2025 RationalWiki 'Oregon Plan' Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff—we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $10, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!
Donations so far: $6477.98Goal: $10000

RationalWiki:Saloon bar

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

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

What is going on?

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

Pointless poll

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

Yes

51

Vote

No

132

Vote

My enemy is...

Pigeons

6

Vote

Geese

54

Vote

Ducks

2

Vote

Corvids

8

Vote

Gulls

24

Vote

Starlings

1

Vote

Owls

3

Vote

Parakeets

3

Vote

Hawks

2

Vote

Cliff Racers

27

Vote

Zubat

26

Vote

Has KarmaPolice been watching The Birds?

49

Vote

To do list

Same old. Still sucks

Just saw a libertarian on Twitter ranting about how student loan forgiveness is 'theft' and 'unfair' to people who already paid off their loans. Meanwhile, they’re perfectly fine with billionaires dodging taxes through offshore accounts and corporations getting bailed out with taxpayer money. The mental gymnastics are Olympic-level. Edit0r (talk) 15:39, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

They simultaneously believe that "people should feel the consequences of their actions" and that "taxation is theft", I would imagine, so "bailing out other people's loans = letting people off scotch free from consequences" while "billionaries dodging taxes = hard-working/intelligent people fighting back against the unfair taxation system", or something. ミ★ LunaAHHHHH 16:17, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
The Silicon Valley scene, with its libertarian-to-neoreactionary movement pipeline (and subsequent embrace of Trumpism), has been perhaps the most mask-off event I've seen of the so-called "libertarian" scene. From my perspective, a lot of so-called "libertarians" are essentially oligarchy / authoritarian capitalism bros in disguise. Albeit one with political naivety. (Like, if the culture war / nativist side of Trumpism ends up being the ones with the levers of control, what will they end up thinking of folks like Peter Thiel (oh noes, gay!) or Vivek Ramaswamy (oh noes, furriner!)?)
There are genuine libertarians out there I think, but I tend to assume (until proven otherwise) that most people who call themselves libertarian are not. BobJohnson (talk) 16:44, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
Sounds about right. Isn't it human nature for one to resent people getting what one did not get? It's injudicious, right? But, that's what we got, greedy, resentful behavior. People struggle to be generous. People seldom adhere to strict principles when those principles obstruct results in ones own interests. I hate being this cynical because it is offensive to optimists, and I'd prefer to be with them.
There is the idea of libertarianism, but nobody is really a libertarian. Let's say they have a tendency in that direction. A political philosophy that holds freedom, personal sovereignty, and liberty as primary values, eventually becomes "my freedom, my personal sovereignty and my liberty," as ones actual valuesZatoichi (talk) 18:13, 28 February 2025 (UTC).
I'm not so sure this can be written off merely as sour grapes/greed. The human squirrel mentality is caused by 'fear of the future' and if you add this to a hyper-individualism and a chronic shortage of resources you get the 'fuck you, got mine' and 'two wolves fighting over a piece of meat' mentality. Clearly, this makes people easier to manipulate. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:50, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
Humans respond to incentives. This kind of "fuck you, got mine" mentality wouldn't fly in a hunter-gatherer gift economy, because that behavior is actively disincentivized. Antares (talk) 19:10, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
I would only note that greediness and resentfulness are difficult to tease apart from the sense of injustice that those feel who do not receive a particular benefit. The sense of justice is highly valued in progressive spaces. I think that sense is also a construct of human nature. The desire for justice is an appetite. Many mammals apparently have behaviors analogous to the consequences of the human motive of revenge for injustice. Zatoichi (talk) 19:33, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
I do wonder why people meat-ride billionaires even through there's a near-zero chance that the person/people they're glazing even realize that they exist. Although I guess that goes for celebrity worship in general.
As for the whole libertarianism thing, big-business tends towards authoritarianism when left to its own devices through things like Taylorism and the autocratic/oligarchic leadership structure of a lot of big companies (at least in the U.S.; maybe it's different in other countries.) Once you realize that being pro-big-business and anti-authoritarian are contradictory, you either become anti-big-business or an authoritarian capitalist (assuming you're not being cynical and just using the whole "libertarianism" thing as a justification for your own selfish behavior.) Gabaghoul 🥩 00:08, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
Given the breadth of the varieties of libertarianism (Libertarianism#Branches and disputes within libertarianism), it seems safe to say that calling someone out as not true libertarian falls easily within the No True Scotsman fallacy. Bongolian (talk) 02:09, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
I don't think it should be controversial to say that supporting a system which actively creates less liberty isn't actually libertarianism, unless you define liberty specifically to mean "liberty for big businesses to do whatever the fuck they want (with an * depending on the variety)". ミ★ LunaAHHHHH 02:31, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
Libertarian is historically just a synonym for anti-authoritarian. If your "libertarian" politics leads to you supporting authoritarian policies, you are not a libertarian. You're an authoritarian. Words have meaning. Antares (talk) 02:48, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
Bongolian made a good point. I should have mentioned that I was specifically attacking right-libertarians (pro-capitalist) - more specifically the right-libertarians who interpret being pro-capitalism as being in favor of big-business. There are plenty of libertarians who aren't capitalists and some of the capitalist libertarians make a distinction between being pro-business and pro-big-business. Gabaghoul 🥩 03:46, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
Anytime a libertarian gets into "rules for thee, not for me" classism mode (and that's a lot of the SV "libertarian" types), they are not libertarian by my definition... or from my perspective, by the dictionary definition either. The definition of libertarian is advocating minimum government. If the amount of government that someone thinks is good suddenly hugely increases if you have a different skin color or fall afoul of some Religious Right Dominionism ethos, how does that coincide with the definition on the books?
While I am aware of the "No True Scotsman" principle, I also think that many classifications have significant foundations, of which a deviation should raise serious questions on just exactly how committed they are to the philosophy they claim. If someone claims to be libertarian -- a philosophy that advocates minimal government -- but also endorses heavy state options simultaneously, this really isn't libertarian. In fact, if their "no rules" ethos really only applies for a select "elite" class, and the "non-elites" deserve plenty of rules in their book, that's an oligarchy no matter what they call it. BobJohnson (talk) 17:20, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
A lot of people here seem to be ignorant of the fact that association of neo-liberal economics and political philosophy with "libertarianism" was largely a cold-war branding exercise to associate "freedom" with a conservative love of the market. Before the 70's, libertarian was largely the polite word for anarchist.. people who arguably had a philosophy and practice that had much more to do with freedom than what was being peddled by the like of Friedman. 2A00:23C8:3D88:E701:B543:77DB:E78C:7DA7 (talk) 19:25, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
That's probably a thing, but there is also an idea of 'kick the ladder' business. It's called disruption. Once you get a solid place on the rung, you should 'kick the ladder' or disrupt everyone under/behind you to secure your place. It is to prove your worth/hold on the the ladder. And then you just say the people below you aren't qualified to handle your disruption and ask for sychophants. And business has been doing this with favors and nepotism for so long To play chutes and ladders that now we've got Trump and Musk, when we always hated Romney for being the Wall Street corporate layoff lord. So, I do agree with a lot of Libertarian ideals, including things like right to repair and ignoring curfews, but I also understand that the 'Don't Tread on Me' flag means something entirely different anymore and it's usually a weirdo culture signifier. Torrent (talk) 07:49, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
Yes, the word "libertarian" was more associated with social anarchists in the past. But now, a more typical "libertarian" is someone like Javier Milei. In practice, Milei's "libertarian" is a "polite word" for Peronism, albeit in this case cranked through the Trumpism misogynist / homophobic / "Internet tough guy" lens that so many of the right-wing worldwide seem to aspire for these days. (Who knew that so many people in the world wanted to be ruled by man-children acting like 13 year old boys?) Such is quite typical of those claiming the label now. BobJohnson (talk) 17:17, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
How do we get the the libertarian idealism back? In a culture of memes, I say just freely claim the the image of 'don't tread on me' and put it on the flag. Just do it. The 'don't step on snek' meme was good, don't tread on trans rights, just steal it. If 'Don't tread on me' coiled snake becomes the center of the LGBTQIA+ flag, actual factual Libertarianism wins. I'm not joking, don't tread on human rights, just Re-appropriate a symbol like it means You agree with something and stamp it on there with your full chest. The guy who created pepe was really disappointed with how pepe memes got built into early alt right, and it took years but pepe memes don't mean much anymore. it's a coiled snake, Put it on your flags, because monarchy and fascism won't define you. Torrent (talk) 07:08, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
In a US context, “official/organised” libertarianism was literally bought out by the Kochs decades ago (hell, the late David ran as the Libertarian vice-presidential candidate back in 1980). This explains a lot of its contents and why it remains a fringe club, because it really has nothing to offer anyone but oligarchs. So, in that sense, libertarianism in the US has been a propped up zombie/astroturf movement for a very long time.
The problem is that, while this “official” US libertarianism has just been Weekending at Bernie’s for decades, this doesn’t mean that it hasn’t been influential or productive due to the very same billionaire backers and thus it’s hard to compete with in the public space for other (in my opinion, far more genuine) strains of libertarianism. ScepticWombat (talk) 20:46, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
So take it from the playbook and just use it for what it's intended for. Torrent (talk) 08:06, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Zelensky Did Everything He Could Even More Than That

He stretched a foreign invasion expected to last just three days—into three years, crying out to the world for help.

Zelensky became president in 2019, but Russia had already annexed Crimea in 2014, five years earlier. It had also sent troops into Donbas, taking control of the eastern region. This war didn’t start after Zelensky was elected—on the contrary, he initially sought a ceasefire with Russia.

It’s easy to suggest making peace with a neighbor that has occupied your land, but that’s not a simple choice.

When Zelensky took office, the country was gripped with fear for its national integrity and security. Russia had already seized Ukrainian territory and was a looming threat, ready to take more. A powerful neighbor that denied Ukraine’s very existence could swallow it at any moment.

That was the situation when Zelensky stepped up. He defended his country in the way he thought best. He never had a public mandate to surrender, to say: “Take Crimea, take Donbas too, do as you please."

Ukraine lacked the strength to fight Russia alone, and even to protect what remained, it had to seek allies. NATO membership seemed like the only shield. When Zelensky took office, Ukraine’s constitution already included a commitment to joining NATO. He simply pursued that goal, like his predecessors. But the same excuses that had blocked Ukraine’s NATO membership for 20 years remained.  

Russia demanded that Ukraine disarm, dissolve its military, and stay neutral. But even with an army and weapons, Russia had already taken Ukrainian land—what would happen without them? No president has the authority to disarm their own nation. And look at how the very countries that once guaranteed Ukraine’s security—America and Russia—are behaving now!

Russia’s demands weren’t just about Ukraine; they involved NATO. Moscow wanted NATO’s existing eastern members to withdraw. How could Ukraine, struggling just to join NATO, fulfill such demands?

So what was Zelensky supposed to do? Either surrender or defend—those were the only options. He didn’t pick up a gun and declare war to reclaim Crimea.

America and the West had pledged support. The U.S. was even bound by agreements. When help is available, a country will fight for its survival—otherwise, what’s the point of an army? Asking for aid in defense isn’t wrong. Even with cancer, we seek treatment, knowing the outcome isn’t entirely in our hands.

Had anyone believed Ukraine would last three years, better weapons would have arrived earlier. It took months for the world to believe he would even survive. On day one, everyone thought he’d either flee or be killed. Had he run, Ukraine wouldn’t exist today—that much is clear.

Instead, he gave up his comfortable life, risked everything, and fought for his country. What else should a president do? While bombs rained down, he appeared on video, rallying resistance.

A powerful neighbor wants Ukraine’s rich industrial east. If possible, it wants the whole country. At the very least, it has openly declared its goal of seizing the coastline. Meanwhile, another powerful force is eyeing Ukraine’s minerals, eager to exploit them for generations. Yet we blame the war on Zelensky, a man neither a hero nor a traitor, but certainly not a coward. Most importantly, “he didn’t started this war.” Look into his weary face, ask ordinary Ukrainians, and you’ll see just one concern—national security. They are willing to endure anything if it means saving their country. They plead: "Take our minerals if you must, but guarantee our security." This is what Trump mocked as "Ukraine’s humiliation." But if there’s no guarantee of survival, why give anything at all?

Zelensky may not win this battle. His life is increasingly at risk. Sooner or later, he may be assassinated. If Putin offers America what it wants from Russia, Ukraine might not survive at all. After all, more than 50% of the world’s natural resources are in Russia. If the U.S. moves its troops into Canada or Greenland, Russia wouldn’t even need to object.

But if a miracle happens and Ukraine survives, the greatest credit will go to Zelensky.

Ukraine’s future is uncertain. Wait and watch. The way the world is heading, not just Ukraine but all small and weak nations face an uncertain fate. The humiliation, threats, and suffering Zelensky endures today may soon be reflected in many other faces. "Self-reliance" is an illusion. How can Bhutan be self-reliant next to nuclear-armed India? How can Canada be independent of a superpower like America? How can Moldova or Kazakhstan stand on their own beside a nuclear-armed Russia?

If misfortune strikes, none of us are invincible. — Lunar|  11:01, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Anyone here still thinks things will go back to normal or moderate themselves once Trump's heart stops from burger grease? Or still waiting to see if the Republicans will allow another free election? If so, I wish I had your optimism. What a world. Impiricism (talk) 15:12, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
What Trump and Vance did was shameful. They embarrassed the US internationally.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:20, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
People voted for this shit, sadly. (And the Trump cock-sucking brigades online, who see nothing wrong with Trump and Vance's embarrassing anger blowup, are doing their best to stifle contradictory opinions in their little terfdoms.)
I mean, regardless of what happens on other angles, there's no question that the "everyone but US" elements in organizations like NATO should work towards a future where the US is an isolated and diminished world power, with "illiberal democracy" or oligarchy certainly on the cards. If Ukraine falls through a combination of Trump getting bigly played by Putin, as well as certain American voters getting bigly played by Trump and the GOP propaganda, it will likely be a "pyrrhic victory" for the US. BobJohnson (talk) 17:37, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
I think this is worse than 'embarrassing self' level. This is the classic 'disruptor' technique - to smash up the status quo to the point it's impossible to go back to ever - in this respect, 'nuke the civil service' and 'dissolve NATO' are one and the same.
I have long said that one of the key advantages of the USA has in the global politics game is it's relative ability to find friends anywhere - that it shall never be fighting alone and is capable of calling on help when needed. Europe's relative military weakness was countered by quite a bit of aquesence towards Washington's leadership and some economic exploitation (Cocacolonisation) which helped soften her slide vs Chinese power.
This ultimate result of this shit might be that while 'Europe' is much more capable of defending herself it might be on a continent which no longer has any US bases and is willing/able to 'defend self' against American interests too. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:50, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
As an American, I supported American contributions to European security. Now, I am embarrassed to say, our moron president has abandoned solidarity with the Europeans; an unwritten alliance that had existed since the last world war has ostensibly ended. Now, I hope to see Europe unify in its opposition to Russian aggression. Europe has a GNP three times larger than Russia's, and a population five times larger than that of Russia. It's go time for Europe.Zatoichi (talk) 20:24, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
I don't really know about the rest of it, but I doubt this was a planned stunt. It doesn't make anybody look too good if you ask me. Bad diplomacy for all parties. Ifordetail (talk) 13:18, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
Planned or not. Trying to carry out international diplomacy in front of a roomfull of camers was a dumb decision on the part of the Trump team.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:46, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
Not sure on the 'planned' part, but Trump did say he thought it was good that it was broadcast. He also succeeded through this in rallying GOP people who previously supported Ukraine behind him, since now such people had to choose and they chose Trump. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 15:55, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
Some Republicans are pissed at Trump's bullshit towards Zelensky and Ukraine right now (see here). Antares (talk) 16:11, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
Tump has done his bit for Europen unity. For instance there is buy european movement (with associated reddit group). And the UK and the EU are being obliged to close ranks even more.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:32, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
And the fucking insults just keep coming. Way to go to fuck off one of your oldest and firmest allies! The only plus side on this is that Toad is in full Trump-sucking off mode and that's unlikely to bode well for Reform support. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:56, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
Oddly enough, this just happened in a moment when Americans are applying for UK citizenship in record numbers.[1] GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 14:11, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Question (and break)

To what extent does Putin *need* Zelensky to survive/leave in an acceptable manner so as not to be blamed for whatever happened? Anna Livia (talk) 20:45, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

As far as I can see, Putin will be happy to see the back of Zelensky, no matter how. Sure, it might bring Putin some personal satisfaction to see Zelensky humiliated during “peace” talks á la Trump, but I don’t think Putin would mind or suffer any serious, adverse consequences, if Zelensky were to have a convenient “accident”, no matter the timing.
Short of Putin personally executing Zelensky on live transmission (and even that would probably give him “badass points” in some circles), there will always be just enough plausible deniability for Putin to hide behind and his reputation is already trash everywhere but his stalwart backers (e.g. Beijing) or fanboys (e.g. Budapest) and neither of these groups are going to change their minds on Putin, no matter what happens to Zelensky.
Nor do I see Putin’s chances of getting a deal fall significantly with Zelensky out of the picture. Indeed, it might even be advantageous for Putin not to have to contend with Zelensky who has built up an international status and reputation unmatched by anyone else in Ukraine. ScepticWombat (talk) 21:48, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
Putin would probably be happier with Zelensky out of the way. But it far from his main objective - he either wants to take over Ukraine completely or turn it into a client state. This is his aim with or without Zelensky.
In the event that he does not achieve these aims after killing off a large proportion of working-age Russians for little real gain - then the presence of absence of Zelensky will likely be the least of his worries.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 09:26, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
The question was more - could 'damage to Zelensky' cause a backlash or blame for Putin? Anna Livia (talk) 10:37, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
What Putin needs and what he thinks he needs is two different things. KarmaPolice (talk) 10:56, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Just need to share this

My crazy aunt has just shared a post on Facebook praising Trump and JD Vance for being dicks to Zelenskyy and calling Donald Trump a brilliant chess player who is 10 moves ahead. I commented, "What a load of bollocks!" It looks like my family is going to be another one that gets split up by the culture wars. Spud (talk) 14:30, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

I would be prepared to bet that Trump doesn't know how to play chess and lacks the ability to learn it.
His technique is to break stuff and throw it at the wall. And when it falls down in a particular configuration claim that this was the plan all along.
More to your point, I was talking to my brother-in-law recently who was claiming that Trump was a great businessman - my response was that his businesses have gone bankrupt at least six times and that he even managed to go bankrupt running a casino. My bother-in-law changed the subject. I totally agree that it's a problem when relatives drink the Kool-Aid.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:20, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
I genuinely don't understand people that double down, sometimes triple down on just... nonsense in general. And then still refuse to acknowledge that they were incorrect when things eventually pass. Like the folks that said people getting the Covid-19 vaccine were going to be dead in year... you ask them about it and they just scowl angrily, say they never said such things, or say that it definitely will still happen. Are such folks straight up crazy? Or just very stupid and insecure? Impiricism (talk) 18:13, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
None of the above, on the main. I put most of this stuff down to an combination of 'path of least resistance' and 'emotional sunk cost'. That if you've 'invested' so much in Belief X it is easier to simply shout down the naysayers, to ignore all the contrary evidence and attribute bad motivations towards 'the opposition' than clamber up 'the long, cold and stony road' [because it involves self-reflection, thinking, learning, emotional discomfort etc] of which the final destination is in fact unknown to you. This becomes even harder to do if you have subsumed said Belief X into a core element of your psyche in which it's challenging/destruction can cause a major 'crisis in confidence'.
What Bob's in-law did was a classic crimestop technique. On encountering contrary evidence to their beliefs, they simply refuse to mentally engage and shut down the conversation, most likely tagging Bob as 'a thought criminal' or 'one of Them' which must not be talked to again. And this is how personal echo chambers grow. KarmaPolice (talk) 09:45, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
And I've just gone on to my aunt's Facebook profile for the first time in years. It's full of pro-Trump, pro-Putin, anti-Zelenskyy and anti-Ukraine crap. Some of it's British, criticizing the "BBC propaganda machine" for its pro-Ukraine stance. There's also some stuff about chemtrails. (I know she used to post stuff about chemtrails all the time a few years ago, but I thought she'd moved past that.) She's fucking nuts! Spud (talk) 12:37, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
Another GBeebies viewer, perhaps? There's so much crap floating on that channel it's taking forever for me to cover in the rewrite... KarmaPolice (talk) 13:58, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
She probably is. Spud (talk) 15:11, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
One of my aunts told me yesterday that Bridgette Macron is trans and that Candace Owens has conclusive evidence evidence for that. Another one is taking ayahuasca because she fell on the new age loophope. I love them, but I'm really fucking fed up of all this shit. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 12:50, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
I’m SO grateful that my parents have never joined any social media platform, but have actively resisted even being on Facebook, despite calls from both close and more distant relatives. While it seemed a bit, well, conservative (as in sceptical towards change, NOT the US political ideology/cult), back when I actually used Facebook on a somewhat regular basis, it seems pretty wise from the vantage point of the present day. ScepticWombat (talk) 16:35, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
I said similar to the old boy who I work for the very same the other day. He might be almost Mr Burns level of obsoleteness in tech/social stuff but it also means he's been protected from all the crap too. This sounds a little cruel, but I am actually hoping he dies before it becomes literally impossible to live without the internet/smartphone [which technically he already can't... he gets me to do that stuff]. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:24, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
I still think it’s quite feasible to choose not to be on SoMe without going offline altogether. My dad is pretty “data literate” and has been quite a diligent web user (incl. doing a bit of work on websites in his spare time) for decades. He also has a smartphone etc., but he simply refused to use SoMe, mainly because he considered them to be an annoying waste of time and didn’t think they had anything significant to offer him. ScepticWombat (talk) 02:59, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Ukraine Cash

So trump has decided to stop all aid to Ukraine. That's really depressing.

But individuals can make a difference by making their own donations. It's the only way I can think of fighting back. Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 09:01, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

If you're an American, deluging every elected official who 'represents' you with 'this is not fucking on' messages is worth a shot. Democrats need to have some spinal support and half of Republicans are soggy careerists who might be able to be bent into opposition if they feel public backlash is large enough.
Anyway, it's not the cash supplies which are the critical area; it's the weapons. Europe if needs be could pick up the tab for the former, but we simply don't have the industrial capacity to cover the American military shortfall. KarmaPolice (talk) 09:49, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
Even worse, some crucial systems are either only produced in the US or require US green lighting for export (incl. donation to Ukraine), due to the presence of sensitive US components in them or US co-development. And Trump is just the kind of vindictive, spiteful POTUS who’s likely to prohibit all of these weapons from being donated/exported to Ukraine, even if the European governments are willing and able to do so. Not to mention the risk that the US stops sharing crucial battlefield intelligence with Ukraine and what that might do to Ukraine’s combat effectiveness and the kind of additional civilian and military losses this is likely to entail. ScepticWombat (talk) 12:39, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that sending cash to Ukraine will help them. You can also specify if you want your money spent on defense, demining, medical aid, rebuilding or education. So people can help out with things other then weapons.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 13:21, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
Sure, cash is nice, but unless Ukraine can be ensured a weapons pipeline too, there are some practical military limitations that no amount of ready cash will help overcome. The EU has already been financing a lot of Ukrainian non-military spending, allowing Ukraine’s own budget to prioritise armaments.
I’m also pretty wary of donor mandated spending in general (whether to Ukraine or elsewhere), because not only does it smack of paternalism (“We know better what’s good for you than you do”), but it can warp priorities on the receiving end towards the donors’ pet projects, rather than what’s actually important.
Not that domestic control is always ideal (local governments can have equally skewed priorities, quite apart from potential issues of corruption), but in a serious struggle like that in Ukraine, I’m more concerned about the limitations and overhead from such targeted donations, than potential domestic problems within Ukraine. The main positive thing about targeted donations is the degree to which they encourage people to donate who otherwise wouldn’t have.
One “good” thing about the war is that any serious corruption can be presented not only as a white collar crime, but as treason or at least a betrayal of the national war effort. This has certainly made it a lot riskier for Ukrainian oligarchs to engage in the kind of pervasive corruption that has unfortunately been very prevalent. ScepticWombat (talk) 16:26, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
On the balance of things, I think being able to roughly define where you want your donation to go is the right thing to do. Firstly, it generates a 'personal bond', knowing [well, imagining better] what your donation went on which also gives the ability to be given as a gift - I mean, why not give a goat for a loved one's birthday?. I make use of this quite often for the folks who already have too much crap. What's more, there will be some folks who won't donate to a more general fund if they feel it would 'cross a line' - for example, Quakers generally extend their prohibition of violence towards aiding violence by the provision of weaponry. However, I do agree the conditions shouldn't be too onerous; I won't be pissed that the coin I chipped in 'for a drone' didn't actually go towards a drone, but I would like to understand it did go to something which made a Russian's day a lot more shit [which is an obvious issue; I gave cash to get something which ideally killed people. Knowing that 'there is no real alternative' only allows me to override my gut feelings of wrongness, not silence them].
There isn't actually nothing hugely new with this either. During WW2, for example even before the American entry to the war there was groups fundraising for assistance to the UK while here in the UK there was similar for the people of the USSR [that is when they quit selling Hitler oil, steel and wheat]. And as the UK was a lot more corrupt during WW2 than folks like to recall there's nothing to assume there's any difference in Ukraine right now. In this case, it's perhaps best to plan to get the profiteers etc after the fact; for example, performing an immediate currency change and start hitting folks with unexplained wealth orders. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:55, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
Sure, there is a long history of stipulating that donations shouldn’t be used for weapons etc. to allow for donations from those of a more pacifist bend and I can see a pretty good argument for doing that. But much beyond such very general and principled outlines, I think that the paternalism, warping and overhead problems quickly begin to outweigh any benefits.
While demining will be extremely important once the conflict is over, it’s probably not a key priority right now, when a lot of minefields are in areas of active operations. As for the other kinds of non military spending, I’m pretty sure that Kyiv probably has a better idea of what to prioritise, than some random internet do-gooder.
To put it crassly, beyond some sort of ethical “no guns” clause, I see little reason for any more detailed stipulations, unless you think that Kyiv is either unable or unwilling to prioritise Ukrainian needs.
There’s also a clear difference between this kind of aid and donating to specific charities of the “buy a goat” or “buy malaria nets” kind, because the latter are targeted to these specific efforts, though we can always argue over whether their chosen means are the most appropriate ways to address the underlying problems (poverty and public health). ScepticWombat (talk) 03:27, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
I make 2 contributions to Ukraine - 1 to a generic "equipment for the troops" fund, 1 to a specific person (my tour guide in Chernihiv in 2019!) who is part of a team who 3-d print on demand for the AFU - I've just doubled this 2nd one. Interesting scheme AFU run - they have a website where they publish their needs, then anyone can pick up the "contract" to make those items and deliver them. Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 19:14, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Should we spam this link with brain rot?

Here is the link: https://enddei.ed.gov/ What do you think of this plan? Koafox (talk) 15:50, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Link is giving me an HTTP403 (forbidden) error message... here's an archived copy though... U.S Dept of Education web form to report "DEI" activity. Concept seems familiar somehow... oh whatever could it be... Impiricism (talk) 16:00, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
Might be because you're Canadian. It shows up fine for me. Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 16:01, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
Link didn't work for me (Spain EU). But using a VPN to the US it worked. Which might be interesting in itself.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 09:02, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
Obviously I did not switch browsers and make a false report to clog up their system. I would not encourage anyone to do such a thing.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 09:18, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
I found an archived version of one of the longest facfics ever written that one could hypothetically spam the website with (although there's a character limit so I don't think the whole thing will fit). I wouldn't do that, of course, but it might be cool and awesome and sexy if someone else did it in theory (not for real very not real) Gabaghoul 🥩 22:47, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
There's some strange things with this website; even from the US side, some objects or graphics won't load on occasion, or the site occasionally won't load at all. You expect this on the modern enshitified web, but this is really weird behavior for such a basic HTML site (even the JS isn't minified, a rarity these days).
From another angle, it's a shame. The folks at 18F seemed to be doing a pretty good job modernizing some of the US government websites. I guess this incompetent shit is your replacement. Welcome to Trumpville, eh? BobJohnson (talk) 15:02, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
I didn't have to click the link to say 'no?' If the title was changed, maybe I don't get it, but the question is entirely answered by saying 'no' and that's easy. What do you want to spam a website for? Torrent (talk) 07:44, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

But - if Trump closes the DOE - then the MAGA crowd won't have a centralised point they can use to report woke activity! Fairly typical non-joined-up thinking.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:30, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Ok, so it's the Department of Education which is on the cutting board. First, spamming it with "brain rot" is a really valid excuse to shut it down, spamming 'brain rot' is a common right past center way of speaking, and again, the answer is 'no,' but leads to the question 'what the fuck are you talking about?' Is the Department of Education bad?Torrent (talk) 05:32, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
I have said this for, lucky me, decades. There are three things to never privatize. Education, Medicine, and Prison. We need our whole society to benefit from these three things regardless of anyone's origins, means, or intentions. If these three are taken care of by the state, it's not fascism, it's socialism and it fucking works to build the foundation of a state. It's the way towards the American dream if you fucking have a synapse in your brain. Privatizing k-5 is fucking insane, it's a Christian nationalist pie in the sky ideal. Privatizing medicine is stupid, Privatizing prisons is stupid. There should not be an incentive to profit from any of these public needs. Like, take a minute to push it through your brain from the one brain cell you use to the one you know is there but refuse to use. Public education is a good thing. Complain about it for as many valid reasons as you want, but it is a net good that kids in the US can read, eat lunch, and have a place to go when their parents are at work. Reform it, fine. Remove it? Now we got problems. Torrent (talk) 05:51, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

LTA Page

Wikipedia has a page to report cases of LTA, so do we need one here? TheEternalOutsider (talk) 13:39, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

LTA? KarmaPolice (talk) 13:45, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
LTA is a regular acronym for Long-term abuse. TheEternalOutsider (talk) 14:02, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
We are much smaller than Wikipedia. We all know who the problem editors are. We also have the mod noticeboard and the Chicken Coop. Spud (talk) 15:02, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
We might, but I've seen some people here continue engaging with obvious socks of known ban evaders despite knowing (or at least, heavily suspecting) who those socks actually are. Antares (talk) 15:08, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
Having a list of our worst trolls would be a massive mistake. That's exactly what they want. They'd see it as an achievement. Ignore the fuckers! Spud (talk) 15:17, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
I am not sure what it would achieve and I agree that it would counter-productive. On the other hand it is quite encouraging that we are seeing an uptick in attacks. We are obviously hitting the right targets.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:21, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
Seriously, the rollback button is one fucking click. Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 15:22, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
Nowhere in my comment did I endorse this measure. Antares (talk) 15:50, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
I engage with the socks because as a rule they are not obvious. We have to be careful to not insert our heads in the arse of paranoia, like CP did aeons ago [and driving away good-faith folks too]. What's more, they give you opportunities to practice polishing up your potted replies to the crankery etc which I am sure can be reused by others at a later date. Lastly, it's my bandwidth they're sucking up; you not considered that I might do this deliberately as so to keep them away from others? KarmaPolice (talk) 16:46, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
I think Karma and I have disagreed. But this is fine, I engage with socks because i don't spend the time to learn who is a sock. I don't care about the identity, I care about the argument, which is not paramount to any specific argument. If Machina is ignoring my very generous takes on.his solipsism and goes on to make anti lgbt statements, man, if I'm gonna be honest, I feel like I fucked up for leaving him alone. I had other things going on, I tried really hard to invite Machina to a real world before that. I don't think anybody is a lost cause, and a sock is a statement that above all else, they like it here. I like it here, that's not hard to say. Torrent (talk) 09:07, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
Most socks are here because they hate this place. And we repeatedly told Machina to seek professional help instead of relying on a bunch of non-psychologists like us for help, but he didn't want to know. So, don't feel bad for not being able to help him, Torrent. Spud (talk) 17:05, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
Maybe most socks are here because they hate us, but I can't believe they hate the space and I fully disagree with the idea that connection isn't important. Maybe Machina didn't grab my hand, but it still sucks. And maybe hating the people who try to keep this site available to everyone, who have to take that hate and maintain the site is a dumb way to engage. if you like it here, do the bare minimum, and if you need a sock, reconsider your approach. I was suspected of foul play, because I don't always agree with bunk ass sweeping policies. I don't have a little army, I actually am just one person, who speaks in this place. And I like that I can do that. Torrent (talk) 06:21, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Mr. Musktard

Honestly, the Musk worship is baffling. The guy is a master of self-promotion and at generating undeserved hype, but when you actually look at his track record, it's a mess. Tesla's success was built on government subsidies and the work of engineers who actually solved the problems, while Musk takes all the credit. And let's not forget how he called that cave rescuer a 'pedo guy' because his ego couldn't handle being told his submarine idea was useless. SpaceX? Sure, they've done some impressive things, but let's not pretend it's all Musk—NASA funding and a ton of talented engineers made that happen. Oh, and don't even get me started on Twitter. He buys it, fires half the staff, reinstates a bunch of far-right trolls, and then wonders why advertisers are fleeing. The guy is a walking case study in how wealth and arrogance don't equal competence. But hey, at least he's good at memes, right? Edit0r (talk) 21:06, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Musk was from my perspective a good Steve Jobs-ish futurism type figure from around the mid 2000s until, well basically, that pedo guy comment. By "Steve Jobs" figure, I mean basically the marketing and "vision" type people in technical corporations. Usually, their technical competence is minimal, or (in the manner of Bill Gates) was long given up once they assumed a management role. But most techie types can't market well, so that's not really a big deal normally.
In the mid 2000s, the Tesla Roadster made a splash. Before then, everyone essentially poo-pooed electric vehicles. I have no problem crediting Musk for some of the marketing and public relations stuff during that period.
Unfortunately I think that this initial success led to Musk thinking he was The Genius Of Everything; it didn't helped that a cult of personality had developed around his futurism persona, meaning Musk had a large group of yes-men who worshiped his every move. It also didn't help that Musk was even during this period a bit of a 13 year old boy manchild in an age of 4chan, South Park, and other bullshit where "edginess" was far more celebrated than actual knowledge. (Even back in the Slashdot days, there were a lot of Linus Torvalds "fanboys" who seemed to get really, really excited when Mr. Torvalds said "fuck" on the Linux listserv. As if you could program a kernel by cursing at it...) 'Twas part of the appeal among the normies, methinks, unfortunately...
So, yeah, here we are, and Musk has declined to just another alt-right edgelord. His track record in the 2020s really *has* been quite mixed; SpaceX and Starlink are probably the only bright spots. Tesla's latest releases (Tesla Semi and Cybertruck) have not exactly been success stories, and the whole company looks like a sham when you consider how many times Musk has over-promised and under-delivered. Twitter's a shell of itself. Of the "Magnificent Seven" of the US stock market world, Tesla's valuation looks the weirdest. Even with the recent decline... >135 P/E ratio, for what? Unlike the rest of the Mag.7, I consider Tesla a meme stock in the same manner of Gamestock and all the other r/wallstreetbets bullshit. There's no way in my mind that Tesla is worth 3 times the market cap of Toyota. (If you offered me a Cybertruck or a Toyota Land Cruiser for "tough road" situations, I would take the Toyota in a heartbeat!)
Which is a shame. Because I could see in some other timeline someone taking the momentum Tesla built up in the 2010s, actually fixing some of the "little things" like the nagging form and finish QC issues Tesla's always had an issue with, and creating something possibly actually worth something. Ain't no way now... BobJohnson (talk) 21:52, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
One of my best friends bought into Musk's hype at its peak... actually got a Tesla, "invested" into various cryptocurrencies, started regularly following and watching SpaceX launches, went so far as to even drive down to the US for one of the Starship launches. Things are of course different now... were discussing it over coffee. My friend regretfully described Musk as seeming to be perhaps one multi-millionaire/billionaire who appeared genuinely interested in advancing technology and general society, even with of course such development being tied to some financial self-interest... a troubling rich guy who nonetheless had the world's best interests at heart maybe. "Saint Elon of the Musk" was the comedic name thrown around at the time. My friend now seems most distressed over how he believed such an image, given the true character that has been revealed since. Articles that I've read about it mention a very, very good PR team that Musk eventually fired when the cult of personality and perception that they fostered eventually went to his own head. Part of life I suppose... innate desire to believe and put faith into an idea/person/thing that promises a brighter future or fulfillment, only to eventually and undoubtedly be disappointed at some point. Acknowledging such things and knowing how to move forward is a lesson that unfortunately can take time and be a struggle (queue What Is Love by Haddaway). Impiricism (talk) 22:18, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
There's also the problem of the cult of meritocracy. That being wealthy means you're competent and worthy of recognition as an authority. It's definitely a problem beyond Musk, but Elon is where it's most apparent I think. In part because of that aforementioned Dunning-Kruger effect, and also because the guy has no fucking concept of optics. Say what you want about ghouls like Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos, they're not tanking their brands with a flood of bullshit. Antares (talk) 22:01, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
I think we can't ignore the personal appeal. The elite class on a whole are pretty dull/anonymous bunch, a significant % are old and a lot of the younger techie/finance ones are like Zucker - boring nerds. The Boor has it all; huge wealth while still being actually capable of enjoying it, it's possible for folks to imagine some women could find them genuinely attractive [that is past the wallet] and something which looks like 'a personality' if you don't stare too hard. The fact he 'really does stuff' ie isn't just a finance bro manipulating numbers on a screen simply sweetens the deal.
Or in a TL:DR - I think a lot of his fans had quite the mancrush on him. KarmaPolice (talk) 00:35, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
There is evidence that Musk was always a fuckwad: ancestral fuckwaddery (crackpot maternal grandfather, angry drunk father and angry drunk paternal grandfather), leaving South Africa on his not-very-plausible claim that he didn't want to defend Apartheid, fraudulently gaining US citizenship (a "parasitic illegal immigrant" according to Steve Bannon),[2] totalling at least two autos including a $1 million McLaren before buying a car company, the antipathy of his former colleagues (Peter Thiel, Philip Low, and his former workplace buddies who ratted on his US citizenship fraud). Bongolian (talk) 08:04, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
I have always described Musk as American Royalty it's so weird but people who don't pay attention have described him as a real life Tony Stark. But let's point something out, A year past his buyout of twitter, everybody calls it X (formerly known as Twitter). He doesn't have the support he thinks he has, he is a Dauphin who kicked his support in the teeth and maybe has bought in so hard to the idea of heir apparent that he kinda ignored the fact that he's a cabinet apointee. His moves aren't popular, and he's ignorant of that as an idea. Torrent (talk) 05:12, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
The problem of "wanting to be rich", is a perennial human foible, often found in song and story. My favorite example is by Chaim Topol:
The most important men in town would come to fawn on me!
They would ask me to advise them like a Solomon the Wise
"If you please, Reb Tevye..."
"Pardon me, Reb Tevye..."
Posing problems that would cross a rabbi's eyes!
And it won't make one bit of difference if I answer right or wrong
When you're rich, they think you really know!
Zatoichi (talk) 19:18, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
Word Torrent (talk) 09:16, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Article Creation

In order to combat vandalism, is it possible to restrict the creation of new articles in mainspace to autoconfirmed users? (Userspace can remain as-is) TheEternalOutsider (talk) 22:15, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Doxxing aside, vandals are mostly harmless. I think you should care less about them. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 22:16, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
The reason why I focus so much on it is because there are the occasional periods of time when no sysops are online. If someone is reading the wiki during those off-hours, there's a risk of an article appearing vandalized or troll articles that haven't been deleted. TheEternalOutsider (talk) 22:24, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
If the countermeasure I proposed isn't up, is there any way for at least one sysop to be online at any time? (It doesn't have to be the same sysop, just having one sysop online to prevent vandalism is infinitely better than having offtime.) TheEternalOutsider (talk) 22:27, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
As almost everyone is a sysop, I think any 'gaps of coverage' is down to a lack of sysops who actually patrol the recent changes etc. We also have some non-North Americans who help provide more 'off hours' cover than you'd think - for example sometimes I'm on here at 2/3/4 AM EST [also known as 7/8/9 AM GMT] and at times this involves doing some anti-vandal work. But one of the good things with RW vs a lot of other online communities is that the powers to deal with vandalism etc is a lot more spread out amongst RW's member-base - I've seen situations where this power is very narrowly held, all in American timezone folks which means there really is 'gaps in coverage'. KarmaPolice (talk) 23:55, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
Barely filled in a gap. Close call. TheEternalOutsider (talk) 04:12, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
As for the edit filters, how can I configure them? TheEternalOutsider (talk) 04:40, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
Guarding against the risk of people reading this site? C'mon. I dunno how to put a wink here... Torrent (talk) 05:20, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Changing signature is kinda hard

It took me much longer than I'd like to admit to figure out how signatures work. In my case, I needed to write [[User:Ifordetail|👁️4️⃣🔎]] ([[User talk:Ifordetail|talk]]). I thought you'd have to include ~~~~~ to automatically substitute the date as well. Could somebody make this process more intuitive? This is especially important if new users want to try. 👁️4️⃣🔎 (talk) 08:37, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

President Trump about to shutter DOE

President Trump will soon sign an executive order directing DOE secretary Linda McMahon to shut down the Department of Education as soon as today. Although it legally can only be closed by an act of Congress, when has a little thing such as longstanding rule of law stopped the king-in-chief from doing stuff like this anyway? 2001:67C:2628:647:7:0:0:CD (talk) 18:33, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Nearly 40% of project 2025 is complete 2600:387:F:D19:0:0:0:B (talk) 19:12, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

He may also make the 'Five Eyes' cross-eyed [3] (other sites available). Anna Livia (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Edit Filter Update

We're having a problem here. I think the edit filter needs to be updated. TheEternalOutsider (talk) 23:59, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Does this wiki need an edit filter noticeboard? Wikipedia has its own noticeboard, so do we need one too? TheEternalOutsider (talk) 03:02, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
Specify the problem in more detail. Duncan from Teflpedia (talk) 04:36, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Here's the issue. The libeler in question is using the same identical spam comment in the defaced articles, so blacklisting that string and similar strings should suffice. TheEternalOutsider (talk) 04:38, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

@TheEternalOutsider Will you stop making a mountain out of a molehill with this frigging vandal business. Every admin here has had some troll create a new account with a username that insults them at one time or another. Nobody's going to be searching through our diffs for those rude usernames. Nobody's going to take any vile accusations they make against you in those usernames or on your talk page seriously, not even other trolls. For fuck's sake, give it a rest! Spud (talk) 14:53, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
Perhaps you should look into importing some of these versatile anti-vandal bots from WP? I don't know how any of this works on the technical end. In any case, the vandalism is getting rather annoying, and somebody should fix it for good. KaDaShOvA (talk) 15:57, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

@Kadashova. Is this what you were looking for? [4] TheEternalOutsider (talk) 20:16, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

@TheEternalOutsider. There are some specialised bots that are/were supposed to catch like ninety percent of all vandalism. Most of those weren't approved, though. We could well just install them and see if they work if you ask me. KaDaShOvA (talk) 21:50, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Redirect Pages

Can someone point me to instructions to create a page foo which is just a redirect to page bar? The instructions for publishing a draft talk abut how to redirect hits to the draft page.

Then if anyone creates an independent page for something that was previously discussed in another article, they don't have to go around changing every Other article#Something to Something 05:03, 7 March 2025 (UTC) — Unsigned, by: Polydamas / talk / contribs

Use #redirect[[pagename]] or #redirect[[pagename#section-tag]]. However, this feature shouldn't be used to redirect a mainspace page to a draft article. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 16:58, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Media criticise Die Linke since it became important

While polls following the election gave Die Linke at 12 %, the first time they are ahead of the greens (11 %) since a long time, the media go on to attack Die Linke because it has a blocking-minority with the AfD on special spending for arms (they are slowly realising the warmongering greens of the openly centrist Habeck and Baerbock were not so horrible compared to truly left-wing politics). I know this is going to attract interesting reactions from some people here, but, at least those who self-identify as « leftists » here should accept the fact that being neither for the US-American and Russian oligarchies (no matter if a Trump governs or a Biden: both have materiel interests in mind more than the defense of the Ukrainian people) nor inconditionnelly for the Zelensky government supported by the Ukrainian oligarchs but for the creation of a third, pacifist and regulatory block composed of smaller countries, is the position of most left-wing parties worldwide on this conflict. There is nothing « shocking » about the fact that left-wing parties support peace, in Palestine, in Ukraine, in Irak, in Syria, in Tibet, in the Cold War. Being for peace means opposing the superpowers Russia, USA, and China which will support escalation for their interests when they need to. Of course not all wars are completely avoidable, but they should always be well coordinated and conducted in a republican manner, not in the interests of particular parties to take primary commodities hidden by religious or ideological justifications. Missak Manouchian and his 22 murdered comrades of the resistant immigrant workforce fought for peace against fascism, and yet Manouchian's last written words were « I have no hate against the German people ». Jaurès supported peace despite the German and French governments actively wanting war, and was assassinated by a far-right nationalist in 1914, provoking his party's support for war. Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht were assassinated following their struggle for peace. Léon Blum in France was responsible for a better military security of France, and yet tried to support peace as much as possible. The international brigades fought for peace against Franco's fascist forces. It would be « shocking » if Die Linke supported any superpower to have the ability to profit in any way of Ukrainian primary commodities while putting the Ukrainian people in a very hard situation. What I find « shocking » is the unwillingness to recognise past mistakes by people who now realise NATO is dead, Trump and Russia's invasion of Ukraine hopefully have shown Germany how little it weighs.


On top of this, the so-called « mainstream » parties have not proposed to discuss things with Die Linke, maintaining unclarity of wether or not they consider the party republican or anti-republican. If the CDU can vote with the AfD to get a majority on immigration, Die Linke can vote with the AfD to get a blocking-minority on defense spending and BSW can vote with the AfD in Sachsony to get a majority on starting an investigation on the federal and regional governments' handling of Covid-19. It's surprising seeing the neo-liberal media who always wrongly criticise the left for supposedly being close to the far-right being shocked when the left really occasionally votes with the AfD (and in this case the left is not voting for an AfD proposition or using AfD votes for it's own proposition, it has the ability to oppose a proposition with the AfD). New world (talk) 23:36, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Read the Wikipedia page on Die Linke, so obviously am very knowledgeable now about the party :3
Most of the ideology and platform that I read I fully agree with, though the stance to restrict or block weapons to Ukraine over some... convoluted moral superiority complex... is appalling. There are indeed oligarchs and some mayhap questionable groups within Ukraine; nonetheless refusing to provide support against a blatantly illegal invasion by an arguably more fascist hostile state is absurd. Not providing assistance to Ukraine due to inconvenient moral hand wringing, and voting with other parties who have a clearly repugnant stance, is ignorant hypocrisy.
That's my initial opinion anyways. Impiricism (talk) 16:45, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
I mean you could argue that it will bring a kind of peace if Ukraine is decisively defeated on the battlefield by Russia, which it will almost certainly be, if military assistance is cut off…
But the problem with the kind of left parties that claims that curtailing military assistance to Ukraine will further peace is that they’re lying to themselves and the public by pretending that this scenario, a Russian military victory is not the extremely likely result and context of the kind of peace this is likely to produce.
Calling out any party that argues for reduced military aid to Ukraine in a situation where Russia shows absolutely no signs of letting up or curtailing their own offensive efforts is not only appropriate, but not doing so would be a failure to hold that party politically accountable for the extremely likely and eminently predictable results if its policy were to be adopted.
I was actually positively surprised to see how few European left wing parties decided to take this stance in the first place, because I’d honestly expected more of them to reflexively join whatever side the US was not on (because it tends to be their default reaction, though often not without some justification).
If a left wing party is calling for reduced military aid to Ukraine right now, considering that it directly aligns that party with both Trump and Putin, I think it’s fair to ask if said party has lost the plot or how a policy that dovetails with the very far from leftist (or peacenik) head honchos in Moscow and Washington (and the AfD as well, btw) is actually a very appropriate course for a left wing party to take. ScepticWombat (talk) 17:11, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a reliable source: the majority of that section dates from 2014.
1. Both Left Party and La France Insoumise, the most important radical left parties in Western Europe, have nuanced their positions since 2022. However, it is absolutely not « shocking » to see left-wing movements supporting neither the USA and Russia which only have their profits in mind, neither unconditionally the unreliable government of Ukraine.
2. Precisely Trump and Russia's invasion are proof of the weakness of previous European policy, which was more focused on building « european ways of life » and an economic-liberal consensus than cooperating with the new wave of anti-American governments of North Africa and Latin America when the occasion had presented itself. Instead, European leaders, and especially the Germans, stuck their heads in the sand and pretended that, despite Germany depending on Putin's energy (at the time he was still a somewhat respectable president, according to the media) and being vassals of the USA everything was fine. It was France and Germany's decision to bring Eastern European countries without the economic capacities they claimed to have which allowed this to happen in the first place. While German leaders are still having some problems accepting the failure of German foreign policy, Germany will hopefully now take a more humanist and reasoned approach at things. However, this special spending is definitely not the humanist approach Germany should take. Trump's victory and Putin's invasion make Europe realise it should have taken a gaullist path from the beginning, and adopted a clearly republican, humanist, and economically dirigist position. Instead of harassing Greece and disrespecting the will of the French electorate with the Treaty of Lisbon, Germany should have told those little fascists in Eastern Europe to accept a certain amount of immigrants, immigrants who came to Europe because of this reputation as the place of « western » democracy and « reasonable » neo-liberalism. This is the end of the German « voice of reason »: Germany will have to stop acting hypocritically like it did when denouncing the Assad regime while themselves supporting worse people in Syria at the time; it will have to stop giving lessons to countries like Latin America about climate even though it does not understand the fundamental point that there cannot be any green capitalism; it will have to separate from it's idea of the « western world » (USA and allies). Trump's victory will force Europe to act reasonably and to see the danger of the situation. New world (talk) 18:12, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
Uhm, could you at least attempt to stay on topic? You can waffle all you want about Germany’s role in Europe and how terrible both Trump and Putin are, but it doesn’t address any serious issues pertaining to Ukraine or why the kind of peace that any major reduction in arms support to Ukraine is not, in all likelihood, going to involve kind of decisive Russian victory.
I frankly care very little for jeremiads about how “hypocritical” this or that Western leader might have been in his or her public statements on one subject or another, when the issue at hand is a nakedly imperialist land grab against a sovereign neighbouring state whose security and integrity Russia has underwritten (along with the other parties to the Budapest Memorandum). Indeed, the Western support for Ukraine, very much unlike Russia’s invasion, is very much in both the spirit and the words of that treaty.
In this instance, I find it frankly baffling when some parties and politicians on the left (though thankfully not that many) who have long prided themselves on being oh so anti-imperialist and often (and quite appropriate in my opinion) loudly denounced the illegal Israeli occupation of Palestine, suddenly become very mealy-mouthed about taking sides in the Russo-Ukrainian war while blathering vaguely about a need for peace. Unless, they’re now also going to tell Palestinians to just stop fighting and make peace Israel on Netanyahu’s terms, I don’t see why this stance on Ukraine makes any coherent, ideological sense.
It really does seem that these particular leftists are simply mentally unable to follow the logic of their own ideological stance, if that happens to bring them onto the same side as the US. Hence, all kinds of mental contortions have to be practiced in order to come up with some excuse to not do so, and if, in practice, this entails throwing Ukraine under Kremlin’s imperialist bus (and drones, cruise missiles and mountains of artillery shells) in the process, then, apparently, that’s a sacrifice this particular strain of leftist is bravely willing to make. ScepticWombat (talk) 18:45, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
Oh, and before we all get too giddy about the historical role of the far left as an agent of world peace, I’d just play the devil’s advocate for shits ‘n giggles and remind the audience of the about face performed by Western communist parties in the wake of the Molotov/Ribbentrop Pact.
I happen to have done a little bit of primary work on this during my history studies, specifically on how one Western communist party portrayed this rather embarrassing U-turn in its propaganda towards its own members (thus reading its portrayal of both Germany’s and the Soviet Union’s invasions of Poland). I must say that some of the “nuances” of certain leftists today in justifying why not supporting Ukraine militarily is not just capitulating to Kremlin imperialism display a similar level of mental contortionism and creative (re)writing of facts and history. ScepticWombat (talk) 19:28, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
It is not « off-topic » to say that Europe will have to rethink it's possibilities because of Trump's victory. And what mysterious leftist party are you talking about which does not support in some way or another a peaceful solution to the conflict? Generally, European leftist parties who support warmongering are close to the centre-left in some sort of way (Sumar in Spain for example).
The situation in Gaza is not easier, Die Linke and La France Insoumise support a cease-fire in Gaza and in Ukraine. What is your solution? Escalation? War with Russia? The left in Europe proposed to make the war in Syria a United Nations intervention, it now wants to recognise a Palestinian state and start a cease-fire in Gaza, and it wants a cease-fire and peace talks in Ukraine. With Ukraine, one solution would be giving the pro-Russian Crimea to Russia. This is a necessity. Crimea was neglected in Ukraine, independently of Russia's usage of the conflict as a means to justify the invasion. The region wants to be a part of Russia, and while it previously belonged to multiple powers at different times, it is currently largely Russian-speaking. What other solution is there? Europe needs to escape it's absolutely horrible situation first. Parts of the left in Europe also support removal of nuclear arsenals, which humans cannot be trusted with.
@ScepticWombat « Peace » is coming already. A new age in geo-politics is coming, and the only camp which can be happy about this is the far-right. However, Europe's left parties can be proud about being correct about danger of depending on Russia and the USA. Europe, because of it's previous positions, will have to accept Trump's decision (sadly). An independent Europe could have better defended itself and Ukraine. Propositions from leftist parties on Ukraine do not matter anymore. Europe needs to separate from the USA, a country which is very much capable of starting invasions in the same way Putin did.
Also, Die Linke and La France Insoumise occupy the space that the Socialist Party, the SPD or the Labour Party occupied previously. Mitterrand (not the communist party) was elected in 1981 on a program of abolishing NATO and the Varsovy pact, but because his neighbours were Thatcher, Kohl, Reagen, the application of the program had to be stopped after one or two years of great reforms. New world (talk) 19:38, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
Terms like "left" and "right" can be more nebulous than it seems, but you did mention the Die Linke breakway party BSW, which is often described as "Russophilic". There's a portion of "the left" in various places that is so anti-Western in its outlook, it embraces elements of right-wing populism / ruscism. A wee bit of horseshoe theory in action. In US space, I'm more aware of journalists like Glenn Greenwald who went on this exact path.
I think a lot of people are of the opinion that Europe needs to break away from US dependency in light of the US's current isolationist self-own path, but people who wish to cave in to Putin's demands in Ukraine are, frankly, extremely stupid. There is no way I can see this bringing peace and even a casual observance of Putin's behavior would make this point clear. Most European leaders instead seem to be ramping up internal defenses as quick as they can, and that in my view is the correct response to the election of Trump. BobJohnson (talk) 20:00, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
I have to admit that it’s still quite difficult to follow arguments which remain vague about what the actual concrete alternative to aiding Ukraine militarily is supposed to be, while also dropping new detours (now, it’s apparently Ukraine’s fault that Russia “stealth invaded” Crimea…).
The line of argument becomes ESPECIALLY murky, when it’s accompanied by a criticism of Europe being too reliant on the US, which I can’t see as anything but an acknowledgment of the lack of practical European military independence from the NATO framework, in which the US remains an integral part (for now). I happen to agree that Europe has relied too much on the US militarily, but it’s an odd thing to hear from parties that are notoriously allergic to domestic military spending in general and the build up of common, European armed forces in particular.
In addition, this is argument very hard to square with the repeated complaints about the supposedly “warmongering left” (which I assume denotes the vast majority of left parties across Europe that actually is in favour of military aid to Ukraine). But since every one of these arguments keep being held in these kind of vague, general terms, who can tell.
So, while I’m not the one boasting about my “nuanced approach”, I’ll be happy to give my personal perspective on what actual policy on Ukraine is both realistic and anti imperialist: Keep supporting Ukraine militarily and economically. Consider how aid can be increased without risk of escalating the conflict to include more than Ukraine and Russia as active combatants, just as we have done since 2020.
Russia is having both its military assets and its economy slowly ground down and things are only going to get worse for Moscow, if Ukraine’s allies don’t pull the plug. In the end, unless Ukraine is abandoned by its allies, Putin will have to settle for a lot less than the ludicrous demands he keeps banging on about. Sadly, I think Ukraine will probably be forced to cede de facto control over parts of its eastern territory and I think even Kyiv has long since written off Crimea entirely. But such a deal needs to include some serious security guarantees for Ukraine and should definitely not leave it as an isolated “buffer state”, unless the goal is simply to postpone a Russian victory until another invasion.
The main problem going forwards is to what extent this attrition strategy is feasible without the US, due to practical limitations concerning how much artillery ammunition Europe can produce and procure without relying on the US and the effects of the withdrawal of US intelligence and cruise missile defence support for Ukraine, which the Europeans cannot readily replicate.
So, now I’d like to hear about these “nuanced” policies that are going to create peace in Ukraine without major military aid and what this peace is envisioned to contain: If you’re going to the negotiation table in the near future, how are you going to get Putin to back down from his extensive demands that also include leaving Ukraine more or less defenceless and a rejection of a European peacekeeping force to ensure that Putin doesn’t just reinvade once he has rebuilt Russia’s economy and military forces. ScepticWombat (talk) 21:49, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
It's unclear what should be done now after over 30 years of mistakes in Europe. By threatening to cut military aid, Ukraine should be encouraged to peace talks. Guarantees should be given to Ukraine, which Russia will have to respect. If the EU is independent of the USA, it is Ukraine's right to be a part of it. Europe will have to cooperate with Latin American countries, as long as the anti-American left still governs in most of them. One way or another, Trump will be present at the discussion table. Germany should definitively give France the leading role in the EU, and nuclear weapons should stay in France's control (Do you want Hungary to have access to nuclear weapons? Countries like Poland, Lithuania or Estonia might threaten Russia in an unreasonable manner with them). And NATO needs to be abolished first, if the EU has any will of truly building a « humanist » and « democratic » force. Currently EU countries are in an offensive, military alliance built in the interests of and around the United States of America (despite Germany's constitution forbidding it to be in such an alliance). Currently the EU is cooperating with authoritian regimes arguably worse than Russia. The moral argument does not stand, Russia is barely better than some of the EU's current allies.
What « leftist » party is against peaceful solutions to conflicts? Unless you are including the centre-left parties, most clearly leftist (radical left) parties in Western Europe are for de-escalation: Podemos in Spain, LFI in France, Die Linke in Germany (it is for peace, however it doesn't have the weird Russian penchant of BSW), the Corbynists in the UK, and I imagine leftist movements in Italy and Scandinavia too. New world (talk) 11:46, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
You aren't a troll, right? Impiricism (talk) 17:57, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
Read the page I linked. Like it or not, this position is nothing special within radical left parties of Europe, and I am suspecting democratic socialists in the USA might have similar positions, but I don't know much about inside US politics. I am very serious, and nothing in my responses suggests I am not. Die Linke is not a « far-left » European party either, so it should coincide with this site's opinions. And criticism of German handling of European foreign policy is very common in my country's (France's) more radical left. New world (talk) 18:16, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
This is not strictly a political site, and military policy is not really covered by the mission. So I don't know about that. :)
The Die Linke policy page you linked to seemed to reinforce ScepticWombat's views, from my perspective. The overall push is for disarmament, diplomacy, less weapons, less military overall, and more social justice type things. Donald Trump is mentioned more often than Vladimir Putin -- this is weird to me.
Their policies honestly strikes me as... well... naive, honestly. It seems to answer nothing about the hows and instead relies on negotiations as a cure-all for peace every single time. That's a nice thought. Wish the world really worked that way, right? BobJohnson (talk) 18:41, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
The victim blaming of Ukraine ("By threatening to cut military aid, Ukraine should be encouraged to peace talks."), which apparently is sincere naivety rather than pro-Russian trolling, is what made me ask. If Europe's left wing parties truly are of such a position, then that's disappointing. Impiricism (talk) 19:27, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
If this « shocked » you, even though it was very nice with the EU compared to what it could have claimed, this will be even « worse » to you. There is a time when some here need to accept this isn't just the position of individual « problem makers », but of most of the non-centrist left in Western Europe. Wagenknecht's group is particularly bizarre, and they were fixated on the subject, like the other parties (Greens, CDU, etc.), instead of arguing about interior issues (outside of immigration). Considering this is also the Latin American left's position, I am having trouble believing that leftist parties in Anglo-Saxon north-America want anything else than realistic peace. You can consider these positions « naive », but it would be denying reality to pretend that most of (Western) Europe's leftist parties have different positions. For clarification, the left here in Europe doesn't consider these positions to be something else than pro-Ukraine. Like I already mentioned, we consider ourselves to be for the Ukrainian people. As to Eastern European leftist parties, most of them seem irrelevant (but I don't have much information about Eastern European politics). I can understand the media wrongly representing the European radical left as « far-left » or « anti-republican », but for people who acknowledge that this camp is not « extremist », I find it ridiculous how some here try to paint so-called « naive » positions as « surprising » coming from a radical, but republican and non-extremist left. It is not just that or this individual/party (Corbyn, LFI, Podemos, Wagenknecht etc.). In France, the inside opposition to Mélenchon led by François Ruffin, which was recently ousted, supported the same « questionable » positions on Ukraine (and in this case the media represented the open Wagenknecht-admirateur and « rural » Ruffin as a « moderate »). In Germany, before Wagenknecht left Die Linke, Gysi was one of the supporters of her peace demonstration in Berlin (while BSW definitely had a Russian penchant, it's conflict with Die Linke was, like with Ruffin, more on immigration than foreign policy or internal democracy). I imagine in Spain and the UK pacifist positions are not an outlier either in the radical left. New world (talk) 23:36, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
This site is a political website by virtue of its opposition to authoritarianism. Antares (talk) 20:19, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
Yes, but what that also means is that it is "not necessarily left" all the time. Tankies and other "left" authoritarians are frowned upon here. The same with Russia/Putin apologists from either side. Things like The Grayzone are considered extreme "leftist" by some sources (them being tankies and all), but are just as much fake news oriented as sources like Infowars that are generally considered "far right". Neither get favorable coverage here. BobJohnson (talk) 21:33, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

How can Europe arm itself?

Many people above are discussing that since NATO is dying due to the Trump's administration, Europe should spend more on defence, especially since there is also a warmonger nearby. I also think it should, but I see at least one problem. Where will the money come from? Yes, the Laffer curve is mostly a theoretical curiosity, that hardly applies to the European finances, but that doesn't mean that raising taxes even more would be a good idea either. Spending cuts, especially on social welfare don't seem to be an option either (though they might be in other areas, if someone could elaborate, I would appreciate, I don't know a lot about European spending structure). Faster economic growth will be hard to achieve when 1 your workforce is dwindling and you don't want immigration and 2 R&D spending is so low that Amazon spends more on it than every company in Britain and France put together. So, how can Western Europe spend more and protect herself from an aggressive Russia? My guess is that the continent will end up cutting at least some social expenditure and raise some taxes, but for those of you that know more about the European economy and politics than me, what do you think? GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 19:13, 10 March 2025 (UTC)