07:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- We'll know it's here when they enslave us. --Annanoon (talk) 11:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- "Large language models" operate at the level of a stochastic parrot. They have vast depth of text to trawl through, but no concept of actual reasoning / deduction and no novelty of thinking. So no, not really, unless we are talking about the parts of humanity that get awed by the bullshit artist.
- In 2013, a Google engineer claimed to USA Today that fully autonomous self-driving cars were five years away. You can nitpick and say this was "technically correct" (since there are some limited self-driving cars out there in select environments) but compared to the 2010s self-driving hype cycle... well, let's just say that "truck driver" is still a viable job for quite the near future, eh? BobJohnson (talk) 12:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- From my layperson's general understanding; no. I've long said that AIs are a misnomer; they are not 'intelligent'. BobJ is [not for the first time] right on the money - the 'AIs' we currently have are not much more than a new iteration of computer program with much bigger data-sets, more processing power and lastly, a very good 'user interface'. As all of these have been developing since the first Colossus was switched on in 1943, it can be said firmly that this is 'nothing new under the sun'. A 'true AI' is decades, perhaps centuries away - and even when we finally do see one, it's most likely it shall be dumb as shit. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- The problem I see (alluded to in the RW article on artificial general intelligence, and also by Bongolian) is that the term itself is indeed not well defined. Since the Silicon Valley hype cycle has kicked in, the old school definition (which was essentially equivalent to a human brain or greater, and required fluency in multiple concepts that are known human brain traits, including reasoning / problem solving, learning under uncertain conditions, imagination, etc.) has been fudged. Every tech bro is hyping up LLMs these days.
- From my point of view, that NOEMA article was rather insulting. It acknowledged the criticisms (of which I am one of the critics :) ), but in the end concluded that such criticism was made "through the lens of economic threat and insecurity". Uh-huh. It's more like, we've heard this tech hype cycle song and dance before. I don't disagree that there won't be economic impact, but just as the truck drivers are not out of work yet, I currently expect the impact to be less than the hype given the limitations of technology. (Though obviously there will be some, and has been already, since AI can do some "boilerplate" type things, like write junk news articles designed to fill up space, to enough satisfaction. A clickbait-tuned AI designed to populate your Facebooks with yet even more rage bait for doom-scrollers? Entirely possible! But even in journalism, ChatGPT is *not* going to do the type of deep investigatory reporting that's far more valuable than your boilerplate news of the day.)
- I also expect *some* economic impact from "the other angle", where decisions made to over-rely on AI technology causes significant problems later on. Think Boeing (let's add a computer (MCAS) to mimic previous 737s, and we won't need to retrain pilots, right? Wrong.) or the noted issues with Tesla's "autopilot". One possibility I can think of as easily plausible is creative execs replacing talent with LLM AI, which (if implemented not as a supplement, but as a way to replace humans) will most likely lead to a crash in quality. BobJohnson (talk) 14:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- Which is the reason I have started using the term 'Virtual Intelligence' [from Mass Effect]; that we are very close to the stage where a sufficiently complex LLM [with simulated personality, views, prefrences etc as well as a large amount of 'previous conversations' under it's belt] will be able to routinely pass the classic Turing Test without actually being 'sentient'. I expect we shall reach this point within a decade; as in 'almost all adult humans cannot tell that their virtual assistant etc is not a human from their actions/speech alone'. In fact, in the respect of small kids, I suspect we're already rather close...
- From my layperson's general understanding; no. I've long said that AIs are a misnomer; they are not 'intelligent'. BobJ is [not for the first time] right on the money - the 'AIs' we currently have are not much more than a new iteration of computer program with much bigger data-sets, more processing power and lastly, a very good 'user interface'. As all of these have been developing since the first Colossus was switched on in 1943, it can be said firmly that this is 'nothing new under the sun'. A 'true AI' is decades, perhaps centuries away - and even when we finally do see one, it's most likely it shall be dumb as shit. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- We'll know it's here when they enslave us. --Annanoon (talk) 11:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- If it has been passed, it's kinda underwhelming TBH. Reality's a cold hard cynic... Carthage (talk) 07:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- https://www.wunc.org/science-technology/2023-08-14/how-kids-view-smart-home-devices-roomba-pet-alexa-friend
- KarmaPolice (talk) 17:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
I reworked/wrote our current text on AGI. I included a reference to that NOEMA article, and I thought it seemed representative of the best that LLM-AGI boosters have to offer. The thing I disagree with the strongest is the vague claims made that the best LLMs already can do basically all human information processing, so that by extension AGI has clearly been achieved already. To me, it requires a very lopsided view of human information processing to accept that claim of what LLMs can do, and it points to that such people view human intellectual capability very differently than the skeptics -- this may be more significant than differences in how LLMs are viewed. This seems similar to older ages of AGI hype, when likewise oversimplified ideas of the human mind led to assertions that AGI was on the cusp of being achieved. This isn't about anything mystical (such boosters like to criticize mystical criticism of their hype), rather about the broader accepted empirical understanding of the human mind (which grew in the age of cognitive science).
Current LLMs are plainly already truly super-human in a way, but at the same time like only a cross-section of a hypothetical AGI. A little bit like an oversized language machinery without the rest of a human mind to go along with it. Think of a 3D space, in which a flat 2D object can grow in size but it remains flat compared to a solid object. Boosting the size and learning of LLMs makes a flat thing taller and wider, and it is already much more so than a moderately sized lump representing human cognition. But the latter has size in another dimension, and that's the crucial difference. People can be bamboozled by words and simulated rote memorization into forgetting that difference, but it shows up whenever the memorization doesn't cover what's tested. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 20:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Forget about the nukes, she is Putin's most important asset
Many analysts predicted that the Russian economy would crumble with all the sanctions. Two years after the war, their economy is performing better than most people thought. Why? There are many reasons for that (countries like India, China and Brazil buying their stuff for instance), but having on his side Elvira Nabiullina, the most competent Central Bank chairperson in the world, is IMO the main reason why Russia hasn't collapsed so far. Their future is bleak: while they aren't a war economy yet, one of the reasons why their output is growing are their war efforts, but in the short term the Russian economy is not going anywhere. She raised and cut interest rates in a perfect timing, something that the West failed to do (as the 2021–2023 inflation shows). Now she's managing the convert Russian reserves in assets that the West cannot confiscate. This is not the first time she saves Putin's ass. During the 2014 annexation of the Ukraine, the Rouble almost collapsed, but while their economy didn't grow, it didn't collapse either (this was also a time when the oil price halved). The good news is, leaders like Putin often have relatively little patience with hawks like Nabiullina (see what happened Schacht in 1939), and I won't be surprised if he fires her if she denies him what he wants. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 14:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- Those 'analysts' were mainly engaging in wishful thinking, who were bigged up by the Wests' politicos because they were telling us the story we wished to hear - aka that the moment we cut some economic lifelines, the Russians would fall over and so we would not need to back Ukraine for long in a fighting war.
- Who were these analysts [I don't think 'most' of them thought they would work alone]? I mean, what a bunch of morons; have they not heard of 'North Korea', 'Iran' or even 'Cuba'? Were they not aware that the majority of Russia's exports were going to places like India and particularly China - both of which were exempt from these silver bullet embargoes? Had they never heard of 'countertrades' to avoid using their limited USD reserves for imports? Didn't they notice that China could [and is] supply(ing) the vast majority of Russia's needs now? Didn't they realise that the vast bulk of Russian overseas cash fled to Gulf banks because they moved so frigging slowly to freeze it? Did they not twig that the main exports of Russia do not require much capital or advanced plant to operate, and they can use their considerable hard currency holdings to evade sanctions to illicitly purchase the gear they need to have? Or that the Russians themselves could make use of various makeshift/expediency decisions to 'keep the [economic] show on the road'? Lastly, didn't they work out that Putin does not give one jot of making the Russian people stuffer a retarded SoL so he can have his dreams of being 'Vladimir the Great of the Third Russian Empire'?
- They didn't think of these things because they were not economists. Their finance myopia told them if you cut off Russia from world cash flows [a very leaking 'cut off' at that] they'd fall over quicker than if someone froze your bank accounts - but in their ignorance they didn't know the word 'autarky'. I also suspect most were of a neoliberal bent who wanted to believe themselves that they could literally 'stop wars'. Sanctions were helpful, yes; but they never 'work' in the respect of making a country actively change their course. KarmaPolice (talk) 15:40, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- Call them stupid, but the problem is outside of military options, economic options are really the main (and in my opinion, the only) "bloodless" tools in the chest that developed economies have that may some effect on deterring a leader from taking a certain action. The problem is, once that tool has been used, it's adapted around, and soon, the only option you have is back to military.-Ryan1257 (talk) 18:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- I'm calling them 'stupid' because they were being touted as a silver bullet in 'stopping the aggression'. They're not. Plus, I'm kinda pissy right now that 'the West' has generally not pulled it's finger our of their arses re: expanding arms industries, building up strategic stockpiles, strengthening reserves etc. If this is a game of Monopoly, Putin and Xi are rushing round the board buying up shit while we're still dicking about whether we should be the iron or boot. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm yet to see a regime collapse because of sanctions (though I've seen regimes getting more and more repressive because of them). They just make the lives of the people living in these countries even more miserable. Though I think the main point of the sanctions in Russia were to make Putin's war effort weaker, which clearly failed too, unfortunately. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 13:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- I think the sanctions have retarded the Russian war machine - most obviously in advanced microchips [as important for modern war as rubber was in WW2] but also it's partial exile from SWIFT. The sanctions are also a general 'red flag' meaning a lot of Western/Japanese corps in non-sanctioned sectors have decided to quit operations/trading. Is Russia still getting TSMC chips, Mazak laser-cutters, Glenfiddich whiskey and Mercedes-Benz parts? Sure. But they're having to resort to the grey/black market which is naturally, a lot more expensive - meaning they are getting less for their cash. And as they're generally getting less cash in because a) a lot of their production is now in military gear and b) India/China are buying Russian raw materials at a discount meaning they have less cash period too. The sanctions are limiting the amount of gear such as advanced machine parts, which is hindering the expansion of their domestic arms industry. Lastly, the general 'cash shortage' means Putin can't be as free as he used to in bribing others; be it domestically to shore up public support or other klepto dictators. Now, Russian finances in general are opaque as hell but I'm fairly sure they're running a fairly serious budget shortfall right now and while their cash-stash is considerable, it won't last forever. Even more importantly, war spending does not really add to the productive capacity of a country, and I'd be shocked if a lot of this spend was being diverted from normal investment [such as replacement of plant reaching the end of it's life-span] which means over time Russia's economic capacity will slowly decline.
- Yeah, I'm yet to see a regime collapse because of sanctions (though I've seen regimes getting more and more repressive because of them). They just make the lives of the people living in these countries even more miserable. Though I think the main point of the sanctions in Russia were to make Putin's war effort weaker, which clearly failed too, unfortunately. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 13:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- I'm calling them 'stupid' because they were being touted as a silver bullet in 'stopping the aggression'. They're not. Plus, I'm kinda pissy right now that 'the West' has generally not pulled it's finger our of their arses re: expanding arms industries, building up strategic stockpiles, strengthening reserves etc. If this is a game of Monopoly, Putin and Xi are rushing round the board buying up shit while we're still dicking about whether we should be the iron or boot. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- Call them stupid, but the problem is outside of military options, economic options are really the main (and in my opinion, the only) "bloodless" tools in the chest that developed economies have that may some effect on deterring a leader from taking a certain action. The problem is, once that tool has been used, it's adapted around, and soon, the only option you have is back to military.-Ryan1257 (talk) 18:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- In the former case, 'making people's lives more miserable' is partly a good thing because Putinism's 'secret sauce' was basically, 'don't question me or my power and in return you'll get an okay-ish SoL and be left alone to live your own life'. I recall that in Nazi Germany all those 'anti-Nazis' only appeared out of the woodwork when rationing started to bite, the Allies were bombing the Reich flat and their own families took casualties. If we end up with a Russia where the 'comfortable apparatchik class' is on short rations, the state is interfering with your personal life, SoL is stagnating, it's fairly hard to leave and there's lots of grieving people who can't even talk about it - good. It will make it harder for Russians to ignore the Czar and his corrupted evil cronies. KarmaPolice (talk) 21:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Visiting Kentucky
Is it save for me (a trans person ) to visit Kentucky for a week? Any precautions I should take? Koafox (talk) 15:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- I am not aware of any excessive level of violence against LGBT in Kentucky compared to other states. Republicans in Kentucky certainly have been doubling down on anti-trans legislation, but it's worth noting that a lot of Kentucky residents don't support these laws. Big cities and tourist areas should be okay, I imagine. I'm not familiar enough with Kentucky "off the beaten path" small towns to comment there, unfortunately.
- Googling, at this time, due to specific laws pushed by Ron DeSantis, the only state I would say a trans person should *not* travel to at this time is Florida. (A lot of the rural Deep South *is* pretty dicey to Others, but even in the South many cities are actually quite okay when it comes to LGBT friendliness...) BobJohnson (talk) 16:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- I think the most important question is; 'do you pass' [or perhaps, 'how far do you pass']? Being trans is to a major extent a life lived in the toupee fallacy; that you only get the shite if a) you out yourself or b) you don't pass [which is why transmen are basically invisible to the Big Public]. The other major issue I can foresee if you're planning to do stuff which involves needing ID and yours don't match up. Not that I'm actually asking these questions, mind. KarmaPolice (talk) 16:58, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- So if I pass (I've been told that I do by my family), I'll be fine. Koafox (talk) 18:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- Even then, you'd be less likely to run into issues depending on the establishment, such as a supermarket vs. a bar-Ryan1257 (talk) 18:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- Personally, I would be more wary of randos than the businesses themselves. However, it may be an idea to stick with big brand/chains for dining out etc; 'Bob's Burgers' might not give a crap about harassing you if you used the 'wrong' bathroom [or allowing said rando to get away with it], but the likes of say, Five Guys might be more aware of the possible national fallout of it. Though I do wonder whether there's some LGBT version of the old Green Book... KarmaPolice (talk) 20:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- I mean, yes, you should be safe. Where in Kentucky, and what do you want to do while you're there? My great grandfather was from Paducah, but he was a teacher by profession and you know what being exposed to lots of kids from different families does to a guy. Tolerance, pa-tuey (that's the sound I make when I spit out of disgust). I would be a little hesitant to walk into a bar there by myself, cis male with hippie long-hair, I would be silent about my politics, and I would just pay attention to any groups of guys that get quiet. You'll be fine, the problems always happen at bars. Torrent (talk) 08:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Huh. I already knew from watching The Sopranos that large corporations are less prone to kowtowing to protection rackets than smaller businesses. I guess another advantage they have over mom-and-pop shops is a greater tendency to refrain from gross antisocial behaviors that are virtually guaranteed to have a negative impact on public relations, such as naked bigotry. (Not that corporations tend to have squeaky-clean human rights records, but they at least have the sense to draw the line somewhere.) Luigifan18 (talk) 23:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- These days, "money is green" (for us US folk anyways :) ) to a corporation regardless of where it comes from. So many corporations not only tolerate LGBTQ+, at times they see it as an important "niche" marketing segment... particularly these days. One of the first companies I remember being banded around in the "business case study" type of way on this sort of thing was Subaru, who in the 1990s successfully targeted lesbians (in "code", of course) with their advertisements. The 1990s were *much* more homophobic than now, so this sort of thing is far more common these days. That being said, corporations are always going to be welcoming "at a distance", wanting your money above all, of course, with the rest being window dressing. "Mom and pops" will contain both worse as well as better, there may be some overtly bigoted places, but also some small businesses more involved in the community in a LGBTQ+ positive direction.
- There's plenty of "LGBTQ+ guides in XYZ" websites, the web is the new "green book" in this manner, and as a quick exercise I was able to Google websites and Reddit threads with a lot of information on Kentucky. I think any LGBTQ+ will be fine in the big cities (Louisville and Lexington), which have decent scenes. Rural areas... "be cautious" and research. Even many rural conservatives don't give two hoots about a tourist's gender orientation, but it only takes one asshole to ruin things. It is amusing to also note that for all the backwards homophobic laws coming from the Republicans in Kentucky, even their official tourism department website has an entire section for LGBTQ+ travelers. BobJohnson (talk) 01:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- Huh. I already knew from watching The Sopranos that large corporations are less prone to kowtowing to protection rackets than smaller businesses. I guess another advantage they have over mom-and-pop shops is a greater tendency to refrain from gross antisocial behaviors that are virtually guaranteed to have a negative impact on public relations, such as naked bigotry. (Not that corporations tend to have squeaky-clean human rights records, but they at least have the sense to draw the line somewhere.) Luigifan18 (talk) 23:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- I mean, yes, you should be safe. Where in Kentucky, and what do you want to do while you're there? My great grandfather was from Paducah, but he was a teacher by profession and you know what being exposed to lots of kids from different families does to a guy. Tolerance, pa-tuey (that's the sound I make when I spit out of disgust). I would be a little hesitant to walk into a bar there by myself, cis male with hippie long-hair, I would be silent about my politics, and I would just pay attention to any groups of guys that get quiet. You'll be fine, the problems always happen at bars. Torrent (talk) 08:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Personally, I would be more wary of randos than the businesses themselves. However, it may be an idea to stick with big brand/chains for dining out etc; 'Bob's Burgers' might not give a crap about harassing you if you used the 'wrong' bathroom [or allowing said rando to get away with it], but the likes of say, Five Guys might be more aware of the possible national fallout of it. Though I do wonder whether there's some LGBT version of the old Green Book... KarmaPolice (talk) 20:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- Even then, you'd be less likely to run into issues depending on the establishment, such as a supermarket vs. a bar-Ryan1257 (talk) 18:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- So if I pass (I've been told that I do by my family), I'll be fine. Koafox (talk) 18:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- I think the most important question is; 'do you pass' [or perhaps, 'how far do you pass']? Being trans is to a major extent a life lived in the toupee fallacy; that you only get the shite if a) you out yourself or b) you don't pass [which is why transmen are basically invisible to the Big Public]. The other major issue I can foresee if you're planning to do stuff which involves needing ID and yours don't match up. Not that I'm actually asking these questions, mind. KarmaPolice (talk) 16:58, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Baltimore Bridge
So... I'm seeing a lot of conspiracy theories regarding the bridge accident. I've decided to compile them.
Theories:
- The (White, Ukrainian, Male) pilot was a diversity hire
- The Bridge was vaccinated
- The Bridge knew something about Hillary
Add to them as you see fit. CorruptUser 19:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- Why did the bridge collapse? Because it became too woke.
- Actually, perhaps surprisingly, looking in the "usual suspect" places, I'm not seeing too many conspiracy theories about this (yet). I think the worst response so far was political bullshit -- Nancy Mace on Newsmax somehow using the bridge collapse to complain about the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.[4]
- This is possibly because the conspiracy subs are right now seemingly distracted by the recent raids of the homes of Sean Combs (aka P Diddy etc.) It's a "juicier" story, centering on celebrity and sexual nefariousness and other gossiped misdeeds. There's lots of fun "speculation" here. Certainly much more to conspire over compared to "huge cargo ship runs into bridge". BobJohnson (talk) 21:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- It is easy to call anything a conspiracy. If a dog shits in someone's yard, you could call it a conspiracy. --Trans Fem Agenda 21:19, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- I mean, I did find a Huffington Post article with some conspiracy stuff. Apparently Alex Jones did his usual wharrgarbl and predicted World War 3 or something, which isn't surprising. Maybe some obscure Twitter accounts were posting some crapola, but I'm not on Twitter, so I can't tell if The Huff was nutpicking. Or if the Twitter accounts were bot / paid poster type bullshit, which is common enough in those parts. (An account called "Deez Nuts News"... really?)
- Zero Hedge seems to think it was a terrorist attack and seems to use a non-sequitur website to try to imply something Ukraine. So I assume that other Putin-embraced media might play a similar card. BobJohnson (talk) 21:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- Twitter's got plenty of that going on. Before noon, I already saw plenty of claims that it was somehow a deliberate act and already declaring a coverup in the works. Seen claims that this was made as a distraction to the Sean Combs raid carried out by the pedophile overlords. Another claim that Israel did it in the wake of the recent cease-fire resolution. Andrew Tate clamed from his jail cell that it was some sort of cyberattack and was retweeted by Catturd and Alex Jones. After all that, I had to turn off retweets before I fed the bad parts of my brain with more conspiracy garbage and right wing rot. Paul S (talk) 21:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- It's strange to think that Elon Musk may have turned portions of Twitter into something actually worse than 4chan! (I mean, 4chan had a lot of garbage, but not too much on the bridge when I checked).
- patriots.win (for the MAGA conspiracy nuts check) also didn't even have a lot. Though (true to form) they did have a thread that complained that Synergy Marine Group (the company that owned the ship) had become too woke. I mean, oh noes, the crew on board the ship was all Indian! (Sorry, Zero Hedge baseless Putin-promoted Ukraine captain conspiracy. Of course, an all Indian crew sailing a ship to Colombo, Sri Lanka makes quite a bit of sense to anyone with half a brain...) BobJohnson (talk) 23:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- Welp, Andrew Tate weighed in. Black Swan my arse, the law of averages says somebody would fall asleep at the wheel at some point. Luigifan18 (talk) 03:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- man, we've really come so far that a disaster claiming lives as it happens is quick fodder for jokes. Poor taste, western world. Obviously, it was the Orientals. Torrent (talk) 08:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- How long before 'Galloping Gertie' gets co-opted? Anna Livia (talk) 23:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- man, we've really come so far that a disaster claiming lives as it happens is quick fodder for jokes. Poor taste, western world. Obviously, it was the Orientals. Torrent (talk) 08:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Welp, Andrew Tate weighed in. Black Swan my arse, the law of averages says somebody would fall asleep at the wheel at some point. Luigifan18 (talk) 03:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Twitter's got plenty of that going on. Before noon, I already saw plenty of claims that it was somehow a deliberate act and already declaring a coverup in the works. Seen claims that this was made as a distraction to the Sean Combs raid carried out by the pedophile overlords. Another claim that Israel did it in the wake of the recent cease-fire resolution. Andrew Tate clamed from his jail cell that it was some sort of cyberattack and was retweeted by Catturd and Alex Jones. After all that, I had to turn off retweets before I fed the bad parts of my brain with more conspiracy garbage and right wing rot. Paul S (talk) 21:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- It is easy to call anything a conspiracy. If a dog shits in someone's yard, you could call it a conspiracy. --Trans Fem Agenda 21:19, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Israel's ethnic cleansing idea for Gaza Strip
I am sure that many of you are aware of the far right Israeli government wants to ethnically cleanse Gaza Strip for "security reasons".
I am certain that this would just increase the violence. Hezbollah would likely intervene and cause further chaos. --Trans Fem Agenda 21:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- Since when did the far-right think any further than jerking off their hate-boners? Fascists' "solutions" being worse than their "problems" is nothing new. Luigifan18 (talk) 21:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- I guess that I was stating the obvious. I hope that the Israeli government is proud of themselves. They have no qualms about endangering their own population by inflaming the conflict to where third party actors join. --Trans Fem Agenda 22:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- This has been their dreams since at least 1948; a enlarged 'Greater Israel' within which all Muslims/Palestinians are expelled entirely, the Dome of the Rock demolished and replaced with the 'Third Temple' and so on [basically, their own 'from the River to the Sea' chant]. Now, it cannot be denied that they have to date got some of their dreams [just compare what proto-Israel was offered by the UN in '47 and what they have now] but the price for it is becoming ever-higher [for both Palestinians and Israelis]. KarmaPolice (talk) 22:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- With the brutal apartheid system that Palestinians get, Israel somehow wonders why there is the formation of militant groups. I feel bad for Israeli civilians killed in the conflict but I don't feel bad for the Israeli government. Reap what you sow. I feel bad for anyone caught in the crossfire. That is the price of religious nationalism. --Trans Fem Agenda 23:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- That's the price of religious nationalism? Not your people going full moron and losing all semblance of accurate perspective of reality and problem-solving skills? Luigifan18 (talk) 00:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- With the brutal apartheid system that Palestinians get, Israel somehow wonders why there is the formation of militant groups. I feel bad for Israeli civilians killed in the conflict but I don't feel bad for the Israeli government. Reap what you sow. I feel bad for anyone caught in the crossfire. That is the price of religious nationalism. --Trans Fem Agenda 23:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- This has been their dreams since at least 1948; a enlarged 'Greater Israel' within which all Muslims/Palestinians are expelled entirely, the Dome of the Rock demolished and replaced with the 'Third Temple' and so on [basically, their own 'from the River to the Sea' chant]. Now, it cannot be denied that they have to date got some of their dreams [just compare what proto-Israel was offered by the UN in '47 and what they have now] but the price for it is becoming ever-higher [for both Palestinians and Israelis]. KarmaPolice (talk) 22:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- I guess that I was stating the obvious. I hope that the Israeli government is proud of themselves. They have no qualms about endangering their own population by inflaming the conflict to where third party actors join. --Trans Fem Agenda 22:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Anti-intellectualism is the base of religious nationalism. Actually the base of any authoritarianism. --Trans Fem Agenda 00:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Look at Nagorno-Karabakh or Bhutan for what actual ethnic cleansing is. For whatever reason (OK, we all know why), no one has seen fit to raise the plight of Armenians or the Lhotsampa. If a homophobic terrorist organization (that's pretty remarkably anti-intellectual) running a territory was holding 130 hostages, what country wouldn't have a military response? Terms have meanings. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- I think it is fair to say that Jewish supremacist extremists such as Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich have advocated such. (Though of course they do not use those exact words, but the rhetoric and desired actions are in line with a desire to ethnically cleanse Gaza.) Now, the rhetoric of these two and other extremist settlers are quite appalling to a *lot* in Israel, to say the least (certainly much of the opposition), so it is *not* fair IMHO to say that the entire government actually wants to ethnically cleanse IMHO (I cannot recall even Netanyahu using this sort of rhetoric). The problem here is that Netanyahu needs the support of these extremist yahoos to stay in power. BobJohnson (talk) 01:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- So collective punishment, a war crime, is the appropriate (and effective) response here, and not guaranteed to force generate for Hamas? The Gaza Strip is also under belligerent military occupation. Before October 7th Hamas still didn't control the air, sea, or land borders of Gaza. Your claim that Gaza is a sovereign territory free of occupation is yet another mindless Zionist PRATT you are so keen to reiterate. It's also questionable that a military response is the most effective solution to dealing with the hostages, especially as the IDF are killing everything in sight and have already proven themselves to be a danger to the hostages. Hell, the hostages' families are pissed with Bibi for not instituting a ceasefire. Carthage (talk) 03:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, entirely agreed on that. I have no idea what Israel was thinking re-electing Netanyahu, he has long established that he's going for the record for corruption on multiple fronts. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Something something incumbent advantage something something better the devil you know. (I make no claims of being a political scientist.) Luigifan18 (talk) 03:20, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Look at Nagorno-Karabakh or Bhutan for what actual ethnic cleansing is. For whatever reason (OK, we all know why), no one has seen fit to raise the plight of Armenians or the Lhotsampa. If a homophobic terrorist organization (that's pretty remarkably anti-intellectual) running a territory was holding 130 hostages, what country wouldn't have a military response? Terms have meanings. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
The claim that Israel isn't committing ethnic cleansing is obvious bullshit. Plans to "resettle Gaza" have even entered the mainstream of Israeli discourse. How do you think they're gonna "resettle" Gaza? With the consent of the local population and without forced population transfers? Carthage (talk) 02:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Consider the source, then get back to me on what's bullshit. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- When Israeli officials speak the way they do, it's not an accusation out of nowhere. The only one I remember seeing a reprisal for was the culture minister Eliyahu, as he was suspended after he suggested nuking Gaza. There were quite a few comments like this by Israeli politicians including high ranking ones, and if I recall they may have been compiled by the South Africans when they presented their case to the ICJ. Chillpilled (talk) 12:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Don't vote for Genocide Joe. Fuck that man! Ψ (talk) 13:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Which means Netanyahu chum Donald Trump wins? Smart plan, Lou.
- The Democrat coalition is a "big tent" party and they are not going to quickly turn their back on what once was a solid ally (historically support for Israel was bipartisan and rarely questioned in *both* parties). Particularly since "all in on Gaza" so far has not been a *huge* big vote-winner in the Democrat primaries. (Are there any examples, actually? Can't think of any at the moment.)
- The Biden administration has taken a few political "baby steps" (eg actually blacklisting some extremist Jewish settlers, and abstaining in a recent UN resolution) since I'm sure they know there's some anger at the Netanyahu administration among progressives and Muslim-Americans. I don't know it's enough for some hardliners, it probably isn't. From my perspective, though, I wonder if some of these people have completely forgotten about the atrocities Hamas committed last October when raging about Israel. In general, I don't think the "big tent" electorate is all in on Gaza, and many (particularly the reformist Jews within the Democrat coalition) might have a more nuanced view of Israel compared to those swinging around words like "genocide" carelessly. Which is why rage at Israel has not moved the needle much in primaries. (Contrast this to, say, abortion, where in Alabama, a recent Democrat state House campaign in Huntsville focused on IVF and abortion, and ended up netting a 34 point swing from the last election in the Democrat favor. That's an issue with "legs.") BobJohnson (talk) 14:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- You act as if October 7th justifies Israel's own atrocities. It doesn't. Carthage (talk) 14:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- You've missed the point of what Bob is saying. Plus, while they don't justify Israel's own actions, leftist have been terrible about showing any empathy for the victims of that atrocity if they even believe there was a massacre at all [5] [6].-Ryan1257 (talk) 14:35, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Israel and Israel apologists consistently bring up October 7th to justify Israel's crimes against humanity, so it is very much relevant that we dispel any notion that October 7th justifies Israel's crimes.
- Also, while there is undoubtedly an antisemitic element to opposition to Israel, it would be a strawman (which you are doing) to paint the entirety of leftist antizionism as being antisemitic, especially when there is a significant Jewish antizionist movement, which you are completely ignoring. The victims of October 7th have people who speak for them, but Palestinian humanity is constantly conditioned. There is a clear double standard here. Who speaks for Palestine? The people who do constantly get smeared as antisemitic even when they are Jewish. Carthage (talk) 14:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- You've missed the point of what Bob is saying. Plus, while they don't justify Israel's own actions, leftist have been terrible about showing any empathy for the victims of that atrocity if they even believe there was a massacre at all [5] [6].-Ryan1257 (talk) 14:35, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- You act as if October 7th justifies Israel's own atrocities. It doesn't. Carthage (talk) 14:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- I don't like swinging around hardbaked definitions and trying to force real world events into meanings of words. It's a vibe thing. When those food trucks were attacked, I believe calling it a "genocide" is reasonable. Or was that 112 counts of homicide? Or here, blocking trucks to an area "on the verge of famine". What is that gonna be? Is Hamas going to win the war because maybe some of their people get hands on humanitarian aid? So now we're gonna starve the entire population? I don't really care about what words are used to describe the events in Gaza, but it's vile, alright.
- About showing empathy for the victims of Hamas: Yes, as far as I am concerned, I do. Nobody deserves to be raped and/or killed. That's a traumatic event changing your and the lifes of your relatives forever, potentially ruining it. But what is your problem with this now? That "leftists" haven't whined about this (Hamas crimes) enough? That media outlets aren't whining about this any longer? They already gave Hamas atrocities overproportional coverage and bias, and you now want us to bring this up "for context" every time Israel continues to do shit, five months later, to relativize their actions? That's a pet peeve one could get behind, I guess, but is not at all useful right now. ULTRACOMFY (talk) 14:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- I am certainly am quite pissed about Netanyahu's horrific hardline approach, and especially the extremists he has aligned with (who should really know better; forgive the Godwin, but IMHO you can legitimately compare some of the extremist settler shit with the culture of Nazi Germany honestly, which is fucking ironic). What I am giving is a political answer on why Joe Biden is moving in "baby steps" on Israel, which actually (from a perspective of decades of looking at politics) is pretty significant considering how untouchable Israel / AIPAC was during my life. My only point is that: A) Politically, going all-in on Gaza is not a winner right now; B) IMHO, those who demonize Israel while forgetting about Hamas are making a mistake, and C) Donald Trump is most likely going to be much worse on this issue given his past chumminess with the Israel right (along with his multiple denigration of Muslims). BobJohnson (talk) 15:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Don't vote for Genocide Joe. Fuck that man! Ψ (talk) 13:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- When Israeli officials speak the way they do, it's not an accusation out of nowhere. The only one I remember seeing a reprisal for was the culture minister Eliyahu, as he was suspended after he suggested nuking Gaza. There were quite a few comments like this by Israeli politicians including high ranking ones, and if I recall they may have been compiled by the South Africans when they presented their case to the ICJ. Chillpilled (talk) 12:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Had Israel actually been careful in fighting Hamas and had actual humanitarian zones set up then I would not say anything about it. If Hamas was destroyed I would not lose sleep over it. I feel bad for all civilians who lost their lives due to senseless war. --Trans Fem Agenda`
- People act like there's no precedent for holding Israel accountable, but even Ronald fucking Raygun has brought Israel to task in the past: [7] Carthage (talk) 20:15, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- I personally think Biden is playing 'cakeism' with Gaza; on one hand allowing a series of semi-official 'finger-wags' about it but then repeatly bypasses Congress on arms sales by breaking them up all into penny-packets so they don't meet the threshold. Like most people, I pay a butt-load more attention to what is done rather than what is said. KarmaPolice (talk) 22:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- It does amaze me how the official government policy is to back a two state solution while supporting the thing that is a big obstacle to a two state solution. --Trans Fem Agenda 22:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- The machine of a democratic republic works, when it works at all, as it was designed to work. The Jewish population in the US is roughly 45 times the size of the American Palestinian population. UncleKrampus (talk) 20:50, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- You do realize that support for Israel is not as unanimous among American Jews as it used to be, right? You are also completely ignoring the effects that lobby groups like AIPAC have on the exercise of policy. Carthage (talk) 20:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- I cannot be said to ignore that which I have not been asked to discuss. The numbers are the numbers.UncleKrampus (talk) 21:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- You do realize that support for Israel is not as unanimous among American Jews as it used to be, right? You are also completely ignoring the effects that lobby groups like AIPAC have on the exercise of policy. Carthage (talk) 20:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- The machine of a democratic republic works, when it works at all, as it was designed to work. The Jewish population in the US is roughly 45 times the size of the American Palestinian population. UncleKrampus (talk) 20:50, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- It does amaze me how the official government policy is to back a two state solution while supporting the thing that is a big obstacle to a two state solution. --Trans Fem Agenda 22:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- I personally think Biden is playing 'cakeism' with Gaza; on one hand allowing a series of semi-official 'finger-wags' about it but then repeatly bypasses Congress on arms sales by breaking them up all into penny-packets so they don't meet the threshold. Like most people, I pay a butt-load more attention to what is done rather than what is said. KarmaPolice (talk) 22:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Someone who should rot in prison
A British national flew to Ukraine to fight alongside the Russian military. He already has a criminal record that landed him in a UK prison for five years on terrorism charges. I hope he goes back to the United Kingdom where he can be put back behind bars; where he belongs. A traitor to his country.
That would be like a United States citizen going to fight alongside the Taliban. --Trans Fem Agenda 22:45, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Not exactly as the UK is not at war with Russia - a better analogy would be say an UK citizen trying to join the N Vietnamese military in 1967. Now, it is technically a crime (has been since the Victorian era) but there hasn't been prosecutions under it since (I think) Ww1. I fully expect such a person shall be questioned very closely on their arrival back to Blighty (including trying to work out if he was involved in war crimes etc). KarmaPolice (talk) 11:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- Where would 'mercenaries and similar' fit into this discussion, as there have been various such in the recent past (then Rhodesia and various other places in Africa come to mind, though I do not remember the details and names). Anna Livia (talk) 14:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- 'Mad Mike Hoare' was who I was trying to think of. Anna Livia (talk) 14:10, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- Basically, it's all about what you join; if it's an official state outfit you're not going to be charged for it (at least not by itself). If it isn't, there may be charges - this is the 'terrorism charges' mentioned above. Clearly, back then he joined some pro-Russian militia or something - I recall folks getting charged (but not being prosecuted) for going to fight ISIS in Kurdish militias back in '18/'19. KarmaPolice (talk) 14:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
What matters most in life….according to Dennis Prager? (A critique)
Hello Rat community. I felt I should drop this video in here as this was presented to me during a group presentation some time ago and could need a little help in critiquing it. I’ve never been the biggest Prager fan certainly but I’m having a bit of a hard time debunking his moral dilemma arguments.SensaurC-137 (talk) 17:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- A) It's very much a stupidly simplistic binary argument. "Almost everything that is wrong with the world comes from people either not having higher moral values, or not living by them". So, to use a recent example, that Baltimore bridge collapse was clearly the result of bad morality... somehow. :p
- B) Morality is not defined in this video except through a few simple binaries (such as murder and stealing). However, as one look at the RationalWiki Dennis Prager page, there are many things that Prager justifies as "morally" right or wrong that there is considerable disagreement on the topic. By framing things as a "moral value", Prager attempts to replace debate with a simplistic argument from authority.
- Prager is an ex-Orthodox Jew who aligns firmly with the Christian Religious Right, and has been critical of seemingly any demographic other than the above (gays, liberals, Muslims, people of any color, etc.); he flits with a peculiar white supremacy that also (historically curiously) contains Jews. Quite a few people would consider his positions on such subjects wrong and immoral. Prager has also endorsed Donald Trump (Say, what does Prager think about him committing adultery by fucking a porn star?). Prager has pushed back against health care reform in the United States (plenty I can say about *that* system that could be called immoral). Prager has spewed off plenty of COVID-19 denialism [8] (giving your listeners deadly advice isn't exactly "moral", is it?) Prager's views on rape are frankly repulsive, and (in a flip-twist) his views on pornography actually pissed off Focus on the Family. (Well.)
- Of course, I'm sure he thinks he is morally right on all of these issues, because he says so, right? BobJohnson (talk) 17:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)