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.
Spit.gif For previous conversations, see the automagic barchives.Beer.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

141

Vote

No

325

Vote

My enemy is...

Pigeons

14

Vote

Geese

95

Vote

Ducks

7

Vote

Corvids

21

Vote

Gulls

40

Vote

Starlings

10

Vote

Owls

4

Vote

Parakeets

4

Vote

Hawks

5

Vote

Cliff Racers

57

Vote

Zubat

67

Vote

Has KarmaPolice been watching The Birds?

93

Vote

To do list

Don’t know what to put on Wikipedia and what to keep for myself[edit]

Hello, and sorry for my English. Essentially, I'm studying a fairly niche subject linked to ethno-history of the pre-columbian Americas, and I just feel saddened by the amount of bull**** on Wikipedia on something I have a genuine passion for. So I can't resist to change Wikipedia's damaging and sometimes 19th/early 20th century views on things which have so much more complexity than Wikipedians think. Recently, for example, I changed the Wikipedia article on the Muisca raft to add new doubt on it being associated with the El Dorado ceremony, and to add the regional context (the emerging Pasca chiefdom between ~ 1200-1400). But I feel like this might not benefit me for my studies. After all, if I spend time editing wikipedia instead of writing my thesis (and with the same amount of precision), I might be accused of copying Wikipedia passages I wrote myself. Mentioning this or that debate between this or that academic that is also mentioned on Wikipedia in similar terms (considering I am at the origin of said Wikipedia passage) might ruin my chances. What do you think I should do? Should I just wait and let Wikipedia develop it's content on its own? I just feel like Wikipedia relies on a handful of interested people for niche topics, and I would be one of the keys Wikipedia needs to have somewhat decent articles on my domain. On the other hand, editing Wikipedia helps me memorise a lot. 2A01:E0A:A84:5C70:C856:2320:2F7C:FA75 (talk) 22:49, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

There is more to the Wikiverse than Wikipedia, Rationalwiki and Conservapedia - so there many be other wikis which would be appropriate for you; there are also other websites where you can submit essays and other material, which might be a better route for you.
Both Wikipedia and academic studies require sources for what is stated rather than 'mere opinions', so you may have to collect sources first.
Have a discussion with your tutor about how to proceed, and whether your thesis could or should have a section on the way your particular topics appear on WP (and how different language versions of Wikipedia cover them - some of the relatively small language Wikipedia sets, particularly those languages which exist mainly outside the Americas may have limited or no coverage). Anna Livia (talk) 23:27, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
You can always start your own wiki with fandom or miraheze. 2600:387:15:3C12:0:0:0:B (talk) 01:27, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
@Anna Livia, @2600:387:15:3C12:0:0:0:B I (obviously) do always cite my sources. On the one hand, I feel a burning passion for my subject and want to improve Wikipedia's coverage of it. On the other hand, all my research/reading on others' research (I am well aware that I shouldn't make my own promotion nor am I qualified yet to cite myself as a source) will ultimately get summarised in the introduction of a wikipedia article. Everything which might show my deep commitment to the subject might just come off as copying from wikipedia (I often have a tendency to treat pre-columbian entities equally to ancient European ones, and you can clearly recognise my writing style anyway). I have a tendency to feel obligated to inform people reading wikipedia on the real academic debates behind a statement, and the actual political context of pre-columbian times in certain regions which academics have reconstructed after long ethno-historical (a mix of archeology, anthropology [incl. ethnology, sociology etc.], and history, as well as linguistics and occasionally even mathematics and economics) work. But in the end only 100 or less people (maximum 500) will view the page in the last 30 days (see the english Wikipedia page “Colla Kingdom” that I largely rewrote). But among those ~ 100 people might be the members of my Jury (considering how niche some things tend be and how small the world of research is). 2A01:E0A:A84:5C70:649A:143F:4039:1688 (talk) 10:06, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
Now, WP was not much of an issue when I was at Uni but I believe the advice we were issued then holds true; in that the best way to avoid it is to commit all of your prep/research notes to a notebook with numbered/dated pages [electronic versons exist now], said notes are anal, to ensure each draft is saved with a timestamp [and a archive copy kept] and to keep your tutor solidly in the loop of what you're exactly studying and how. So if some shitty LLM does a false positive, you have the evidence to show and your tutor should be able to back you up on that [for example, if a physical notebook, show periodically so they can at least vouch to it's genuine existence and you didn't say, leave a few pages helpfully blank in the middle of it]. Which makes me wonder; haven't you done the anti-plagerism talk yet?
If I were you [only a layperson] I would not touch the relevant WP articles until I am fairly sure that I won't need to do any more work on that particular topic. That leave [for example] the page on the 'El Dorado ceremony' until your paper on it has been submitted, checked, marked and returned. Then, and only then work on the offending WP page(s) if you so wish. You are right in that nichy topics often get little expert attention, often leading to the situation where some entries are clearly outdated. I am a fan of tagging such pages with 'obsolete article', which I think you could do now with no risk.
But yeah, have a chat with your tutor or supervisor or whatever. KarmaPolice (talk) 10:36, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
I would say that KarmaPolice nailed it.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 10:58, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for every participant's advice. I decided to follow it, but, as I'm not able to let go of these Wikipedia pages, I posted a message on the Wikipedia Teahouse detailing my concerns and a group of sources as an easy entry for Wikipedia editors with the time and energy to read them and improve the entries on the Muisca chiefdoms. Kind regards, 2A01:E0A:A84:5C70:70A3:687E:CA13:B8F8 (talk) 22:26, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
i love how unique your article topic is! glad you got some help. hope to see this come to fruition! TheNFLGuy (talk) 07:55, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Big Beautiful No Taxes Bill query[edit]

Specifically, no taxes on overtime. I am fully in support of not taxing tips (as most tips have gone electronic and can't be ignored) and not taxing overtime, hard work deserves full credit. What I'm confused about is the mechanisms by which these tax-free exemptions can be obtained. I just started a new job with the looming threat/promise of overtime in peak season. And everyone there who has worked more than a couple years is all excited about the idea of no tax on overtime, so I'm sure overtime is in my future.

The problem I have is, I looked at it, have asked, and from a bunch of different answers, my best guess is a person would have to create and submit a new W-4 with an extra withholding specifically for overtime pay, and then keep their books very well so that when tax day comes they can file their federal exemption specifically for the exact amount that has been withheld for overtime.

What I can't get a straight answer about is, is this withholding active on all paychecks, leaving me responsible to guess my yearly overtime pay? As I understand, filing a withholding is a 'Take the money home today and figure it out on your taxes at the end of the year' kinda deal, while overtime is a 'happens when it happens' scenario. And then who's to say if my state also adopts similar tax codes, so I could get wrecked at the end of the year for pay I expected to receive and for whatever reason did not, and/or for pay I withheld that is taxed later by the state, or worse, by the federal government because I calculated my shit wrong.

It's all promised on the tax filing end, which leaves the responsibility and nuance up to the individual, which is standard American bureaucracy. All media reporting on this is surface level. I mean, I don't care what the average extra take home 'COULD' look like, I want to know how I could even secure those dollars in the first place, because despite what it sounds like, it's not just gonna show up on my paycheck, you know?Torrent (talk) 06:44, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Not an accountant or even American, but I would guess if this went through [which is an if] you're roughly correct - it's all down to you to find out your employer's OT policies, work out by the hour how much of your work was OT and then have all that documentation on-hand for filing so you can then reclaim the extra tax paid at the end of the year.
In reality; this means the average hourly worker [who is usually on very modest earnings] will by the end of the year be able to claim $200-$1000 a year back [I have not yet met a per-hour worker who didn't do a bit of OT, if nothing else to earn enough cash to actually live on or to cover a particular bill]. Let's not forget for some folks this will make their tax returns just complicated enough to require a professional filer to do, which shall swallow at least $200 in fees. More risky is that few hundred bucks pushes your household over the threshold for various assistance programmes such as public housing, SNAP etc which can quite literally 'give with one hand and take with another'. In some situations, you might be left worse off by that extra $200 because you've got [for example] long-term medical issues requiring prescriptions, you fall out of the eligibility and there's no taper [leaving you to foot those costs yourself].
In short; this is fairly shit, and as it came from the Orange One unsurprisingly so. The billing of this as 'rewarding people who work hard' makes the implicit suggestion the folks who don't do OT are not hard workers [what about all those salaried workers, eh? They all lazy?]. It's in the same vein that praises folks who never use any sick days and is a happy-clappy wage-slave who always does what their corp overlord extorts them to do.
If you wished to genuinely reward 'hard workers' then you could make OT pay of 1.5x legally mandatory.
If you wished to genuinely ensure working stiffs 'kept more of their own money' you could increase the 0% tax threshold and/or lower the 12% rate [just dropping it by 1% would give our $30k workers another $200 yearly].
If you wished to genuinely 'make work pay' you'd increase the federal minimum wage to at least $12.50 p/h.
If you wished to genuinely just shove $200/$300 into each stiff's wallet, you could re-instate the IRS 'Direct File' system which would allow said stiffs to file their taxes correctly for free.
KarmaPolice (talk) 11:17, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
So, the thing is, the "no tax on overtime" bill (like tips) as far as I know is an additional federal income tax above-the-line deduction. So, to me, this is a relatively shit political stunt. You need to earn enough money to actually pay for federal income tax in order for this to be of a benefit. As previous Republican obfuscation tried to sell in the past (I'm looking at you, Mitt Romney), only 53-60% of the American population pay federal income tax presently when all current deductions are said and done. Some frequent-hourly frequent-overtime occupations are relatively high paying, but tipped occupations usually aren't. Now, these households often *do* pay some tax... payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare (FICA). The new bills do not affect that at all.
Because these new taxes do *not* change withholding tables as of yet, as a result (for your typical employer situation in the US where a certain amount is automatically withheld), my guess is that the net effect will be a higher refund for middle income workers who happen to work a lot of overtime. It's not a tax break for the super-rich for once, so that's good. Pity that this comes on top of super-regressive taxes like Trump's tariffs and benefit cuts to SNAP / Medicaid / etc.. Most models I see (like this one) indicate that, when everything is said and done, if you aren't making around $40K-$50K a year or so, you're going to be screwed over. The ones that make out like a bandit are those who earn $100K and up, especially your really high earners.
(This assumes that this tax bill actually survives, of course. "There are bond market rumbles" so who knows...) BobJohnson (talk) 15:15, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
There's a part of me which questions a) how many of our low-waged/tipped workers [ie the remit of this question] actually have that many deductions and b) how many of them actually manage to get said deductions. Knowing how poor people do shit, I can see a lot of them going down the 'bung $25 to cousin Tommy, he's okay at this kind of thing' / 'Lionel Hutz down by the Dollar Tree will do it for $49.95' routes which might be sufficient to not get audited but not the most 'minimised' return you could file. KarmaPolice (talk) 15:53, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
I suspect no tax on tips is a plutocratic scam to starve the government and make employees jump through more hoops: I'll pay you the minimum wage to work for me but I'll give you tips based on performance that can be highly lucrative. It's hard to conceive of any other reason that the GOP would get behind this. Bongolian (talk) 07:25, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Shifting payment from wages to tips is great for the bosses:
They can pay far less for the time they actually require the worker to be available, since the tips only kick in when an actual sale/purchase/service is conducted, unlike a wage, which has to be paid no matter if there are any customers/business or not (this is also why the “independent contractor” BS is great for bosses, because it too means no pay if there’s no business, despite the workers, excuse me, “contractors” having to be available, yet not being compensated for their time).
It’s probably also far easier to bully workers who are dependent on tips and my guess is that it’s also a lot easier to fuck with tips than with wages, if you want to punish workers without risking a law suit. And, of course, it directly transfers a significant business cost directly from the boss to the customer. Oh, and if there are employer contributions to pensions, taxes, insurance etc. that are based on wages (say, calculated as a certain percentage of the wage), shifting worker compensation towards tips also reduces such employer contributions. ScepticWombat (talk) 17:03, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
'Commission dependent' occupations [think salespeople as well as serving staff etc] are great for the bosses because it allows said boss to blame the worker for lack of income 'because if they were good enough they'd get enough tips' ['rewarding hard workers' etc]. But as Wombat notes, you can't get those if there is insufficient customers in the first place or the products you're hawking are shit. In fact, a decent % [perhaps an alarming level in America] of said jobs are not 'real jobs' in the respect it's usually low/unstable earnings which is difficult to genuinely 'live off'. KarmaPolice (talk) 12:23, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
Thankfully my job isn't commission dependent, it has an interesting incentive pay, and cynically I must believe it is screwing us in favor of the company in the long run. There is a standard level of work to be done, calculated in an annoying and esoteric 'Time per task' kind of way. So you earn extra per hour for meeting your time on task, which, right now with tariffs and shipping shortages, means we are clearing the work and not getting our promised 40 hours a week. The shorted hours are called 'voluntary time off' but you can't refuse the voluntary time off or your numbers tank and you're up for dismissal.
The other thing is, everybody there is trying to score their highest time on task, and while the work starts out divided across the warehouse, eventually everyone is chasing the same personal incentive. So if my incentive pays out the equivalent of two and a half hours extra worth of pay for myself for the week, but everyone is actually shorted 6-10 hours on the week, I'm working against myself and every other person who also gets shorted hours. It would take the cooperation and understanding of everyone working to know how to calculate the workload and stretch it to be a full day every day, which isn't gonna happen. So, instead, it's kinda every man/woman/child/maniac for themself until the work is gone, which in my opinion creates an incentive to do sloppy, sometimes dangerous work. People aren't putting themselves in danger much, but they are ignoring dangerous shit or leaving dangerous shit in their wake.
Ultimately, benefits are good if I could afford having them come out of my paycheck, America. Voluntary time off can be offset using vacation hours, which are pretty well accrued from what I can tell. Problem is, while I DO accrue vacation hours in my first 6 mo's, I am not allowed to spend them until I have completed 6 mo's. So, I can't really afford medical benefits yet. On the plus side I am getting along with everybody, and despite having no experience with driving equipment before I started the job I am putting up numbers. I also get a training bonus to my incentive pay, so I put up a 104% on Wednesday, which counts as about a 120% which is good for about an extra $1.40 per hour for the six hours worked. It averages out weekly, so my other scores this week will bring it down, but apparently it's supposed to take months to score an 80% on the regular. I like the job, base pay should be livable but I'm down to dollars a month with all this VTO. I do want to keep it, I just wish the full time job I was hired for gave me 40 hours a week. Torrent (talk) 08:29, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
Here is something I drew up https://imgur.com/a/cLFdwbV/ which is the most efficient path I've found to clear half a zone. it makes more sense if you work the job, but those are aisles to pull orders from. I'm calling it stitching. There are areas for staging products that will go on the shelves, indicated by circles, and it can eat up time trying to navigate those safely, especially for a new driver like me. So I just drive in a way that I can absolutely bomb in and out of the rows without leaving orders behind. This path has worked out for me in a way that has other people scratching their heads about how I'm pulling a zone as fast as I am while also looking like the slowest driver on the floor when I have to take time to do high skill maneuvers safely, so in my free time I have drawn a map, because this is the kind of thing I can't help doing. And in doing so I think I've solved a problem I was having. Lowe's didn't want me for 4 dollars less an hour, rubes. Torrent (talk) 12:25, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Editing Chores[edit]

About eight pages have nbsp in the text visible to visitors (fragments of broken markup). Is there a way to fix those as a batch? Just one page had &nbps; and I fixed it.Polydamas (talk) 04:39, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Questions like this can go in RationalWiki:Technical support, @Polydamas. But, no, because Extension:ReplaceText is not installed locally, the only way to do this is with a external bot. Duncan from Teflpedia (talk) 13:40, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Will our life be safe from climate change?[edit]

Will life get better with climate change getting worse and the world falling apart? Koafox (talk) 16:16, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Probably not. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:32, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
): ): ): ): Koafox (talk) 16:39, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
How will hurricane season do over the years. 2600:387:F:D10:0:0:0:7 (talk)
Will life get better for most people because of climate change? No. Now, if you're asking if life will keep improving in general for most human beings despite climate change, then most, if not all predictions I know say yes, but long term forecasts are not the most reliable thing in the world (despite being better than nothing). GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 20:17, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
There are a few other factors that I believe that can also do a lot of harm to humanity soon. The first one is war. While they have become less common today, the chance of a nuclear war is always there, especially considering how people like Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping, Benjamin Netanyahu and Narendra Modi control most of the nuclear weapons in the world. The second one is a demographic collapse. While I'm probably less pessimistic than most people in my profession about this last one, it does scare me, especially considering how I still intend to be here in 2100. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 20:23, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
I agree that war (presumably nuclear war) is a constant threat to civilization - but its's a different kind of threat. It is avoidable - or at least it has been so far.
With climate change we can be pretty sure that it is going to happen (or rather, continue to get worse). For all the firm pledges and hand-wringing the situation worsens every year. I think its a "tragedy of the commons" situation.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 07:38, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Climate change is not the only environmental threat we have to reckon with. There's also the broader ongoing campaign of ecocide that we're waging on this planet. The future predictions of ecologists tend to be pretty pessimistic. Antares (talk) 21:54, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Timothy Snyder gives a broad perspective on this is the book he wrote last year, On Freedom. The fossil fuel plutocrats (Koch specifically in the US, but also Putin and various Middle East autocrats) have a vested interest to burn up all the carbon that they can get their hands on. In doing so, they remove freedom from everyone else. At some point very soon the world will reach a tipping point of no return for climate change. Snyder also draws on his earlier book, On Tyranny, that contrasts the two ideologies of the 'politics of eternity' (totalitarian systems), and the 'politics of inevitability' that came out a Western viewpoint of the Soviet Union's collapse. The latter posits that things will always improve, and that unrestrained capitalism will bring about democracy in the world. This was clearly disproven by Putin's rise to power. The upshot is that people have to actively work to make things better, they won't get better by the 'magic of the marketplace' or any other wishful thinking. Bongolian (talk) 22:22, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
On an interesting coincidence, last week I re-read The Commanding Heights. While the book has some interesting takes, and does relatively good as a narrative story of the last decades of the 20th centuty, it's indeed pretty laughable how the authors actually thought that Russia was going to be a democracy under Putin, and how Globalization was a given. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 23:21, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
@Bongolian I personally prefer Malm's book. Even where I disagree with it, it makes a good case for a broader approach to addressing climate change and its section on climate pessimism in particular is very good in my opinion. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:15, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Got banned from FB, hope that the appeal works, will now have to use this to talk to rational people.[edit]

Either that, or I may turn my Gab account (that I will not name) into the only liberal on Gab. But I will only do the Gab thing if I manage to get 666 followers on the dang site, which may as well be curing cancer using a sock and a dream. (Note: I do not agree with the insane wharrgarbl said on Gab, I just find it funny that there's more than 10 active people on it.) ResurrectingDeadLinks (talk) 23:01, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Being banned on Facebook or Twitter or Gab should be a badge of honor. Bongolian (talk) 23:28, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
You can get auto-banned on facebook 97% of the time if you don’t provide a phone number. 2600:387:15:3C1A:0:0:0:3 (talk) 20:06, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
I have (and will) never make a Twitter account. If Gab suspends me for being rational, I can probably just make another account until torba and friends give up. And let me tell ya, I don't know of any suspended Gab/Crab accounts. FB accounts do get deleted a lot though. Maybe include quotes from the Gab comment section in their article? ResurrectingDeadLinks (talk) 23:38, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
OK, I'll ask. Why did Facebook expel you?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 07:43, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
I've noticed a pathway for my use of social media that follows the enshittification process of the corporation behind the media:
  1. Hey, this is useful and maybe even fun.
  2. This is getting awful.
  3. This is still fun for trolling.
  4. This is not even fun for trolling. I'm gone.
Twitler and Facebook are now at stage four. The Washington Post is at stage three (it qualifies as social media for the comments sections). Gab and other far-right media started out at stage four. Bongolian (talk) 17:56, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
i never thought i'd say this, but i miss the old facebook (pre-2012). we were all stupid and immature back then, but i'd trade that for the shithole we have today. facebook and its subsidiaries (instagram and twitter copycat threads) have become far-right cesspools, with climate change denial and outright racism being the norm. The G (talk) 17:46, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
I actually thought Facebook was pretty okay for a while too. I left in 2017. Even then, it wasn't quite the cesspool it is now, but the algorithmic bullshit controlling the feeds got to the point where it was no longer worth it.
I never was a fan of Twitter, but I do feel like that Bluesky's sort of become the inheritor of "early 2010s Twitter vibe". And not just in a political way TBH. Like Facebook, Musk.Twitter has gone out of their way to force you to see the things they want you to see... what with hard sign-in walls and black box corporate controlled algorithmic sorting of feeds. Both also have gone out of their way to make the platform developer unfriendly, to discourage unofficial clients and other things like archiving and outside researcher analytics. Bluesky is far more developer-friendly (though they need to work on their docs :p) and less polluted by algorithms... for now. BobJohnson (talk) 18:03, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
Twitter has an auto-ban system for a bunch of common things, regardless of context, similar to filters. It's not too difficult to accidentally trip over one of them. CorruptUser 02:24, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

RW is back on Kiwix![edit]

https://library.kiwix.org/#lang=&q=rationalwiki

the archiving bug appears fixed at their end, so yay! - David Gerard (talk) 11:42, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Yeah! Thanks for the update. Bongolian (talk) 18:23, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
What’s KiwiX? SomeAutisticAce (talk) 20:07, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
KiwiX has free Kiwix software and free downloads of public domain or Creative Commons data so that people can use the internet when they have no access or when they only have state-censored access. Besides RationalWiki, they have various other wiki projects, including Wikipedia, computer coding manuals, Project Gutenberg, various TED Talks, and iFixit's tech repair instructions. Main page: https://kiwix.org/ Download libraries: https://library.kiwix.org/ Bongolian (talk) 21:25, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Great job Israel[edit]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/may/30/carbon-footprint-of-israels-war-on-gaza-exceeds-that-of-many-entire-countries

You did a wonderful job by polluting the planet with your genocidal war. --Trans Fem Agenda 17:37, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

I imagine that the footprint is also awful for Russia's war of aggression on Ukraine. Bongolian (talk) 17:57, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Who knows what pollutants were released by Russia's genocidal war against Ukraine. --Trans Fem Agenda 18:51, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Mostly Carbon, maybe some lead, probably some trace radiation from depleted uranium rounds. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:23, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
The primary concern with depleted uranium is ordinary heavy metal toxicity. It might pose a mild radiation risk to soldiers who inhale it directly when it strikes a target. Christopher (talk) 14:28, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
Yeah my understanding is that depleted uranium ammunition has trace radiation, but mostly on the grade of a cellphone or similar low threshold radiation. You'd have to expose yourself to a lot of it to get radiation poisoning from it. That being said, it is a pollutant, so that's why I added it to the list. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:52, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
Depleted uranium (AKA U238) is really dense which gives it a number of military applications. As others have stated, it's not particularly radioactive. As I understand it the main health issues (apart from being hit with a DU round) stem from the inhalation of DU dust after the use of the munitions. It's not the sort of thing you want in your lungs.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 05:22, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
Honestly, worrying about the longterm health effects of DU munitions is kinda like being in the jaws of an alligator and being afraid of an infection. Yeah, it might be a concern, but it's not the highest priority. We probably shouldn't routinely use DU for training, but during wars getting the war finished ASAP will save far more lives than worrying about the types of munitions used.
Except landmines. Fuck landmines. CorruptUser 16:58, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
I don’t think the effectiveness argument in favour of DU ammunition holds up. It’s not like DU ammunition does a job that no other type of AP ammunition can do. It’s simply cheaper than the alternatives, but for the potential long term downsides it really doesn’t seem worth it. But of course, those militaries that do use DU tend to do so on other people’s land or on very isolated practice ranges, so they don’t really have to care much about those long term effects… ScepticWombat (talk) 15:20, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Bias correction[edit]

Ok so, i'm making a guide on italian politics for a friend of mine. Now, i'm fully aware of my own political biases (italian center-right/right), but i want to make sure that said biases don't seep through the discourse. Apart from being aware about them, how may i make sure that whatever description about whatever politician i'm talking about is correct and unbiased?

Chefhat.jpg
This user is RWs self-appointed culinary expert

N A Z U N A -H I W A T A S H I-

Feel free to copy my signatureTheAlePower (talk) 20:18, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

If you want attempts and non-biased descriptions, then why are you asking here rathern than looking at Wikipedia? Bongolian (talk) 01:20, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
Because this is a place that focuses on rational talk, and i actually do want to state my opinions after stating the objective facts. My concern is that the former will poison the latter.
Chefhat.jpg
This user is RWs self-appointed culinary expert

N A Z U N A -H I W A T A S H I-

Feel free to copy my signatureTheAlePower (talk) 20:39, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

So that comes back to what is bias? Is it possible to eliminate entirely? Probably not. Wikipedia struggled for a while with its strict neutrality policy, which eventually was made subservient to facts (and therefore scientific evidence) See Neutral point of view#NPOV on Wikipedia. One of the founders of WP editors, Larry Sanger fled after this and created Citizendium. So is there an unbiased view to write about fascist tendencies, for example with Berlusconi or Meloni? Bongolian (talk) 21:07, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
I'm aware of citizendum (and of its somewhat turbulent and pseudosciencey crash dive), and honestly it might be a good idea to stick to the basic facts as most as possible and try to warn the listener that some opinions might be mixed in. On an unrelated and possibly off-topic note, it's indeed kinda hard to write in an unbiased way about Mussolini and Meloni. The woman herself said that "there is no space for grumpy old fascists in my party (Brothers of Italy)", and then a journalist infiltrates the youth wing and finds out that they promote nazi salutes and praise Mussolini. Almost as funny/depressing as Salvini's hate boner for anything that moves and doesn't speak italian.
Chefhat.jpg
This user is RWs self-appointed culinary expert

N A Z U N A -H I W A T A S H I-

Feel free to copy my signatureTheAlePower (talk) 19:35, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Homphobia and racism[edit]

That's something I've been thinking for a while. Even in places like Russia they don't officially hate non-whites. It's not that they don't, but that would be considered fucked up even for their standards. That's also truth to Trump, AFD and similar groups. . However, most of these groups are usually far more open about how they hate queer people. Religion aside, is there any reason why open homophobia/transphobia is more normalized than open racism? GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 18:45, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I think religion is certainly the major factor, but there are probably others as well:
  • The movement against racial discrimination is much more "advanced" than the queer movement. The latter only really started gaining mainstream traction in the past few decades AFAIK, while the former was already influential long before that (eg. Martin Luther King, the civil rights movement). Important to remind that decades ago people like Biden were saying shit like this.
  • It's a common notion that being non-white is something you're born with and can't really change. Meanwhile, there are still a lot of people who believe you can "turn gay/trans" by external influences and that you can somehow "change back".
  • I think being queer generally messes with traditional cultural norms much more than being non-white. Particularly, notions about racial superiority seem much less entrenched in society than conservative gender roles (though I'm not certain why, exactly). Being queer inherently challenges the latter. ミ★ LunaAHHHHH 19:13, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
Oh, to add: people often associate being queer with other sex-related stances or identities. There's a non-negligible amount of people who think pedophiles and zoophiles run rampant in the queer community, or that having sexual relationships with children/animals would inevitably become normalized eventually through some sort of "slippery slope". I don't think something as scandalous exists when it comes to being non-white. ミ★ LunaAHHHHH 19:20, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
First off, Russians traditionally have nothing against 'black people' because it's never been 'an issue' there. Instead, they have strong feelings against 'Tatars' and 'Caucasians' - peoples of Mongol ethnic origin and hailing from the Caucasus respectively - the latter [Armenians, Georgians etc] are commonly referred to as 'blacks' by racist Russians. Similar can be said about the UK; anti-black and anti-Asian sentiment only shot up after they began to arrive by the boatload after WW2. So it can be said that all of the examples have racism, just that it's cut in different ways.
For the homo/transphobia, my money is down to the Abrahamic religions. It's very cis/het in scope and with firm gender roles and it's been a kind of social iron lung around which European/Mid-Eastern societies have formed around over millennia. That is the very essence of 'tradition' and 'normality'; shit we follow because it's always been this way and millions of dead ancestors can't be wrong. And due to a series of historical quirks [from the Islamic conquests to the European colonialisations] said 'traditions' have been imported/imposed on everyone else on the planet. For example, a lot of the anti-LGBT laws being used in places like India and Kenya dated back to their time as British colonies. Continue our relative cultural dominance re: media this helps to reinforce said views of 'normality'. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:31, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
Gee specified "religion aside" in his original comment. ミ★ LunaAHHHHH 19:39, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
Yes, though it's a bit like asking, "Gravity aside, why do massive bodies attract each other?".Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 06:34, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
Yes, but in this case I'm more talking of the legacy of such religions than religion itself. I think one of the biggest mistakes sane America has made is to see the Religious Right through a religious lens when all the evidence shows us that it is primarily a flag of identity and thus, of identity politics. KarmaPolice (talk) 21:32, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
From an American perspective: I'm of the opinion that time is the big key factor here. The 1950s / 1960s (70+ years ago!) civil rights movement opened many people's eyes to just how shitty racists treat other humans for no good reason, and that there was even bits of progress before then. Progress has waxed and waned since then, but I don't think anyone can say America 2025 is as racist as America 1950. A *lot* of progress has been made (even though more needs to be done).
Now... I still think the Trump / GOP are racist (or at least parrot such for the rubes), but these days, you have to "code" the racism with subtexts. Like "anti-immigration" or "law and order" or "welfare queen" or other shit like that. Basically, open racism is a social faux pas. At least in many social circles.
By comparison, LGBTQ rights movements really haven't been around for as long, at least in any significant strength. In many Western nations, homosexuality was flat out considered criminal behavior during the civil rights movement period! Most European nations decriminalized homosexuality by the 1960s or 1970s, but several American states still were clinging to these laws by the time Lawrence v. Texas struck down homosexuality criminalization laws in 2003. The Wikipedia article on LGBTQ movements seems to indicate that it was only in the 1970s when things started getting more organized.
Society takes time to change. From my viewpoint, America was far more homophobic in the 1980s than it is now. On issues like "gay marriage", the opponents now are the middling minority (Gallup has gay marriage support at 68% in 2025; in 1996 it was 68% against.) To some extent, I think being an open homophobe also is a social faux pas these days in a lot of circles. I can't think of a time where Trump was *directly* homophobic (towards the "LG" part of the "LGBTQ" that is), like other politicians of the past actually were. But he has been able to code homophobia using things like "religious liberty", a strategy similar to what they do with racism.
The "new thing" for the racists is transphobia. Now here is where the GOP can be disgustingly directly phobic. Such will probably look stupid, too, in a few decades or so. BobJohnson (talk) 19:45, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
It's not a universal pattern. AfD frequently points out the homophobia of muslim societies, and has a lesbian co-leader. One survey found that they were the most popular party among gay men, although I'd take that with a grain of salt [1]. As far as I can tell they're more consistently anti-trans. Christopher (talk) 20:24, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
That was a self-selecting poll on Grindr and only 28% said they'd vote AfD, so there's 72% who wouldn't. But there's the little issue that while officially parties like the AfD, Reform UK and so on do their best to not look anti gay/lesbian the majority of said gays/lesbians notice that there shall be zero increase of rights for them under their watch and more importantly, all the 'phobes appear to like those parties [judge a man by the company he keeps and all that]. I also suspect generation might have something to do with it; older cohorts remembering when they were the hated Other [and it doesn't have to be that old; in the UK consent equality only came in 2000, the evil Section 28 was only repealed in 2003, civil partnerships allowed in 2005 and most of the final disbarments in the 10s] and well, we're not gonna fucking forget that. And we fucking can't forget that because the anti-Trans shite has the exactly the same stink as what we saw back then.
But if you're in your early 20s and not clued up on your 'community's' history, the stink might not ring alarm bells, so you think they're okay. KarmaPolice (talk) 21:55, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
To be pedantic, it was a poll on "Romeo", an app similar to Grindr popular in Germany. It bears repeating that 28% was the largest single number - obviously the majority are going to oppose any one party, that's just how it works in Germany. I did see another poll with much smaller numbers that I'm more inclined to believe.
Of course they aren't explicitly and consistently pro-LGBT, but they do sometimes make an effort not to seem homophobic, trying to court the gay vote, and there are plenty of people in the party who are at least ambivalent. It's not a priority in the same way immigration is. Unlike Reform UK with Zia Yusuf, I can't see AfD with a Muslim in a role anywhere near as senior as Alice Weidel. Christopher (talk) 22:37, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
Said poll also had the Greens sitting on 20%, which is even more out of whack for any of the age breakdowns. I've also been unable to find other polling to confirm this [though I am not looked that hard], so I am tempted to discount said poll as a freak. Anyway, the existence of a few token minorities within the party leadership is not evidence alone that the mass of the party is supportive [or just non-hostile] of said minority. Now, I do not possess much of an insight into the German psyche but I'm going to go on the belief that just like American LGBTs were not convinced by Caitlyn Jenner's support for Trump last time round and British ethnic minorities were not that convinced by the presence of Patel/Sunak/Badenoch in the upper rank of the Conservative Party, a lot of German LGBTs aren't going to be persuaded by the existence of Weidel at the top of the AfD. In fact, I bet quite a lot of them get fucked off with the obvious doublethink and crimestop which people like Weidel have to live with on a daily basis; the deliberate non-computing of the fact that AfD support for 'traditional families' and 'a Christian ethos' is directly in contradiction with being a lesbian with adopted children, or the deliberate non-noticing to the swirls of casual [and not so casual] homophobia which are in the AfD supporter base, activists and elected politicians.
While I personally don't doubt Weidel's sincerity [or most of the other examples above], my political cynicism says they're being used. Just like Patel et al almost literally said 'it can't be racist because I'm not white' and she was tolerated by racist Tories because she was an ideological meat-shield for their xenophobic policies, similar to how TERF lesbians like Bindel are wheeled out to attack trans people with reheated homophobic lines she will personally remember from the 1980s. In fact, I suspect such folks are more useful in convincing the secondary audience - in Patel's case she didn't convince many minorities, but did work on a subsection of whites who were aware they didn't want to be seen as racists. KarmaPolice (talk) 11:49, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
Homophobia and transphobia strongly predict one another so what we can say about one we might be able to say about another. "Religiosity was associated with anti-transgender prejudice in Western (but not non-Western) countries, but this was completely accounted for by anti-gay attitudes." From another paper: "Although a great deal of research suggests that religious beliefs relate to transgender prejudice, there are also additional findings that suggest the association between the two variables is weak". They give the examples that Jewish and Black Protestant people, even if religious, have lower transprejudice scores than other religious people; the researchers find "religious fundamentalism" is a stronger predictor. They also found a link to sexist or traditional gender role beliefs, and to attitudes of right-wing authoritarianism or social dominance orientation. LGBT people being rarer than non-white people might also give them a lower contact hypothesis advantage, though other factors might swamp that out, not sure.
In sum, one of the strongest reasons behind what you're looking at is probably because LGBT people almost necessarily "violate gender role norms" in some way or another while non-white people don't necessarily, although that was a type of stereotype that's been applied in the past before. In the Russian context, there's a lot of sexism (domestic violence is basically legal in Russia). It was also a political consideration in Russia because LGBT was seen as associated with Western liberalism and so they portrayed it as an imperialist infringement on Russian culture despite it really being in-born for many people. To see an equivalent without so much of the religious fundamentalism component, we might look at mainland China which largely holds the same anti-Western views but without strict adherence to homophobic religion, so while homophobia is still present it expresses differently. Chillpilled (talk) 09:45, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
Part of this is also the fascist playbook to build a totalitarian state without further opposition: Trans people (estimated at 1% in the US) make a relatively easy target. At least until very recently, many people have never met an openly trans person (I never did until I moved to California). Hitler went for trans people first, then he began picking off other targets, Jews, SDA, gay people, Roma, ethnic Slavs and others. The order of attack probably doesn't matter much once the majority of the population accepts official persecution of the first minority. Also, don't forget Clarence Thomas wants to revisit Lawrence v. Texas (gay sex) and Obergefell v. Hodges (gay marriage).[2]
Also, anti-Black bigotry is not something that suddenly went away despite GOP claims to the contrary ("post-racism", claimed for example by racist Lou Dobbs[3]). The GOP antipathy towards African Americans has been constant since the Southern Strategy, usually couched in non-racial terminology:
  • Mass incarceration, which uncoincidentally disproportionately affects Blacks, and directly biases elections: federal prisons are disproportionately located in rural (GOP) areas, but Blacks primarily live in urban areas. Even though the prisoners mostly can't vote, their bodies still count for the census and for redistricting. Prisoners and released felons can't vote in many jurisdictions.
  • Gerrymandering, primarily GOP, primarily because they couldn't win otherwise
  • Voter suppression, also exclusively a GOP tactic because they couldn't win otherwise
  • Trying to end birthright citizenship by trump's decree. The Fourteenth Amendment is how African Americans get the vote in the US. — Unsigned, by: Bongolian / talk / contribs
Well, the quintessential RWA personality type does generally speaking believe in a hierarchical society which is divided into leaders and followers, expects each to 'know their place' and 'authority knows best', is deeply suspicious of difference, invariably views any new development as a threat, has a tendency to see things in a binary fashion and as a result generally has a very pessimistic view of future developments [be it technological, political or societal]. The crime trans people commit here is introducing the idea that sex and gender are different and that one can change gender. That's new, so it is Bad by default. This definition of 'new' is always personal, but from personal experience a good place to start is looking at the world of their youth [say between 10 and 15] and thinking of all the developments past that.
I personally view 'intolerance of dissent' to be the key attribute here. That they simply do not trust/like people who look different to them, act different to them or think different to them. It's why so many of them get angry when faced by someone with a contrary view, even if they have no actual skin in the game - the mere presence of 'dissent' offends them. Sure, this trait exists in all parts of the political spectrum [and the non-political] but it's much heavier in the right wing.
The other defect of the RWA personality type is that they're wide open to political affinity fraud; that if our con-artist can successfully convince the RWAs that a) 'they are one of them' and b) 'I am your superior' you can then lead them down roads that alone most of our RWAs wouldn't have even contemplated. Even worse [for a healthy society] is that once they have taken the demagogue as 'one of us' they will then unquestionly defend them in the way a 'good follower' should, regardless to how shit or stupid said leader is. KarmaPolice (talk) 10:07, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
I imagine that what you refer to as a differential between racism and sexual orientation is probably an artifact of statistics. There are few Black people in China and the Chinese are generally not interested in seeing them in their media. This can be seen in the advertising Disney has done with movies involving Black stars: their blackness is deemphasized, e.g., Black Panther's face is masked in Chinese posters. The LBGT+ community is relatively tiny everywhere. People are less used to the awkwardness of minority status. Zatoichi (talk) 20:45, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
The average Russian has no regular contact with Black/Brown people, wasn't raised by people who suffered any sort of grievance involving Black/Brown people, come from towns with neither unhealed wounds nor sources of shame involving Black/Brown people, the government has never encouraged the demonization of Black/Brown people (in fact the opposite; they used racism as a propaganda tool against the US), so why would Russia be racist? They'd probably distrust a random Black person out of xenophobia, but not moreso than a random Frenchman.
Homosexuals are much more familiar boogeymen, on the other hand. CorruptUser 17:43, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
I really shouldn't have to point out, to grown ass adults with functional internet connections no less, that "racism" does not exclusively refer to discrimination against dark skinned people. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:22, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
Sure, the average Russian might hate Chechens and Afghans, but why would they harbor deep-seeded animosity to the average Sudanese? CorruptUser 16:51, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Trump on Biden[edit]

Not being trained in such matters but would Trump's claims be an example of Capgras delusion? Anna Livia (talk) 23:44, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Strictly speaking those weren't Trump's claims, but Trump retweeting (re-Xing?) the claims of others. He's got that dodge if pressed. Kencolt (talk) 00:39, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
Yes, Trump retweeted a claim from a very weird "user" on Truth Social who was making a lot of other bizarre posts that reminded me of QAnon (but now with United States Space Force logo). (It also is a very spammy account with zillions of non sequitur hashtags per post and multiple repeats. Looks like some degree of "bot shit" to me?)
Who knows what the motivation of the bot is. But Trump's always had a habit of liking every conspiracy theory that has come his way as long as said conspiracy theory flatters him. My "armchair quarterbacking thought" is that Trump's motivation here is egocentricity and the general need to feel superior to others. Part of the psychology of being a bully, in other words. BobJohnson (talk) 00:46, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
I suppose the thought process might be "Well, I don't believe this, but there's a hyuge number of idiots that believe in me who will believe it, so why not pass this along?" If nothing else, the Trumpster knows his audience. Kencolt (talk) 01:57, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
Many of the online newspaper 'headline and first sentences' give the impression that it was Trump's own idea (as many might think, using some of his previous statements as 'justification for the assumption'). The 'Paul is dead' meme might fall into this category, whatever it is.' Any other examples? Anna Livia (talk) 09:37, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Crying fascists[edit]

What is it about these fascist bullies crying in public:

They actively enjoy hurting other people but cry when they get a pinprick. Bongolian (talk) 04:40, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Don't forget Jordan Peterson. Antares (talk) 04:42, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
One of the reasons why, if one has the means, you metaphorically (or occasionally not) "punch back" at bullies is exactly because of this: deep down, they are very often weak wimps who will chicken out at the slightest hint of trouble. BobJohnson (talk) 11:22, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
I blame parents for this. Too many good-willed softies who give advice to kids on 'how the world should be' rather than 'how the world actually is'. We've all been to school; how many of us know of cases of bullying where 'telling teacher' actually bloody worked? It's about as fucking useful as a country appealing to the UN for help during an invasion. Politics is similar in this complete refusal to accept reality; we get taught that it should be some polite, respectful and calm discussion where 'we all work together' and compromise etc. Well, screw that. Politics is a blood sport, war without violence [no prizes for guessing the two persons who said that]. I see an opening, you'll find my blade in there pronto. This is why fascists and authoritarians win more often than they should; evil triumphs because 'liberals' are dumb - in this case, making up a load of 'rules of conduct' and following them while their opponents don't give a fuck. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:11, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
So, I actually did grow up in a fairly softie 'don't stoop' 'don't make a stink' 'do what is right and it will work out' kinda household, the difference was when my parents stood up for me and when they were like 'you're on your own with this one.' But also I was pushed a lot. I tried wrestling in the 5th grade. Turns out every other wrestler at that age had been the younger brother of a wrestler since birth and had a field day with my skinny body. I learned quick that hurt people hurt people for real. I mean wrestling will never be a job, sportsmanship is apparently sneaking punches at the other guy's face and stupid painful holds. I learned to sprawl, which is a very good technique in wrestling but can't keep you out of the banana splits forever. So, wrestling wasn't for me. But I learned a few things, and couldn't be physically bullied in middle school, and then chose to take that to stand up for other kids in high school who were being bullied, and to break up dumb drunk wrestling matches in my early 20s before they caused damage. I fought against the Keystone XL Pipeline, that was Obama with Clinton as secretary of state. I spent time reading through the BS that Transcanada was selling, because 1, landowners in my state didn't want to sell their land, and 2, TransCanada and the state department were literally breaking laws to try and get it going. So, was it easier to fight a liberal establishment? Probably, it was landowner rights versus corporate pressure. Trump never got it going. I'm not saying I'm actively in big politics, and I don't care when somebody expresses dumb politics casually, but I really don't like when people punch down. 'I'm fine with gays but I really don't like this trans stuff' and I don't know the person? I say 'It has literally never affected me, so I don't care if someone is trans' and sneak in 'hey, if I get a pronoun wrong, I'm not the devil. Doesn't hurt me to call anyone whatever they like, I'll try to get it right next time.' which literally has never happened to anyone I throw that line to, but if I can change the conversation in their shower argument, it's incremental. The ugliest thing I've ever seen is people calling conservatism, specifically Catholic conversion 'punk.' There are a lot of sells that people fall for, and I wish it was their fault, but people were saying 'no child left behind' was gonna make kids stupid back when I was in middle school. The plus side, if you're not an asshole, very simple conversations make a lot of sense to my 'not left behind' generation. I don't think they love the idea of a billionaire using money to make passive income. They just mostly have never heard of it that way. Torrent (talk) 07:53, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Here is another piece of my current project. I am introducing a secondary main character.[edit]

It was a cold day in March ten years ago. Rain poured over Detroit. It was a completely dreary day. Jenna Abbas was preparing for a concert. She would be singing at the Fox Theatre. Jenna’s stage name Persian Girl was a major hit among younger audiences. She was inspiring to transgender youth. As a trans woman Jenna was not afraid of transphobes nor would she give into boycotts by religious people. She was as tough as they come.

Hours before the concert at Fox Theatre Jenna was putting on her makeup. She did not bother hiring makeup artists. When it came to makeup Jenna believed in doing her own work. In her trailer Jenna listened to the radio. Despite being a pop singer she was a big fan of classic rock music. As she was working on her makeup Jenna heard the music cut out. There were three beeps followed by one long beep. It was the Emergency Alert System.

An automated voice followed, “This is a Civil Danger Warning issued at the request of the United States government. Attack warning red. A nuclear missile has been fired at the mainland United States. This nuclear missile is projected to hit the Detroit Metropolitan Area. Authorities confirm that the missile was launched by the Russian Federation. All persons living in Detroit must seek immediate shelter below ground. Place as much space between you and the outside world. Stay away from windows. Gather enough food, clean drinking water and medical supplies to last for fourteen days. Do not leave your shelter for fourteen days or until an all clear is given. Repeat, this is an attack warning. Attack warning red. Attack warning red. Seek immediate shelter”. Once the automated voice stopped there were three beeps.

Suddenly the air raid siren began. Jenna was terrified. She got out of her trailer and rushed towards the Fox Theatre. It took about a minute to get inside. The building was completely empty except for a few sound engineers. One of the engineers told Jenna, “We have to get to the basement. Follow me”. Jenna and the sound engineers rushed downstairs. The air raid sirens got louder. At this point Jenna was absolutely terrified.

That was when Jenna woke up in her bed. She had dreamed about the nuclear attack that destroyed Detroit. It was early in the morning. Right now Jenna had to get ready for her job at South Mercy High School. Today was another day. Jenna went downstairs to the kitchen and poured herself some cereal. She listened to the radio as she ate. The DJ on the radio said, “Good morning everyone. This is Greg the Conqueror in the morning. You are listening to 104.3 WRSX classic rock. We will begin with some news before we get to Journey’s Don’t Stop Believing”. Jenna ate her cereal as the man spoke.

Greg the Conqueror said, “Our first piece of news is coming out of the Republic of Macedonia. The capital city of Skopje has been placed under quarantine. There have been reports of a disease outbreak. The government officials in Macedonia have said that this disease turns people into homicidal cannibals. Crazy huh? I was not honestly expecting that but these are the reports we are receiving and passing on to you. Reports that have been verified as completely as possible in this situation. It is happening”. Jenna turned off the radio. She hated bad news. At this moment Jenna was focusing on teaching her class.

After breakfast Jenna changed into work clothing. She stepped outside and went to her car. Rain began to pour. Jenna got into her car then started it. She pulled out of the drive. While on the road Jenna listened to the radio. It was the station she always listened to but there was no music. It was news. The radio host Greg the conqueror said, “We are getting reports out of occupied Crimea of outbreaks of violence. The cause of the violence is unknown. The Russian government has largely been silent on the matter. This correlates to the violence in Albania, Greece, Macedonia, Bulgaria, Serbia and Kosovo. It is believed that this is related to the quarantine of Skopje”.

Jenna changed the station to an easy listening broadcast. However it was more news. The radio DJ Lucky Lester said, “The violence in eastern Europe is not politically or racially motivated. This corresponds to an apparent infection in the region. Details are sketchy right now. People in eastern Europe are being encouraged to remain indoors. Medical authorities at the CDC believe that the violence and the infection are related. However this is not confirmed. A meeting at the World Health Organization will begin in the next few hours. We will now switch from the doom and gloom to So In Love by Kai Warner”.

At least the music started. Jenna quietly listened to the music as she drove. The bad news wore on her. She knew that something big was coming deep down but she repressed that sinking feeling. The music was soothing but that sinking feeling did not abade. It got much worse. Before she went to the high school Jenna stopped at the gas station to fill the tank and get a drink.

At the Shell Gas Station there was a large number of people there. That was normal though. South Mercy was a big city. Jenna sighed. She needed gas but she would be late if she stayed. A few cars drove off which allowed her to get to a pump. Jenna put the nozzle into the gas tank and began pumping. It took a minute before the tank was filled. When she was done Jenna went inside to pay for the gas and get her drink.

Inside the gas Jenna immediately went to the drink cooler. She grabbed a can of Red Bull energy drink and went to the counter. While Jenna waited in line she heard the news from a TV behind the counter. A reporter said, “I am reporting live here in Kherson city in Ukraine where there has been extreme acts of violence taking place. We had to take refuge in Hotel Kherson due to the violence. I think that we are safe for now but I cannot say for sure if the building will be safe for very long. People have been banging on the front doors. There are unconfirmed reports of the Ukrainian Armed Forces blocking access in and out of the city. I won’t lie, I am terrified. Ukrainian President Poroshenko has announced that several cities have been placed under quarantine. The occupied Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts and Autonomous Republic of Crimea have confirmed cases of violence”. The reporter was cut off and the feed switched to the news desk.

Jenna reached the front counter to pay for her gas and drink. She told the clerk, “Things are getting crazy in Europe”. The clerk raised an eyebrow and responded, “Yeah I know. My brother in Bulgaria has told me about it. Now your total comes to $15.50”. Jenna pulled out her credit card to pay for it. Once she paid the total she left in her car. Jenna drove back on to the road and went to the high school.

I am having both an intersex trans character and an AMAB trans character. They will cross paths and become a group of apocalypse survivors. --Trans Fem Agenda 20:30, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Lame. 71.208.106.111 (talk) 05:36, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
The name 'Jenna' appears too many times; it is probably best not to mention 'well known brands' (for various reasons), and too much background detail - readers may get bored.
Consider joining various story writing discussion groups, and look at stories on various sites (AO3 might be useful - though this story is probably not within its remit). Anna Livia (talk) 18:48, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
I do relate to hearing the same Journey song on a classic rock radio station every fucking hour. The only thing worse is 'Piano Man,' It's 2025, Classic rock stations can afford to play some deeper cuts already. Being said, 'Don't Stop Believing' is actually a uniquely darkly funny thing for this character to hear after waking up from a fantasy pop star dream if it makes her sick or doesn't encourage her anymore. Reality versus dream versus everything sold. I'm not sure if you intended it that way, but it's pretty sparse so far, so my headcanon went to how annoyed I feel when I hear the same bs on classic rock radio. If that's not what intended, it's not what you intended. It would be better to explain why you chose to have the song play.

I mean, it's a fact of classic rock stations that it will play, so I'm now aware that you know how a classic rock radio station kinda works, but don't miss an opportunity to use that to further develop the character. Your EBS paragraph is very detailed and easy to read, and I know you know I know why. But the whole thing is fact after fact, which simultaneously opens a world for interpretation for the reader and closes any intention you might have. This character has a lack of agency in a very relateable way. She must eat, she must listen to whatever is on the radio, she must get gas for her car. She is also trans and dreams of pop stardom with nobody's help. Does she hate the way people all hqve to line up at the gas pump or does she get it? Does she feel anything negative or positive from the interaction with the gas station attendant, are they a fairly constant fixture in each others' daily grind, or is he just another robot that says '$15.50'. There must be a driving reason she wants to casually tell him what she heard is going on in Europe in that moment, but I don't believe there is one. Torrent (talk) 05:36, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

I think that I will do some rewriting on Jenna's character. --Trans Fem Agenda 13:56, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
one panel, poorly drawn you don't have to rewrite the character necessarily, but the if you do, you have to write expressively. I am not good at drawing, I threw this together for you. I had to add some color because I was afraid some of my scratch would be unintelligible, and because I am not a great artist it didn't really help and needs some explaining. The final panel squeezes in heartbreak at paying for an energy drink and gas while knowing the bank account (upper left) is pennies, lower left is supposed to be an empty fridge, upper right is her dream and lower right is her bed. It's physically broken by the card she's handing over. If I was a better artist, this wouldn't have taken me as long and it would be less confusing in the final panel. I also chose to make Jenna at least 6 feet tall, or at least in her perspective, as noted by the thing almost all gas stations have to identify the heights of robbers and thieves or general ne'erdowells. I put the eyes in because I think Jenna would be sensitive to the gaze of others. I'm not a great artist so I'm not offended if you can't tell my intention with eye shape and pupil focal points, but I did try to make each pair of eyes it's own character. Torrent (talk) 09:50, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
I also drew the check engine light, in the first panel, because it is kinda funny to think of a person telling their car they care when it is about to run out of gas. Being said, it's not like my check engine light hasn't been on for 6 years. Write what you know. Torrent (talk) 11:41, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Popcorn time![edit]

Welp, Musk is now claiming that the reason the Epstein files were never released is because Trump is in them. If not true, that's libel, but they'd need to be released to prove libel. If true, well, not too surprising to be honest. It really feels like I'm watching my neighbors with the obviously unhealthy marriage, and Musk just called the cops on his husband Trump with a story about abusing the kids and no one is sure if it's real or not, but holy crap you two, get a divorce! CorruptUser 19:27, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Trump threatened to smash the sports car, and Elon responded by saying he'll smash it himself CorruptUser 20:16, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
Two rich, privileged men almost equally divorced from reality slinging insults. It certainly is popcorn time.20:26, 5 June 2025 (UTC)Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)"
It's almost certainly true that he's "in them" in the sense his name probably comes up at least once. I don't think he's made a libelous statement in that regard. (But as always, and obligatorily, I am not a lawyer.) The allegation that this is the reason they haven't been released might actually be the riskier claim. Chillpilled (talk) 20:51, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
So how big a ball of wool after the cat or cats have got to it will 48 have to disentangle - Europe will be treating the US as an unreliable ally, Canada and Mexico will have built walls, businesses will have found new trading routes, and the MAGAists will be annoyed that the promised bigly beautiful land swimming with crypto and the rest of it is replaced by tariff-hiked prices, and the global reach of American universities has been curtailed, while businesses have gone into quiet mode. (Simplifying.) And are the rats (Whether or not chatty) leaving the sinking ship? Anna Livia (talk) 23:31, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Now Bannon asks for Musk to be deported. I wonder if this will affect Trump's support for white refugees from South Africa? That was almost certainly a Musk idea.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 06:25, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I doubt Trump is seriously implicated in the Epstein files, you'd think that would have come out during the Biden administration. He may be mentioned. Christopher (talk) 15:43, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
I personally took Musk's accusation as seriously as his "Twitter files" bullshit. (Plus, Musk loves to whip out the "pedo card" anytime he is feuding. It's well beyond the "boy who cried wolf" point and now moving towards the Joseph McCarthy "have you no sense of decency?" level.)
It's very clear that Trump was in the same "social scene" that Epstein was and that Trump knew of Epstein. But this is true of a lot of other people (including Elon Musk himself, who was photographed with Epstein partner-in-crime Ghislaine Maxwell once). I don't see any evidence that it went further than that.
The main thing this might pierce (well, likely not, but here's hoping) is the cult of those QAnon weirdos who were both quick to play bullshit "pedo" accusations on their "political enemies" and simultaneously worship at the alter of Trump. Yeah, about that... (Forget the Epstein stuff, just revisit what happened when Trump owned some beauty pageants...) BobJohnson (talk) 16:15, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
The photo of Musk with Maxwell is clearly less troubling than the Trump-Epstein photos. The only known photo of Maxwell & Musk was in 2014 with Maxwell slightly behind Musk, years after Epstein's 2008 Florida conviction, and presumably in the post-pimping era of Epstein-Maxwell. The Trump-Epstein photos however were in 1992 and clearly show them conversing in some of them. Bongolian (talk) 02:50, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
It should be interesting to see how it plays out. On the one hand the MAGA crowd get excited about what they believe to the government hiding information and they get really worked up over alleged pedophilia rings which include government officials and the rich and the famous. So in theory this should be red meat for them.
On the other hand, when Trump boasted about assaulting sexually women in the "Access Hollywood" tape the response was, "Yaa, well, he does that sort of stuff, cut him some slack."Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 20:15, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
Once again, I think folks are missing the real point/issue here. In that there is [I think] significant risk that this rift becomes permanent, deep and vicious. Just think; psychologically they are pretty similar to each other, and as this includes 'being massive dick-swinging arrogant arseholes with very thin skins, a huge mouth, a tendency to hold grudges and an expectation they can do whatever the fuck they like' - they could end up shunting each other into positions they can't climb down from. In some ways, they're a father-son duo minus the genetic relationship. And just like any ambitious son with a doddering father - the son thinks the father is an outdated has-been who needs to realise the shift in power while the father thinks the son is an arrogant little oik who needs to put in his place.
Ultimately, Trump is capable of utterly destroying Musk. But to do so would be such an blatant and illegal manner it might be Trump's undoing. Not only would Musk be able to 'get some good licks in' as he went down but it's also quite possible it would scare witless the entire super-rich class. Not out of any love for the Boor but out of a sudden realisation that they were also at risk from the Orange Autocrat's revenge. Assuming that this isn't just a bit of dead cat crap or a spat that blows over by the weekend, they could quite possibly end up goading each other into a position where they end up ruining each other. KarmaPolice (talk) 23:43, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
The "tech bro" alliance with the Christian/white nationalist fascists was always tenuous; many observers before now thought that a blow-up between the two was a "when" thing, not an "if". This is the second major "Internet popcorn drama" in several months between the two cultures (with the H1B bruhaha drama being only a few months ago). I do wonder if this episode makes some of the Thiel-type "tech bros" reconsider this recent support of oligarchy and fascism. I don't have high hopes for people like Thiel who are have been invested in this philosophy for decade, but perhaps more recent hanger-ons (like the Ycombinator leadership) will "wake up".
Already, there is a good lesson here as well about the "government=bad" true believers that fight long and hard to make sure the government does nothing and private business does everything. Right now, you now have a situation where a Popcorn Drama has the possibility of torching all the crap the US government has siphoned off to Musk's companies, some of which actually might be extremely relevant in things like "national security". It's possible that things like "the one remaining US link to the International Space Station" and "critical satellite launch capability" teeter in the balance of this stupid feud. Way to go, privatization dorks!
Honestly, the super-rich class (those with functioning brain cells, not the rich dimwit twits of the GOP) already are a bit nervous about the "toddler-named budget bill"... you can look at the bond and currency markets as a tell. The debt path the US is on is likely unsustainable, particularly since the madness of the GOP makes the United States less safe and stable. And this on top of the random tariffs, which creates something biz people really hate -- "uncertainty". I don't blame Elon for being mad about the bill. (Though of course Musk's solutions are shit; I wouldn't be surprised if his DOGE wrecking ball bullshit actually costs the US government way more than they saved in the end.) IMHO any sensible path out will involve raising taxes above all. (Maybe some other reforms too, but US safety nets run pretty lean already.) BobJohnson (talk) 00:52, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────There is a pathway for Trump to severely damage Musk that is likely be legal. There was a WaPo report in 2024. Musk "worked illegally in the United States as he launched his entrepreneurial career after ditching a graduate studies program in California, according to former business associates, court records and company documents obtained by The Washington Post."[6] That was at a time when he had a student visa and did not have the right to work in the US. The WaPo report stated that when he applied for US citizenship, he would have been asked if he had ever worked illegally in the US. If he had told the truth, it would have been highly likely that his citizenship request would have been denied. If he lied, it would have been fraud and legal grounds for revoking his citizenship. He apparently still has Canadian and South African citizenship, and if so he couldn't argue that depriving him of US citizenship would make him stateless. "To paraphrase the obnoxious and misleading public service announcements of the secretary of Homeland Security: Leave now, and maybe you’ll be able to come back again in the future"—Bill Ong Hing, a professor and associate dean at the University of San Francisco School of Law.[7] Bongolian (talk) 03:06, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

It would be the funniest fucking shit in the world if Trump deported Elon. Antares (talk) 10:24, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
Being deported wouldn't hugely hurt Musk. His power-base, wealth etc will remain [though he would have to do WFH for Tesla etc, but he's never been bothered when seen to be a hypocrite in the past]. What's more, it's very likely he could wrap it up with a ton of appeals while remaining in-country, finally ending up in front of a judge who shall either dismiss or hand out a loose-change [for them] fine. That's the way America works for the super-rich. Normally.
But if in this new MAGA America, the Boor cannot find a white shoe to defend him [Trump has vowed to destroy any lawyer firm which 'defends enemies' and has extorted ~$50m IOUs for future services from them], if the Administration unilaterally cancels Musk contracts for no decent reason and appeals are dismissed immediately, if they order Tesla etc to fire Musk and they comply after the company is attacked with a horde of Federal agencies, they successfully bully the banks and funds to pull the plug on xAI so Twitter runs out of cash and is put in a fire-sale for the debts and lastly, they make up charges of Musk's personal wealth being 'proceeds of crime' [or whatever Americans call it] and his own assets get frozen and unable to be unlocked. What message does that send to the super-rich? That you are no longer safe. That like in Russia and China, your continued survival hinges on your ability to bend knee to the throne and kiss the Orange One's ring. And don't fucking tell me 'that cannot happen here'. Dictatorships are built over time, they're not pop-up tents. In more general terms, an 'extralegal fight' like I've laid out before very well might be the final nail in outsider investor confidence in the USA - the key part being 'America respects all the rights of private capital and the rich' and to break Musk will require the breaking of those maxims in a very public manner.
Which is why I think there's some courtiers in both camps trying to engineer some form of truce. That they're smart enough to realise that such a fight - if it went down to the wire - would seriously damage both. But the issue is that it would be a truce. A rickety rapprochement which would snap in no short order, due to the reasons I've outlined above. It's the classic example of a clash between an 'overmighty subject' and a monarch. KarmaPolice (talk) 11:07, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
Elon Musk deleted his posts about Epstein/Trump last night (still discoverable here). I think this feud is fizzling out fast. But Trump doesn't forget something like this. Even if they reconcile to an extent, which isn't guaranteed, I think the trust is broken severely. Musk has stopped firing on him, and Trump is "more sad than angry at Musk". Musk's dad Errol texted him telling him to "make sure this fizzles out". What's more likely than anything to reignite it at the moment, in my view, is if Trump decides to drop some insulting comment about Musk that he'll be too prideful to avoid responding in turn to. The Atlantic posted an article about the feud, from which I'll highlight two excerpts: Trump aides called Musk a druggie, and the writer speculates that Musk taking credit for the 2024 election outcome may have actually been more offensive to Trump than insinuating he raped kids. Chillpilled (talk) 11:52, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── As a side note, Alex Jones has infuriated the MAGA horde by demanding Trump respond to Elon's Epstein Files accusation. Antares (talk) 11:50, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

There's a parallel here with Putin's rise to power. The post-Soviet oligarchs polled Russians about their fictional heroes. A consistent one was from a popular TV show about a KGB agent in Germany at the end of WWII, bringing down the Nazis. Hoping to find someone they could control, the oligarchs searched for someone that they could portray as being similar to the fictional protagonist of the TV show. They found Putin, an obscure KGB officer who was a desk jockey. His obscurity was probably an asset at the time, since they could portray him however they liked. At some point after Putin's fraudulent election victories, the oligarchs had buyer's remorse since Putin was now the top oligarch, the capo di tutti capi in Mafia parlance, with the wheels of government firmly in his grip. Some of the oligarchs were even getting imprisoned, having their assets seized, or fleeing in exile. Bongolian (talk) 16:57, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
Sorta.
After the collapse of the USSR, a bunch of young 'Western-minded' ideologies and budding businesspeople teamed up to bring Western-style capitalist democracy to Russia. They generally speaking, failed. SoL fell for years, the country fell apart, crime was rampant and our businesspeople became the oligarchs who realised that theft of natural resources or off the state was the way to make money, not painstakingly rebuilding old tank plants in the Urals or other 'productive' entrepreneurial activity. This hugely discredited both our Reformers and Oligarchs in the eyes of both the Big Public but also the old nomenklatura [army officers, spies, apparatchiks etc] who'd lost much power/wealth/status from the capitalist revolution. The death knell was in 1998 - when a severe economic crisis robbed them of their remaining credence of being 'good with the economy' when most of the Russian middle class lost their shirts.
Yeltsin was a canny drunk and had always see-sawed between the reformers and the nomenklatura for his own gain - and now he pulled hard towards the nomenklatura, following public opinion. But insiders knew Yeltsin's health was now fragile and might lose the 2000 election. So they started to look for a successor, in which Yeltsin 'tried out' possibles [must be loyal, clever, cunning and willing to protect Yeltin's faction from future retribution] by appointing them Prime Minister. He tried out three others before selecting Putin and liking what he saw, allowed him to become 'acting president' and then won the election. The 'oligarchs' as a rule had nothing to do with this selection; though at this point Putin was such a nonentity they could manipulate.
But in Putin's mind, they were the 'overmighty subjects' which were to be brought to heel. The 'offer' he gave them was simple; surrender some of your wealth, all of your political pretensions and bow to the Throne - or else. Most bowed. Most of the minority quietly packed their bags. A few headstrong types decided to fight, and lost - their empires demolished in a vaguely quasi-legal manner. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:51, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
@KarmaPolice, My statement was based on memory from having read Timothy Snyder's book The Road to Unfreedom. What he actually said was "The wealthy few around Yeltsin, christened the 'oligarchs,' wished to manage democracy in his favor and theirs." (page 43) and 3 paragraphs later regarding Yeltsin's deterioration, "A successor was needed who would allow Yeltsin's family (in both the normal sense of his relatives and in the Russian sense of friendly oligarchs) to stay alive and maintain their wealth. 'Operation Successor,' as the challenge was known in the Kremlin, had two stages: finding a new man who was not a known associate of Yeltsin, and then inventing a fake problem that he could appear to absolve." (page 44) The following paragraph then describes the plan to find someone to fit the mold of the fictional KBG agent matching the TV show Moments of Spring. Bongolian (talk) 00:49, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Possible invasion of Moldova?[edit]

https://kyivindependent.com/russia-seeks-to-deploy-10000-troops-to-transnistria-and-potentially-undermine-election-moldovan-pm-recean-says/amp/

10,000 Russian troops are being sent to Transnistria. Invasion plot or dick waving? --Trans Fem Agenda 13:19, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Strap-on waving. At best they can send 10,000 people minus their kit because neither Ukraine or Romania will allow them to import their gear with them. I think the word 'seeks' is the important bit. KarmaPolice (talk) 16:26, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
All mouth no trews?
Also 'weapon of offer of automatic non-presence in Russian army and a (relatively) better economy'? Anna Livia (talk) 13:04, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

That time an incel fundie gamer made a game to "PWN" the LGBTQ+ community...[edit]

And ended up getting his crap banned, because he also put AI CSAM in it. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 13:31, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Got something that isn't a link to some ragebait anti-woke site? Paul S (talk) 22:47, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
I haven't honestly heard of this guy. From what I can tell, you wouldn't have heard of him unless you are one of those "woke derangement syndrome" gamers who gets EXTREMELY ANGRY when, say, a female with any sort of agency appears in any game.
Anyways, based on a couple of Reddits [8][9] this guy put in some scenes of CSAM (including reportedly a scene of 10 year old strippers, of which one was modeled off his own daughter) in his latest shit anti-woke "game". "It's Reddit" so take with a grain of salt, but it's believable to a degree; no matter how much some whine about being censored, gaming platforms don't really tend to mass ban you like this merely for being "anti-woke". BobJohnson (talk) 15:44, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
He ended up ranting and denying about it on Twitter. His braindead fundie audience (yeah, he's christian) are constantly shifting the blame to those who see CP in it, because, for some reason, this must mean they are the real pedos. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 09:15, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Y'all Are Never Gonna Believe This, But...[edit]

I have started smoking cigarettes again. I went out for one just an hour ago, and some guy was standing, staring at his phone. He didn't notice me at all, so I paid attention to him. He was a little wobbly, and when he finally looked up, he saw me. He asked if I could call him an uber, I said no, he said he could venmo or cash app me the cost, I said honestly I don't use those. He asked me if I could drive him to a... Posh suburb, because he was trying to get home. I remarked he must be lost if he's trying to get there, but no, since I've been drinking. He said ok, thanks, and then started to stumble off. So I stopped him, asked if he needed help downloading the app or some shit. He had it downloaded but had no idea where he was, so I helped him get an uber nearby, and walked him to it. It was kinda funny, the 'use my location' didn't work at all, but it was close. He put the driver on speakerphone and I was able to talk him into a spot less than a quarter mile away and walked the guy there until he saw the hazard lights on his driver's car. The whole time, I just kept telling him 'you're making the smart move, don't drive when you're drunk.' He kept thanking me and I kept telling him, 'I don't really give a shit". If I hadn't been so focused on getting him to his Uber, I might have remembered to tell him I've seen a kid lying dead in the street from a drunk driving collision. But I'm here posting about being punk as shit, I can't let a drunk kid wander aimless 20 miles from home. He made a good decision, Iunno why people find me in these small crises, but I told him 'I been where you're at and I wish somebody had helped me out, I'm serious, driving drunk is big dumb, I'm helping you because you're doing the right thing.' If it gets through to him by the morning, cool. But I did safely walk him to his uber, so he's not gonna spend the night asleep in somebody's lawn. The dude literally said to the uber driver over the phone 'OK, I will approach your vehicle and say my name is...' So like, baby's first time away from home. But it's like, I been in so many situations where I think to myself 'I need an adult' and look around and realize 'oh... The adult is me.'. I can't claim to be punk as shit and shrug off helping out a drunk kid who might do something dumber than get an uber back home. Torrent (talk) 10:21, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Good on you for helping that guy. But don't smoke, it's bad for your lungs. Cheers. 𓃶 Pinkerite (talk) 14:31, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Situation on the ground...[edit]

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

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

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

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

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

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

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

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

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

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

Age of Consent[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brian Wilson is dead[edit]

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

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

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

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

A key tenet of the Trump era Democratic party is that criticizing liberals from the left is literally Hitler, especially if it's an election year. The impulse that alows moderate dems to ignore Gaza is the same thing that causes republicans to insist the Trump tariffs are the greatest thing that ever happened to the economy.-Flandres (talk) 03:35, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
Not so sure about that. Think it's been a mainline Democrat policy for 30 years is that anything further 'left' than Third Way is 'electoral suicide' aka the believed electoral group is so tiny it's not worth having. It's all about our hallowed centrist 'floating voter', and they'd be scared witless if any policy even gives the vague impression of spilling their drink. Normally, this works - but on a rare occasion, a 'leftie' cause hits the consciousness of the Big Public [or at least an electorally significant chunk of it] which means 'stately ignoring' won't cut it no more. Enter 'he means well'.
Thoughts and prayers/regret for the situation/urge restraint/[Bromide #45]/etc. If pressed, offer to 'help mediation' or similar. Sad face, sombre tie. Voice like background music, the 'this is bad, we'll try to help' vibes washing over you. Repeat record so many times even a deafblind hermit in the Yukon has heard it. But they sound so sincere, they must mean it, are going to do something about it... right? Nope. The only change is the facade, and even then it will be so mild when you actually think it through you realise it's barely worth mentioning [Gaza is a bit different in this respect is that Bibi and co are so nuts that the mildest admonishment makes them fly off the handle].
The hope is that you get the impression things are being done to 'fix it' and then it drops off the news-cycle and thus, your brain. That if you somehow resist this forgetting, you then remember the record and conclude that it wasn't their fault they failed, but they'd tried and they had meant well. On closer inspection this rarely holds up [qv: Biden breaking up the arms to Bibi into penny-packets so he didn't need to go through Congress and thus, raise attention to it] but how many people bother doing that? KarmaPolice (talk) 10:00, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
The delicate political situation for the Democrats, in Biden's time and now, is this: the Democratic Party coalition consists of both pro-Palestine activists, and pro-Israeli activists. Of which the later are more numerous. (It's much easier for the Republicans. They've got plenty of gung-ho uber-Zionists, fundamentalist Christians, and racists who currently are eager to deport as many pro-Palestinian activists as they can merely for being pro-Palestinian. They have very little of the other side.)
The second "political problem" is this: if the more absolutist side of Palestine (and some other Islam nations) had equal armament power, and the most hardline were in charge, we would likely not be looking at the current "Israel commits genocide against Palestine" situation. Instead, we would be looking at a "total war" situation where the hardest of both sides would be absolutely eager to wipe out the other side from the face of the planet. "Have Israel lay on its back and let Hamas and all the other Islamic countries run over it" isn't going to be very politically popular... especially among pro-Zionists. (Of course, what Netanyahu is doing, that is, engaging in ethnic cleansing in Gaza, is not very popular either... particularly among pro-Palestinian activists.)
At least politically, many eyes are on Israel now (along with many eyes on Ukraine, which some have also labeled a genocide). Pity the Uyghurs, who aren't being talked about by anyone in Western media anymore. Pity even more the Rohingya and Masalit; Mynamar and Sudan are just too "politically un-important" in the West for anyone to bat an eye. So it goes. BobJohnson (talk) 13:38, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
The majority of Democratic voters are more sympathetic to Palestine than they are to Israel ([12]). The problem is that the Democratic Establishment is firmly Zionist. The party doesn't really give a shit about the opinions of its base. I also don't think the majority of pro-Palestinian activists are demanding that Hamas have equal armament with Israel. That's absurd. What we argue for, in respect to the genocide at least, is conditioning of aid so that American munitions are not being used to conduct a genocide. Biden was more than capable of doing that. But he didn't. Antares (talk) 14:24, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
Let's put it another way: if Biden eased American munitions... and then, a terrorist attack then occurred on Israel shortly after... he would've been in a heap of political trouble. Especially a year ago.
The problem with this obsession with Joe Biden is that the past is the past and "a week in politics is a long time", let alone 8 months. I have no idea what a president Kamala Harris would have done in the current climate, and we will never find out. In the West as a whole, support for Israel has dramatically declined this year, for obvious reasons. The poll you linked to even shows this. We know what Donald Trump is going to do because of who is in the Republican coalition; the more interesting actions will be what the European leaders do now. BobJohnson (talk) 15:54, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
Now we have the giga-instigator as POTUS. I suppose if Bernie had been POTUS and had cut off Israel he would have been impeached. Probably convicted. Hard to tell really.Zatoichi (talk) 17:06, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
@A somebody. Because Biden represents a stable status quo that they're emotionally invested in rather than acknowledging the chaotic flux of politics. Personally I blame Christianity. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:26, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
Not that Biden would ever had considered any alternative to arming Israel to the teeth and generally looking the other way with slight interspersions of tut tutting, but let’s say he actually had wanted to curtail the arms flow and decided not to due to the potential political blowback from some future terrorist attack.
The problem with using this as an argument is that no matter how many arms Biden would’ve agreed to deliver, he would still be called a Palestinian sympathiser who stabbed poor plucky Israel in the back once that terrorist attack happened (itself almost a certainty over a four year presidential term, especially given the prevalent situation in Israel/Palestine).
I’m so tired of this “blowback argument” being used to claim that it’s impossible for the DNC/neoliberal/Third Way faction in control of the Democratic Party to do X, Y, and Z, because the Democrats are going to get this blowback no matter what. Look at the BS about the Harris campaign being “too woke”, Trump calling Biden “a Palestinian” etc. etc.
The point is that the “blowback argument” doesn’t hold up, because refraining from advocating for or pursuing the policies in question doesn’t actually prevent the blowback, as the GOP and its media network will simply make shit up and call Democrats Marxist, terrorist sympathisers, woke, pro immigration, soft on crime, spendthrift-yet-underfunding-the-military and so forth, no matter what.
I find it highly implausible that, by now, those DNC/Third Way types using the “blowback argument“ haven’t figured out that it doesn’t actually work, which means that it’s a bad faith argument made in lieu of actually having to argue why they simply don’t want to pursue the policies in question.
It’s a deflection that provides the illusion that these DNC’ers/Third Way’ers really would like to do something and are only restrained by this potential blowback. It also dovetails nicely with their general “I’d really like to help you, but no just can’t”-attitude of feigned helplessness on all the policy areas they really don’t want to be part of the political conversation. ScepticWombat (talk) 07:06, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
The reason Joe Biden didn't cut off arms to Israel is because he is a deeply committed Zionist and a racist who views Palestinians as less human than Israelis, not because of some hypothetical blowback because of an even more hypothetical terrorist attack. A somebody. (talk) 19:50, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
How convenient. The world is the way it is because of evil men. The problem may be that power makes men appear to be evil, mostly because they don't really have the power you imagine them to have. People with strong moral feelings, like Christians, believe in free will. Without free will, all these moral arguments become unsound. Zatoichi (talk) 13:45, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Go ahead and write an article on them. The only thing I know about Fresh and Fit and Aba & Preach is that they hate each other. Zatoichi (talk) 16:57, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

The Roy Jay Theory[edit]

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

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

New RW project in the works[edit]

Draft:Classical Education

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

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

British sense of humour[edit]

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

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

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

Father's Day is tomorrow[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vance Boelter[edit]

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

Worth it or nah?

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

Hope y'all are well.

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

apparently he was an Evangelical Christian. More proof that Evangelicals are wastes of flesh who are all inherently evil. “stop generalizing” doesn’t help when a literal religious cult wants anyone who isn’t in their ideology dead. it’s another example of evangelicals are fascists. fuck nationalism and fascism Rolling with it (talk) 04:49, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
I am sure I am gonna have to hear about him being a Radical leftist. An evangelical Christian with a private security business who has worked internationally in business security and targeted democrats is a radical leftist because of the most obvious police plant of 'no kings' 'Flyers' and previous work with the government, including Democrats. Man shot at police and ran for his life and wasn't chased as a danger at large. https://www.ketv.com/article/forgiveness-for-farrah-police-chief-speaks-at-funeral-for-17-year-old-involved-in-a-shootout-with-his-officers/35802002 I've been to the funeral of somebody who wasn't in their right mind and and fired on police. I knew the kid, not well, but she was kinda my responsibility for a short time and it weighs heavily on me. I never told her anything political, I just encouraged her to come to work as often as she could and took her seriously when ahe.couldn't come due to court or counseling. You can watch this kid die, chased by police and killed in a 'shootout' on body cam footage. You could do it within like the day after it happened. Methamphetamines, youth, anger. What the fuck is this guy's excuse, and why does he get to run away? He has a fake police car in the sense that private security drives fake police cars. The 'no kings' flyers in the back are so phony. Nobody is handing out printer paper, even conspiracies agree that n95 masks are bought and paid for. But somebody will definitely say 'this guy is actually a leftist' And I will have to stay quiet. They are not paying me, I have to work with them, I can't be everyone's enemy, these are people who actually like videos of ICE detaining laborers who, despite any legal status, in my opinion are American workers. I saw a poster on a bridge that said 'Deport invaders' today. Chase a dumbass little kid until you have to shoot her, and let a fucking maniac in his 50s just run away. Cops are cowards, scared of a man who looks like them, and no way was anyone at a 'no kings' rally about to shake a piece of printer paper. But again, I guarantee I will hear someone say he's an extreme leftist. Torrent (talk) 05:54, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
MAGA propagandists have already tried to play the "he worked for Tim Walz's government therefore he's a radical leftist!" line. Which sounds ridiculous if you have a working brain.
I'm seeing some reports that in reality, the guy actually was largely a food worker and much of his security company front was a sham (though he had worked at a security firm as a director of some sort, possibly giving him access to some of the gear). So yes, basically a "mall ninja" in the flesh. The reports of him being a missionary evangelical preacher do seem to pan out (the CNN story mentions that he had trouble holding regular jobs because he did a lot of traveling to Africa to preach). BobJohnson (talk) 13:03, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
I’m not sure the No Kings flyers are phoney. Yes, people still hand out flyers and given the decentralised, fragmented and bottom-up character of No Kings organising, it’s hardly a stretch to suppose that someone did actually made some amateurish, handwritten flyers to advertise/remind people of the event.
But if the flyers are indeed genuine, what does that say? It seems a fairly ridiculous suggestion to me to automatically jump from the presence of such flyers to the conclusion that this represents the shooter’s sympathy with the event. It may just as well chime with the caution to the various Minnesota No Kings demonstrations that they might be targets. And the same goes for the comparison to some contrived false flag operation. Hell, I would expect a deliberate police false flag or plant to look more convincing than this.
It’s hardly unknown for these kinds of attackers/terrorists to have “opposition material” with them, either. Or it might even be the shooter’s own amateurish attempt at playing the false flag game (but again, I’d expect a deliberate attempt at a false flag gambit to look a bit more convincing than this, even if it’s by some mall ninja).
Yet another option might be that the hand-written “No Kings” slogans on the flyers could be the shooter’s attempt at appropriating the slogan with the “Kings” being the likes of his victims. Come to think of it, that would actually fit well with the ludicrous persecution complex and conspiracy theories pushed by even “mainstream” GOP politicians these days. ScepticWombat (talk) 19:12, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
So, on the flyers, when I say ' obvious police plant' I mean this guy Boelter did it himself. They are not all hand drawn unless he is an impeccable font master, they are photocopies or printed. It also turns out that he didn't shoot at police, they watched him enter a home that they went to protect, and as he entered and opened fire inside the home the police stood back, which I can understand why a police officer wouldn't open fire on the face of a house, because when they do that shit innocent people die [13] It also turns out, they had a chance to stop him, but they were completely bamboozled, not unlike that guy in Nova Scotia who could have been stopped but wasn't[14] because the guy looked like a cop. I am not of the opinion that police need to be militarized. But one, they are, and two, they seem to pick and choose when they want to engage as if it's a job that allows that. Torrent (talk) 05:12, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
Wombat is correct; it's dangerous to leap to conclusions on the basis of one piece of evidence - we all have things in our posession which if taken alone [or in a tiny selected group] can paint a very different narrative to reality. I personally have enough to paint me as a far-right conspiracy theorist with a martial/survivalist bent, if you wished to. Clearly, this narrative only holds up if you ignore the massive bulk of the evidence which points to me not being any of these. I don't approve the moves to instantly write this off as 'a police plant' either; not only do I have the similar belief that if it was a plant it would be more than just this [though I do have a tendency to over-estimate Authority's competence levels] but it can look bad to 'neutrals' that you'll being as bad as the MAGAs in jumping to conclusions without any actual evidence [though it has to be said 'finding evidence' of police planting of evidence is in it's very nature difficult to get]. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:07, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
I mean, I don't own guns, but I own a lot of camping gear because I did backwoods camping with some friends years ago, so I could be spun as homeless. I also have a car that doesn't quite run right yet, but my solutions are also very much DIY that, if you didn't know me, would probably make me look like I was living out of the thing. A decade ago, between places, I crashed some couches and always helped pay for rent, and it wasn't even as nice a car to 'live out of.' But when I get it going without the upkeep, it will be good to go on tour. My dream is to go stormchasing with it, not to drive into a tornado, but to help with first response in communities hit with emergency supplies and the ability to drive very fast with enough space to load anyone injured. I also want to convert it to biodiesel, but that's in odds with the idea of driving it distances. I am an avowed peacenik, communities hit by tornadoes aren't at war with the weather. but it's kinda a confluence of DIY fixes and survivalism that would make this vehicle look like I planned to live in or out of it. Torrent (talk) 07:45, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

💃🏽 Happy NHAI is a bust day! 🕺🏽[edit]

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

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

Conceiving an idea of a really bad story[edit]

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

物灵 (talk) 07:18, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

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

I made a new YouTube video[edit]

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

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

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

What do you guys think.[edit]


Writing Logical Fallacies essay without latin BS[edit]

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

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

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

Nobel Prize[edit]

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

Governments, politicians, academics, and certain institutions are the only people that can nominate a Nobel Peace Prize candidate. Highly unlikely that they will do something for the lulz.
The Nobel Peace Prize is, shall we say, not one of the Nobel's better categories, as several winners have been in retrospect extremely poor choices. (I mean, one can start with the infamous Henry Kissinger Peace Prize doled out in 1973.) BobJohnson (talk) 00:46, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
But what BMB represents and does is 'a good thing' - and somewhat better than various of the actual choices.
To what extent did Mikhail Gorbachev's Nobel Prize and subsequent actions against the Baltic States, with the negative reactions to the pairing - some prize winners wanting to return their medals) contribute to the ending of the Soviet Union? Anna Livia (talk) 09:16, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Bombs for Peace ??[edit]

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

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

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Regarding "Israel in a war they started" against Iran, if one is talking strictly about missile strikes, then it would have been Iran starting the war last year with strikes against Israel (Israel in a war they started. Israel assassinating Iran's non-citizen proxy leaders (Hamas and Hezbollah), which was Iran's excuse for the missile strikes would ordinarily not be deemed an act of war against. If the Constitution were strictly interpreted, the tRump bombing was unconstitutional. Unfortunately a spineless GOP presence in Congress, the far-right elements of the Supreme Court, and a history of bending the rules on military engagement means that it's unlikely to ever be litigated.[15] Bongolian (talk) 18:38, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

What percent of Gab posts contain reality?[edit]

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

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

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