RationalWiki:Saloon bar

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

edit

Dear Patrons! Your feedback is always appreciated.

• - Currently, there is 1 page marked for deletion
• - and 1 page marked for demotion.

I am kind of disappointed by this electoral cycle

Universal healthcare was a big thing in 2020, now it's only relegated to a few paragraphs in the DNC platform. Palestinians were given the middle finger by the DNC. Kamala Harris is a warhawk. If only the Dems had actually lived up to their name and offered us a real primary, instead we're voting for Biden-lite. Hooray. Carthage (talk) 12:29, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Universal healthcare is still considered a liability when run on at the presidential level, and the election is pretty close. I mostly agree on the Palestinian issue, but I’ll bet it’s because the Dems are worried about attacking their own incumbent during a close election. Ultimately, with how close the election is going to be, there isn’t a whole lot of room for a genuinely left wing platform this year. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 12:37, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I do think they could have had one Palestinian speaker on that stage. Speakers are heavily vetted. The uncommitted were perfectly willing to negotiate, but they were simply told "no" to even having the most milquetoast speaker on stage. Already groups like "Muslim Women for Harris/Walz" are disbanding because of this. I don't think snubbing the uncommitted, which remember was 700k votes in total, was a smart thing to do. Carthage (talk) 13:15, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Funny enough, I turned on NPR for a bit, and they were literally just now doing a story about how disappointed people were by the lack of a Palestinian speaker. We'll see if this has a polling impact on Michigan, but I'm quite confident that refusing a Palestinian speaker is a net negative for the Harris campaign. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 13:25, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

They also leaned into the anti-immigrant hysteria, even featuring a speaker from Border Patrol. The Dems seem to have really shunted the progressive vote this time around in favor of the never-Trumpers, who honestly are perfectly fine with Trump's policies, just not the man himself. I don't really think that's a smart decision. Carthage (talk) 13:27, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

That's what you get with big tent parties / first past the post. The big problem for the Democrats with Israel/Palestine is that the "tent" currently extends to the vast majority of Jewish people in America (who may not like Netanyahu much, but don't like Hamas either), as well as most minorities in general (which includes Arab-Americans). This, and the contentiousness of the issue, ultimately leads to the Democrats muting the issue in favor of what they feel are solid issues for their "tent", such as abortion. Nonetheless, since a lot of Jewish-Americans don't care for Netanyahu or "fundie Jew" type politics, the Democrats have a little room to send a few anti-settler "nibbles", which is what Biden has been doing, and is what will continue to happen barring something drastic. There's awareness -- I do think that one reason it is VP Tim Walz instead of VP Josh Shapiro is because Shapiro is *very* pro-Israel, and that was a ding in these times -- but Josh Shapiro is also an excellent example of why the Dems aren't going too heavy against Netanyahu's government.

Republicans have a "big tent" too and actually from my vantage a more problematic one for them since Trumpism has shuffled all the crazies / paranoid style folks into their tent. The crazies tend to by definition be loose cannons and have a tendency of "eating themselves", so to speak. Election deniers, for instance, are attacking or running against Republicans these days, because conspiracy theorists often know no bounds. The neo-Nazis and the Dominionists in the party tend not to be "big tent" by definition; like Nick Fuentes recently, they may get pissed that Donald Trump is not extreme enough. BobJohnson (talk) 13:30, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

There are quite a few Jewish antizionists. It was a Jewish woman who got kicked from the DNC for wearing a "Free Gaza" t-shirt. It's a false equivalency to equate support for an arms embargo on a pariah state literally committing genocide right now as we speak at the American taxpayer's expense as support for a terrorist organization. Carthage (talk) 13:32, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Tell that to the voters then: Cori Bush and Jamaal Bowman were swept out of primaries, and one of their big "features" was heavy pro-Gaza / anti-Israel support. From my perspective, being too pro-Gaza is *not* an electoral winner for the Democrats at this point in time. BobJohnson (talk) 13:47, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, the numbers aren't looking too good on the Gaza issue. Young voters are most likely to favor Palestine, but most of them are disgruntled because of the economy rather than Israel policy. And only 27% of overall US voters favor Palestine over Israel as of May 2024, and even that is after a huge increase. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 13:50, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

RE: undocumented immigration, polls of likely voters pretty consistently show that they think border security is a problem and that they trust Trump more on that issue. Trump's campaign has also been attacking Kamala on her role in border policy. The Dems are trying to turn that trend around, because undocumented immigration is emphatically not a winning issue for them right now. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 13:43, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Jamaal Bowman and Cori Bush lost because of dark money investiture. A majority of democrats support a ceasefire in Gaza. Ilhan Omar also won her primary, despite AIPAC funding an opponent candidate. Seriously, AIPAC is an agent of a foreign government. Why isn't it listed as a foreign agent? Carthage (talk) 13:52, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

There's actually some interesting history here. AIPAC is a spin-off from the American Zionist Council (AZC), which was forced to register as a foreign agent by Robert Kennedy (the first one). AZC then dissolved a few years later. AIPAC survives because it's technically funded by Americans who are influenced by Israel rather than Israel itself. In other words, AIPAC learned from what happened to the AZC. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 14:03, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Arguably, Bowman and Bush lost because they badly represented their districts[1][2] — too much grandstanding and not enough action to help their districts. Bongolian (talk) 06:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I usually am disappointed by the socio-economic behaviors of large countries, even large democratic republics. Why would America do anything for anyone else that did not involve some benefit for American corporations or, sometimes Americans? We are certainly getting a women of color as our next president. Fearless fighters for minority interests lose elections. Americans will often say yes to reasonable minority interests if they aren't too much trouble, but their own, majority interests, will always come first.UncleKrampus (talk) 19:18, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

It's insane to me that the upcoming American election is going to be close... the Republican Party is almost explicit that they want to dismantle democracy. While I'm hopeful about Kamala being the next president, I do still think it's only a matter of time before the US does become fascist or something of the sort... if the Republicans don't get in this election, then there's 2028. I guess in a world that is increasingly under the pressure of drastic physical change, politics are bound to be the same. Impiricism (talk) 00:32, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The fact that there are people who are willing to vote for Trump just because his economic policies might be better than Kamala's despite the fact that putting him back in power will be a huge net negative really reminds me of that meme with the dinosaur looking at the asteroid and going 'Oh shit! The economy!' TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 01:16, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

My theory is that there's a significant % of 'sane Republicans' who either have not heard or do not believe the 'MAGA wants to end democracy' line. Reasoning;

1. They're not overly into politics [or actively avoid it due to how poisonous it's become] so they have not heard these claims.

2a. They get most of their news from mainstream/legacy sources, which traditionally at least have 'moderated' the MAGA lines. It's hard to get how bats Trump is via a soundbite, or if you have an 'independent' commentator pop up who tells us that 'everyone sucks here' or that Trump's main crime was simply 'rudeness'. Or

2b. They consume a fair amount of news, but it's news without analysis etc [this is known in the intelligence world as 'stovepiping']. For example, they might have heard bits about Project 2025 but it was presented in raw format so they didn't understand the ramifications of the policy if enacted.

3. A lot of the influence in their voting is from individuals in their personal 'monkeysphere'; neighbours, coworkers, their hobby group etc. They've been convinced by 'vibes' that, for example from their gym group that 'Republicans support personal initiative/responsibility' or getting the impression from the parents at the school-gate that 'Democrats want to indoctrinate children' and the local PTA is a vehicle for 'wokeness' [they can't say what this is, but know it's bad].

4. They think it's hyperbole/lies - something being put out by Trump's opponents. This is the net result for when negative campaigning reaches endemic stage in a society, folks don't believe the truth, esp when it is outside of the normal realms of believability [aka the 'it can't happen here' mentality].

KarmaPolice (talk) 13:17, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Every economic policy Trump pushed hurt the working class and the wider public good. From the tax cuts for billionaires to removing protections on water pollution. Where do you get this idea that Trump would be "better" on the economy than Harris? Where does that talking point come from? Carthage (talk) 13:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Going off this CBC article I recently read, it appears some Americans are simply still clueless or in the dark about Trump as a businessman... to be fair, he did seem to cultivate an image of a successful, no-nonsense ("you're fired!") CEO for a number of years before running for president and encountering more critical examination. Why people still believe he's "good at business" is probably due to reasons similar to what Karma pointed out. Impiricism (talk) 18:39, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Named 'Clean Water Act'. If stovepiped, the reader will most likely think it was a good thing [esp if you're suseptable to 'pro-business' rhetoric], or perhaps neutral. The general 'economic news'... well, the 'headlines' beloved by Bloomberg/Forbes talking heads [like orthodox economists] was good until Covid - unemployment continued to fall, average wages continued to rise [and above inflation], said inflation was low, the stock market was going gangbusters, companies were reporting record profits and real estate prices continued to hit new highs. As long as your 'monkeysphere' didn't show any blatant contradiction and you were doing okay... no, you will most likely think 'Trump did well with the economy'. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:43, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The United States has always had a wee bit more of an authoritarian streak than its jingoism advertises... particularly on aspects like racism, Puritanism/sexual matters, and even how it treats their left-wing. The fascism-ish Trumpism in other words is not *as* stark of a change from the ol' GOP as one might think. Nonetheless... the encouraging thing about the long term is that Trumpism is, at the moment, heavily fueled by "the elders" and therefore "time-limited". By the Social Security actuary tables, Trump's chances of actually not making it to 2028 are ~22%, and nearly 1 in 2 by 2032. And even now it's clear that Trump's "faculties" have declined considerably since 2020. Who knows what it will look like in 2028? There may come a point where even Trump's "biggest fans" notice that he's a feeble old man now.

I have no idea what the Republican party is going to look like after Trump; there's plenty of younger Republicans with similar fascist thinking, but no one seemingly with the "charisma" (as it were) of Trump yet. Likewise, a lot of the former Republican propaganda outlets, such as Rush Limbaugh style radio and Fox News, are stale and in dying formats. How many people under 50 actually listen to over-the-air talk radio or cable news? Sure, there's plenty of conservative oriented things on the Internet that the young folks listen to, but it's a much more fragmented world, so it's tougher for political parties to "control the narrative" as much.

Maybe post-Trump Republicans will end up looking just as authoritarian as some of the European anti-immigrant fueled movements out there that have a lot more young blood. But I don't know. Certainly I don't see *all* of the racism/Puritanism disappearing overnight. But given the future makeup of the United States, Republicans continuing on the Trumpism path might risk what happened to Republicans in California. Despite the Fox News bleating, California was only "leans liberal" for the longest time, with plenty of powerful conservative pockets -- I mean, Ronald Reagan was from there, right?. The reason California Republicans went into the wilderness was because they took on racist elements with anti-immigrant grandstanding in the 1990s like Proposition 187. In the long run, that racism killed the California GOP.) BobJohnson (talk 13:31, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, Trumpism as-is is time-limited; I once worked out that if the voting choices for demographics remains the same, Trump has a 1.5% higher hill to climb than in '20, and by 2028 it will be another 1.5% higher. But I think the future of MAGA is more likely to be of folks of Vance's stamp than Trump's or even Pence or Cruz. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:43, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Apropos the post-Trump GOP, it's worth noting that almost every attempt to debut a "new Trump" as ended in disaster as the once-hyped "golden boy" turns out to be unable to relate to anyone outside of the terminally online MAGA diehards. (I'm thinking people like Ramaswamy, DeSantis, Vance, and so on.) MAGA also has a problem with attracting moronic candidates who turn off swing voters and drive up democrat turn out, as they generally emphasize loyalty over competence and electability. With that in mind, here I a few post-Trump GOP primary scenarios I have thought of:

• A whole bunch of ambitious grifters bill themselves as the next Trump at once and denounce all of their ideologically identical rivals as unhuman globalist filth. The MAGA base is split, a establishment guy squeaks in, they now have to convince the former trumpers to vote for a "RINO crypto-Marxist."
• If the base rallies around one "new Trump" this candidate will proabbly get the nomination...but then face an even steeper climb then Trump does, because "new Trumps" almost always alienate more people then they attract if they are running in a decently competitive race.-Flandres (talk) 18:04, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I think the issue with trying to wheel out 'a new Trump' is the fact that the models they've used so far are shit. They are generally devoid of 'personality' [apart from being arrogant and tetchy], have not been visibly 'successful' in the 'real world' [crypto, finance and vapoury-tech stuff aren't 'real'] and didn't build up a following before they got into politics. If you don't want to use the Trump model, why you can reach for the Schwarzenegger one. I said 'of the Vance stamp' because from what I can tell, Vance is not as socially retrograde or openly unpleasant as the Orange One, because a 'new coalition' will need to be forged and I'd be tempted to dump the Dominionists and Nazis and embrace the embittered faux-libertarian males. KarmaPolice (talk) 00:40, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

To note that the Palestinian issue is far from a straight up Good Guy vs Bad Guy as is the Ukraine war. Sure, gazaouis are being bombed out, but it is seen as the 566th episode of the Israeli - Palestinian clusterf***, one that is the result of a genocidal theocratic sexist homophobic group doing an attack targeting specifically civilians, a group that's viscerally opposed to the West, democracy, and tolerance, and refuse to release hostages in order to stop the bombing. It's a hard sell. And no, "I'm supporting Gaza and not the Hamas" doesn't really cut it. The US set up a large scale humanitarian aid operation though.165.225.205.44 (talk) 09:50, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the tired-ass talking points, BON. Carthage (talk) 09:56, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

My pleasure! It seems that often times progressive people forget them when thinking that the latest iteration of a geopolitical quagmire should be at the forefront of priorities of an election a few thousands of km away. Also the Hamas is nazi-grade Evil.165.225.205.44 (talk) 12:01, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Maybe people wouldn't prioritize it so much if it wasn't their tax dollars going to support a genocide and apartheid state. Also can we for the love of God stop equivocating about Hamas? Nothing about Hamas is making Israel rape captives, demolish cemeteries, and kill children. Remember that Israel killed the lead Hamas negotiator. Israel is not interested in peace. Carthage (talk) 12:11, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I'm not convinced by this "activism is bad" angle. Activism exists to pressure the powerful. What else would be a better time to make sure that the voices of the uncommitted movement is heard than during the DNC?

This shit about "big-tent" is just an excuse to cover the fact that your party was acting shitty to a significant chunk of its base. If politics is a zero-sum game of "who's worse," and not actually about trying to make things better, then that system is broken. Carthage (talk) 14:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

And nothing about Israel is making Hamas live streaming raping captives, demolish homes, and kill children but here we are. Hamas isn't interested in peace either, or it would release hostages. Israel is happy to have a radical islamist opponent, that makes its slow annexion of palestinian land and silent support for settler violence look better. And Hamas is happy to have an Eternal War to feed its need for martyrs. The thing is that it's a complex and long-suffering issue that's far removed from US lives, so yeah they want to avoid focusing on stuff that might not be generating votes.165.225.205.44 (talk) 14:50, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

October 7th is over. Done with. Israel is the one currently conducting a genocide. Nothing about what Israel is doing is "self-defense." It's a sustained campaign to enact demographic change in Gaza, a territory Israel illegally occupies. There's nothing "complex" about the fact that American tax dollars are being used to fund a genocide. Schools, hospitals, and apartment buildings are being bombed with American weaponry. You want a ceasefire? Stop providing the fire. There is nothing "far-removed" about it for Palestinian-Americans who have family dead or dying in Gaza right now as we speak. Carthage (talk) 14:56, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

bon is kinda right here. if people don't even care about authoritarian regimes in our own back yard (namely venezuela, cuba, and nicaragua) beating, kidnapping, or even murdering minors for criticizing the government; or if they don't care about putin's brutal assault on the ukrainian self-determination and democracy; why would they care any more about what's happening in israel-palestine? not saying that these aren't pressing issues; what i am saying is that americans don't know or care about these places. most americans couldn't even find these countries on a map (and clearly, this ignorance isn't confined to the magaverse). The G (talk) 16:11, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

For the approx 110 hostages still prisoner from the Hamas, October 7th still not over. There is nothing "far-removed" about it for Israeli-Americans who have family dead in Israel or held hostage in Gaza right now as we speak. American dollars and European euros are also the major funder of the Palestinian governing bodies, and they have a fund to support the families of suicide bombers, to encourage more suicide bombing. See? Complex. Israel has not been bombing Gaza before Oct 7th, they did not provide the fire. It *is* a complex situation, which involves two bad guys.165.225.205.44 (talk) 12:49, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm just gonna ignore all those bullshit PRATTs (well, I will point out that Netanyahu has no interest in freeing the hostages, something hostage families are pissed with him for, and will also point out that Israel has thousands of Palestinians hostage. Technically they're "detainees," but Israel classifies any male of "military age" as being part of Hamas, regardless of actual circumstances. So odds are good any random Palestinian detainee is some poor schmuck picked off the street and is now being forcibly sodomized by psychopaths.) and focus on the "this situation is 'complex'" talking point. It's really not. I think this Michael Brooks quote sums it up best: "It’s not a complex issue. That’s the big thing. It’s super simple. There’s one group that has enormous power. It’s the most powerful country in the Middle East. It’s backed by the United States. It acts on another population of people with total impunity and it’s never held accountable for anything." Carthage (talk) 13:03, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Wouldn't call it 'a genocide' [as this is a technical term] but it clearly is a level of material destruction not seen in an urban area since perhaps WW2 and a population which cannot escape it. The fact that the Israelis are deliberately stopping foreign observers or journalists into Gaza fuels suspicions and it is basically a known fact now that there is a slow-burn famine in the territory now and as the IDF control all Gaza borders it makes them at least complicit in said famine. In fact, some nutrition experts etc say the Israelis are deliberately doing this - ie allowing in just enough aid to stop any 'skeleton children' images from happening but keeping everyone malnourished and lethargic.

Everyone is shit in this scenario, apart from the civilians stuck in the middle. Hamas and Bibi were made for each other. The 'Bantustan plan' for Gaza is decades old - it was noted as far back as the early 2000s. This old Grauniad article was sadly correct in their prediction - that the plan was to hack up the West Bank into their own Bantustans, and right-wing Israelis are using the distraction of Gaza to force this plan to it's completion in 'Samaria'. How the fuck will these developments help the long-term situation?

I think a lot of the American 'pro-Palestinians' are more than anything else fucked off with their Govts complicity in Bibi's fucked-up plan to bomb and shoot his way out of his political coffin. Washington uses it's strings with cash and bombs to stop Ukraine doing certain actions, she could do the same with Israel. For example, 'no more heavy munitions until you stop the land seizures in the West Bank' and 'no more intel assistance until you allow independent journalists into Gaza'. Biden's hypocrisy on this was galling - hand-wringing over the deaths etc while breaking up the arms transfers into penny-packets to avoid getting Congress to sign them off. As I am 99% sure Congress would have signed them off, this leads to the conclusion he was doing it so not to draw attention to the size or frequency of said transfers. KarmaPolice (talk) 16:46, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@G Man. You don't see people lose tuition for protesting over what's happening in Nicaragua, do you? Nicaragua doesn't have a financial stranglehold on American politicians. American tax dollars aren't going to fund an apartheid state currently committing what's considered a plausible genocide by the ICJ, and an actual genocide by many genocide scholars. (For the ten thousandth time, I have to link this UN report which pretty conclusively demonstrates genocide is what's going on in the Gaza Strip.) Where is Trump threatening to deport American citizens for protesting Nicaragua? Americans care about this issue because it is relevant to Americans. There are protests going on as we speak, and an uncommitted movement 700k+ voters strong. People have literally burned themselves alive in protest of American support for Israel. Carthage (talk) 17:17, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

One problem I see is the Palestinian protesters seem to be targeting Democrats far more than Republicans. Which is strange, because people like Trump's bud, the late Sheldon Adelson, have done far more to enable Bibi than Biden ever did. American Orthodox Jews (the ones far more likely to be fascist-settler types) have become far more Trump-y in recent years. Some of the worst offenders at banning pro-Palestinian protesters are Republicans like Ron DeSantis. The focus on Joe Biden seems... a little misplaced? At least, I certainly have seen some on the "social medias" irked by this focus. Obviously, anyone irked at America's support for Israel would be unhappy with both parties, but the lopsided "protest drama" (and the fact that it *is* often drama instead of peaceful protests) doesn't help the cause here.

I'll say there is another "thing": people tend to be turned off of situations where two sides devolve where at least a portion of the faction has embraced overheated hyperbolic rhetoric, sometimes extending to violence. When it comes to protests, Palestinian vs. Zionism hard liners are at that phase right now. I don't think either the Republicans or Democrats are putting a big priority on actively courting them as a result. At the moment, with the vitriol being spewed, it's like stepping in a hornet's nest for probable no electoral gain. BobJohnson (talk) 17:34, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

(EC) This is ridiculous. Americans shouldn't care about dictatorships because "tax dollars aren't going to fund" other regimes? By these reasoning you should agree with Donald Trump when he promises to stop providing aid to Ukraine on another genocidal war. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 17:36, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't believe that's what I said, and I would kindly request you don't put words in my mouth. I'm saying that Americans care about Palestine and Israel a lot more than the plight of some obscure country for many reasons, but one of the chief is that our government is directly enabling a genocide. Americans arms aren't being used by Russian soldiers in Ukraine. We put sanctions on Russia. Our government knows full well that Israel has no plans of ending this genocide anytime soon, but they continue to provide weapons anyway knowing that those weapons are going to be used on civilians. Carthage (talk) 17:43, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Also, Bob, the thing is that everyone knows that the GOP is awful on Palestine. Trump literally uses "Palestinian" as a slur. The reason progressives are so hard on the Dems is because the Dems are supposed to be better than the GOP. If their better is still godawful, there's still plenty of room for improvement. We shouldn't settle for mediocrity. Carthage (talk) 17:44, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

It might not be what you meant, but I read your post again and all I can read is you giving reasons for Americans to believe that Nicaragua is not a problem. Anyway, I'll be charitable and assume that you actually care about dictatorships elsewhere, even if I've never seen you criticizing them. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 17:55, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Read it again. I was using Nicaragua as a stand-in for Israel's influence in American politics. That's the answer to the question "why don't Americans care as much about [insert bad situation here you want to use to score political points] as they do Israel." Carthage (talk) 17:58, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘once again, carthage, you misunderstood my point, which itt was that americans tend to not know, let alone care that there is a world outside of their borders. this is true for republicans and democrats. americans would rather debate on culture war issues and the economy. most americans probably can't even find nicaragua, let alone palestine on a map. this is not an exaggeration. i'm not downplaying global tragedies so much as i am trying to shed light on why us foreign policy is so terrible. americans' lack of knowledge in geography and international relations benefits a handful of special interest groups in washington; but that's a discussion for another time. The G (talk) 05:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

While the "generic American" may not give a shit about Israel-Palestine, Muslim and Jewish voters certainly do. It's a big concern to progressive voters. Remember that "uncommitted" got 700k voters. Also, I/P has become a culture war issue. None of this changes the fact that the DNC deliberately snubbed the uncommitted vote, not allowing a Palestinian speaker. That's significant. You can wax lyrical all you want, but snubbing 700k voters is a big deal. Already groups like "Muslim Women for Harris/Walz" are disbanding. The message was received, Harris. Let's hope this act of anti-Palestinian racism doesn't cost you the Muslim vote in important swing states like Michigan. Carthage (talk) 10:51, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm interested to see what kind of impact the "no Palestinians at the DNC" issue has on Michigan's polls. But then again, polling has just been all over the place in general this year, so who knows. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 14:48, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

The "pro-Palestinian" protests are not worth engaging with since they have dropped the veneer of "I'm pro-civilian, not pro-Hamas" as time has gone on to the point we regularly see Hamas and even Hezbollah flags at protests with no pushback from "humanitarian" protestors. They claim, "I'm not anti-semitic, I'm anti-zionist", as well, but they attack synagogues and Jewish people who aren't even Israeli (but will be more likely to support Israel now that they know home isn't safe for them anymore) or even make excuses like, "Palestinian is semitic, so I can't be anti-semitic" in order to pretend the original defintion doesn't exist and that it gives them a free pass to hurt Jewish people, so we can't judge them. The brutal fact is that if you look at the make up of most of these protestors, the core of the protestors tend to be made up of either Islamists or far-left anti-electoralism types who weren't going to vote Democrats regardless (or at least not vote straight ticket), so there's no point in courting them. I'm glad Kamala is avoiding the issue because engaging with the protestors only leaves her vulnerable to attacks by pro-Israelis for "being anti-semitic, abandoning a US ally, and supporting terrorists" and the pro-Palestinian protestors who will stab her in the back since they won't be satisfied with anything short of supporting the destruction of Israel and will continue protesting her no matter her position. The I-P conflict is pretty much a political black hole which will drown out discussion for any other topic and no nuance or reasonable discussion can be had since words will only be twisted and meaning will be stretched to their most extreme positions to the point you'll only manage to turn off Jewish voters and Muslim voters.47.187.120.15 (talk) 20:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

"Anything less than the destruction of Israel." Rhetoric like this makes me think you're not as unbiased as you present yourself as. You also are nutpicking here. "Far-left amti-electoralist types." You conspicuously leave out the mention of 700k people who participated in the electoral process. You also ignore the existence of antizionist Jews, since that's contradictory to your narrative.

"Extreme position" like stop supplying weapons to a state while knowing that those weapons will be used deliberately on civilians. Defending the indefensible is usually something looked down upon here, but when it comes to Palestine it's openly tolerated. Poisoning the well, nutpicking, equivocation, PRATTs. Nothing we haven't seen before, and almost always refuted. Carthage (talk) 21:51, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

So you deny that there have been attacks on Jewish people by association for Israel and that flags of terrorist entities have been flown without resistance? You deliberately use "nutpicking" as a defense not because it applies, but as a tool to deny the worst parts of the movement which are tolerated in the name of solidarity (What happened to, "If there are ten people at a table and a nazi is allowed to sit with them and not be ejected, there are ten nazis at the table."). And those 700K people are not a monolith who'll vote in lock-step with orders from on high. The great majority of people aren't voting solely on Palestine, only a small contingent are assuming they even regularly vote.47.187.120.15 (talk) 22:25, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

There have been literal Nazis engaged in pro-Israel counterprotests. People have been shot on the street for simply wearing a keffiyeh. Children have been murdered for the "crime" of being Palestinian. Here. In the US. Does that mean that everyone on the pro-Israel side is a Nazi? You wouldn't apply that logic because you maintain a double standard. The pro-Palestinian movement has taken active steps to disavow these Nazis. I don't see the pro-Israel side doing that. Carthage (talk) 04:00, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Those are bad, but the difference is there was actually a negative response to those actions, those people were arrested and charged for their actions, plus, they didn't do it with the support of a group, they did it in lone wolf style attacks (The man who tried to burn the Synagogue in France with everyone inside had a palestinian flag on him, but I don't associate with the protest since France has had a violent Islamist problem for awhile now). Meanwhile, I have yet to hear anyone from the pro-palestinian side condemn those who come to their protests to support Hamas and Hezbollah or even Islamism as you claim even though there's video evidence of people conducting themselves as such in the middle of the protest without any pushback (and in fact, support). I don't expect them to condemn every action as it comes out, but doing anything to make it known on the ground those people aren't welcome would change my mind a lot more than just denying they're a problem.47.187.120.15 (talk) 21:37, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

@Carthage @47.187.120.15 Can you two please cite your sources? Not only do I doubt this conversation will go anywhere without citing sources, but I haven't heard of any of this in the news, and I'm curious (Also, Carthage, can you share your source for the 'well, I will point out that Netanyahu has no interest in freeing the hostages' claim, too?). TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 22:53, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

This particular protest really soured my opinion of the protestors since I haven't heard any condemnation for what happened here. Plus actions like these have shown that plain antisemitism is a prominent part of the movement, and that's not even covering all the vandalism to Jewish memorials and Synagogues blaming them for what's happening in Gaza. Plus, you have groups that celebrate the violence and threaten to upgrade to terrorism against fellow Americans, and rather than shutting that down, they're either okay with it and don't do anything or they boost it like the fellow organizations did here. I don't care if you have some newspeak, "double-meaning" way of downplaying it, that's a pretty bad look when you threaten to, "Bring The War Home."47.187.120.15 (talk) 00:00, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

@47.187.120.15 I will look into these later, but just as a heads up, I wouldn't use Jpost/Jerusalem Post as a source, given how they've recently written a puff piece on a book by George Gilder, co-founder of the Discovery Institute, suggesting that anti-Semitism stems from jealousy over Jews' higher IQs, and have previously written an article suggesting that 'Genetic Jews' are the only real Jews (something which, as far as I'm aware, isn't a position held in any branch of Judaism); The other sources appear to be reliable, however. TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 10:57, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

@Cirrus, the hostage families themselves say such things. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cjdkyyn1lr4o / https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/netanyahu-speech-congress-israel-hostage-families-gaza-hamas-rcna163581

Netanyahu told them he won't agree to a deal unless it polls well for him politically: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/israel-hamas-war-hostage-deal-netanyahu-polls-families-rcna154841

He has two strong disincentives to accept any deal: (1), Itamar Ben-Gvir repeatedly threatens to collapse his governing coalition if he does so. (2), If (1) happens, Netanyahu could be punished for past corruption, which he changed the court system to avoid. Chillpilled (talk) 00:02, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

@47.187.120.15 Weak shit. Citing a few news articles here and there to support your point is just merely anecdotal evidence. I could cite an equal number of articles about Muslims being discriminated against. Notice that you are only citing Western news sources, which are more likely to support Israel's genocidal narrative that pro-Palestinian supporters are pro-Hamas. Hundreds of journalists have criticized Western media coverage of the Israel-Hamas war [3]. It is very likely that pro-Palestinian protesters who are pro-Hamas are more visible than pro-Palestinian protesters who do NOT support Hamas simply because of media bias. It is a simple known fact that what you see in the media does not always reflect reality. I am not denying that pro-Hamas Palestinian protesters exist; I am saying that those protesters could simply be disproportionately visible relative to the total number of pro-Palestine supporters. An actual decent scientific study to support your point would be to calculate (# of pro-Hamas Palestinian supporters)/(Total # of Palestinian supporters) and (# of pro-Netanyahu Israeli supporters)/(Total # of Israeli supporters), and compare the two numbers; if the former is greater than the latter, then you win. 45.67.97.67 (talk) 02:35, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Give it whatever label you like and claim whatever conspiracy theory you want, I've shown you the Pro Hamas and Hezbollah types are often tolerated and even boosted whenever they show up and despite asking for something showing that they aren't welcome, you can't show it. You can go ahead and dismiss it, but if you want to know why a lot of the people are against the protestors, that's a major reason.47.187.120.15 (talk) 09:11, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ This is anecdotal evidence, so feel free to dismiss it, but I know for a fact that the pro-Palestine circles I am a part of would condemn this behavior coming from the protesters if it was brought up, and the only reason they may not have done so is because they aren't aware of it; The other BoN does have a point that the perceived presence of pro-Hamas protesters in campuses is heavily amplified by the media due to being covered many times more than the actually sane ones, as a natural consequence of how the news cycle works. TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 11:05, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Thousands of Palestinians are held without charge by Israel, and rape and torture of Palestinian detainees has been normalized in Israel. Man charged after shooting three people for wearing keffiyeh in New Hampshire. A Palestinian-American boy was stabbed 26 times by his landlord for the "crime" of being Palestinian. His mother couldn't attend the funeral because she was stabbed too. The "March for Israel" rally invited prominent antisemites, who were a key feature of the event. That same rally featured a speech by Israeli President Isaac Herzog calling the civilians of Gaza a "legitimate target." Cries for genocide of Palestinians could also be heard in that event. Carthage (talk) 13:39, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Not only has she reversed her position on single-payer healthcare, she has also reversed her support on a fracking ban ([4]). Well, Harris certainly had us fooled. What a fucking piece of shit. By the way, 73% of Democrats support universal healthcare ([5]) while the piece of shit nominee we didn't vote for doesn't. She's really throwing the Democratic base to the wolves to court the Trump vote. Carthage (talk) 13:10, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

So vote Trump who will also do all the things you're worried about? Capitulation isn't exactly surrender in federal platforming. I would rather fight a Harris/Walz administration on these issues than a Trump/Vance. Torrent (talk) 02:46, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Please point to where I said I'd vote for Trump over Harris. Carthage (talk) 08:57, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I didn't say you'd vote Trump, I'm saying the abyss of independent voting is limited, you have a solid reason to not vote Harris, I respect that. Do you have a better reason to vote third party? Torrent (talk) 05:03, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

https://youtu.be/DgsiRWQ9eHU?feature=shared (not using the song as an endorsement, it just reminds me of the first time I actualized my political philosophy) Voting for the lesser of two evils matters on a federal level for sure. Torrent (talk) 03:40, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Mega-WTF

I just found… this thing on Twitter. Words fail me. Luigifan18 (talk) 20:54, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

It's mentioned in the Ray Comfort Rationalwiki page under the "child beating" section. It's a 10 year old hoax. BobJohnson (talk) 21:01, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

…Oh. Poe's Law strikes again! Luigifan18 (talk) 15:40, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

US Election Update: 2 Months Remaining

Time goes by fast, doesn't it, and it's already September. Any comments on the events that happened in August, and comments on possible events that may happen for the final two months before the elections? TheEternalOutsider (talk) 21:49, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree with many of the grievances made in the 'I am kind of disappointed by this electoral cycle' thread, but otherwise, I'm still cautiously confident that Kamala will win, and wholeheartedly support her (Even if it may be just because the alternative is worse.) TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 21:55, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

From as impartial a view as I can muster, I think Trump is floundering, but clearly not 'out' yet. Harris seems to have been a wicked choice in retrospect because it's becoming clear that not only is the Orange One triggered by her but his own prejudices is distorting his judgement to the extent I'm starting to suspect he is unable to see Harris as a credible threat. Throw in the needling and the mockery and it's putting stresses on a mind which again, I am now starting to suspect is 'no longer up to code'.

Which is why Harris wants the live mikes in the debates now; they want America to see Orange One v2024 - rambling about sharks and bacon, venting at invisible enemies, whining about bollocks, wanting medals for surviving hypothetical dangers and with the chance his self-control is so shot he might even drop an epithet or two out of exasperation of having to put up with Harris' sheer physical proximity and voice.

There are, in my opinion three major threats. One, Trump 'gets it together' and more importantly, finds some new angles and attack lines. Two, the 'Harris surge' fizzles out and thirdly a level of 'shy Trumpers' is higher than predicted, throwing the polls out ie a repeat of '16.

Kennedy's quitting I think will benefit Trump ultimately; he is not that far away from worm-brain in the tinfoil hat rantings. But even here there is a risk; that by pandering to these crazies, Trump drives off some more disgusted Republican waverers. KarmaPolice (talk) 00:07, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

It's highly unlikely that tRump will change his M.O. after all these decades. He has always lacked the capacity. Unusually, RFK actually just sued North Carolina to get himself off the ballot. NC is not even a battleground state, so it seems to be a wasted effort at this point. The three horsexcrement of the the apocalypse, tRump, Vance and RFK, seem to lack any capacity to stop doing the same stupid self-harming shit that they've always done. Bongolian (talk) 03:50, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

From a bimonthly dinner with my family, my mom is a Nikki Haley woman. She is a post 60 year old woman, who was also a teacher. She doesn't like Tim Walz, she like Nikki Haley. She is okay with Kamala, phew. But she really thinks Nikki Haley would stand up to project 2025. And it's very normal, NPR listenin grammas like Nikki Haley. Very lucky Haley wasn't the candidate and they dislike Trump. Torrent (talk) 06:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

The issue is that Trump doesn't need to change his MO, so to speak - he merely needs to rediscover some of his focus and self-restraint (these have never been strong in him, but v2016 had some). On the other hand he has never taken instruction well and to change tack requires him to listen to 'the haters'. In this, I think the only person who could persuade him is Ivanka - and even then it would perhaps require her to scare him into it ('Daddy, if you don't win this the Deep State will destroy you!') - being 'the underdog' again might galvanise him just enough to pull him back together. But this whole episode is starting to remind me of that old proverb - 'those the Gods wish to destroy they first send mad'.

The other risk is that of complacency. One of the things with Biden's victory was that he managed to get a lot of usually non-voters out for him (but even then, not all - my guestimate that 40% went for Trump as he did get 11m more votes than in '16). If Harris can't persuade them to turn out, there's gonna be trouble (though again the Orange One's base isn't doing that great either). KarmaPolice (talk) 10:32, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I already wrote out my grievances with the Harris/Walz campaign. As a side note, I'm not sure Harris will manage to get the turnout she needs TBH. Already the enthusiasm she had in July and early August is starting to peter out. She's signaling herself as just another Biden, when people are desperate for change. Carthage (talk) 10:45, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I've seen recent polling that some 65% of Americans think 'the country is on the wrong track'. If we discount about 35% who think any leader without (R) after their name is 'on the wrong track', this still leaves some 30% 'persuadables' which need to be won over to an improved vision of the future. That's got to be remembered. KarmaPolice (talk) 11:59, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I mean, when Trump keeps talking more and more about his plans for Christian fascism, i honestly dout the dems will need to do much. Also, man, you think this site was patriots.win how some are so sure Trump has it 2001:569:FDC9:AB00:5C66:33C6:3D7D:5925 (talk) 12:40, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

The problem with these sort of discussions in this forum in this time is we have a few grumpy activist sorts who have their pet issues; unfortunately, they are not really important to the general electorate at this time, so they are probably disappointed that they aren't being addressed. One of these activist sorts for instance just posted that enthusiasm is waning. This contradicts a poll posted four days ago by Gallup that said that 78% of Democrats are enthusiastic about voting. This almost matches the enthusiasm of the Democratic primary of 2008 (79%). So either Gallup is wrong or the activist is wrong; I have a feeling which one it is.

If I had to guess of what is driving this enthusiasm, I imagine that some of this is pure optics -- a minority woman and a folksy Midwest VP, running a relatively "sunny" presidential campaign compared to Trump's doom and gloom. Some of this frankly is the natural consequence of the big age gap -- Kamala and Tim are nearly 20 years younger and as such is able to better attack the Republican fascism-wannabe shit like Project 2025. And some of this is the Republicans going all Handmaid's Tale on sexual issues / abortion (an issue that Trump knows is costing him votes, as evidenced by his recent waffling on how he'll vote on this issue in Florida). Things like the Middle East shitshow frankly aren't big concerns among most voters, from what I see (and with Bibi currently under huge pressure, maybe even that issue will go away before the election for all we know.) Will this enthusiasm last? Who knows... and yeah, it's still a close election. But c'mon.

Also, in my opinion, say what you will about neoliberalism, but that is not what drives Trumpism. Racism and other "minority discontent" is what drives that side. Even now, most surveys I see put "immigration" as either the #1 or #2 concern of Republicans. Behind the scenes among the plutocrats, methinks Trumpism is driving a Republican shift from neoliberalism to authoritarian capitalism, but the general voter really doesn't know that. BobJohnson (talk) 15:30, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Where do you think that "minority discontent" comes from? What are people blaming minorities for? It's almost always based out of fears of economic insecurity. "Dey took ur jerbs!" exists because immigrants are a convenient scapegoat for corporate outsourcing. Who's the one pushing those narratives? Conveniently funded by the plutocrats in question benefiting from outsourcing jobs. Neoliberalism still causes the economic problems and fears that minorities get blamed for. It's as KP said: Trump rode the wave of the failures of neoliberalism. A Trumpian figure was almost inevitable. Also 700k people voted uncommitted. The DNC gave those 700k voters the middle finger. If Kamala loses in 2025 you know who's gonna get blamed? Uncommitted. You know what happens if she wins? You liberals are gonna crow that the Harris/Walz campaign didn't need the progressive and uncommitted vote. It's the same story every four years. Doesn't it get tiresome? Even if the number of people who are disenchanted with Harris is a minority overall, due to how our system works if those people form a sizeable number of the electorate in key places like Michigan and Virginia? That's gonna have a real impact on the election. You conveniently forget that. Carthage (talk) 15:50, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I mean, sure, but the fallout of neoliberalism itself is what got us Trump. Populism flourishes when the people are discontent. More of the same will just guarantee us more struggle in the future. Not that even during the four years of Biden the struggle brought about by Trump ever went away. If the Dems think they can put the genie back in the bottle they're sorely mistaken. We live in a post-normal age. It's time we got on with the times and embraced post-normal, post-neoliberal politics. The right understands this. The politics of old are unsustainable. Of course, when institutions are invested in ensuring the status quo, which gives them their power, continues, at the cost of sustainability, you're never gonna see change from the inside. That's why I think populism and activism are important. To force change, when power proves unwilling to adapt to changing times. Carthage (talk) 12:59, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

@KarmaPolice, I think Trump may continue to worsen in terms of self-control and focus, becoming his own greatest obstacle. It's sounded over August as if he's become lost in confused, emotionally charged wishful thinking, resulting in a string of little media own-goals. Then recently the Arlington cemetery drama, and then even more recently, saying on Fox in passing, inviting new legal scrutiny, that he had every right to interfere in the 2020 election, while remarking on how the latest indictment boosts his poll numbers. What other wacky moves may follow? --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 13:11, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I think Carthage hits the nail on the head - that the mainline Democrats need to stop trying to keep neoliberalism alive and start sketching out it's successor. Trump 'rode the wave' of the failures of the neolib era, he did not make this wave - it only looked like it did because you did not want to hear the warnings. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

A left-wing alternative to neoliberalism brings to mind moving in a general social democrat direction, at least some. That seems straightforward in theory. But the American public continues to staunchly believe that the more right-wing economics is, the more sound it is. Trump economics mainly just deepens the neoliberal groove, while the PR differs. And I have no idea whether or not the American public would be willing to accept any significant economic steps to the left, or whether it would bring about a mass outcry rejecting it as 'too radical' and 'communism'. But this is the kind of impression I have of American politics as someone not there.

And maybe economic campaigning doesn't matter, really, in a climate where a mixture of culture war, charisma, and impression of 'strength' seemingly wins or loses everything. (Meaning, whoever wins through that decides the economics which decides the future political landscape in turn.) I think Trump may lose because he's getting too old and just can't be like he was in 2016. But the general vein of such politics will, I agree, live on; new charismatic leaders may replace Trump when he's out of the game and no longer hogging all the attention. So long-term fresher alternatives to the old politics will be needed to compete with right-wing populism. It also remains to see whether or not a further round of "party switch" happens, in which the Democrats become the new pre-Trump Republicans, and the new Republicans just swap out Trump for someone else of a similar bent, who knows. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 13:56, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

That's why activism is necessary to affect real change. You don't start out with a "silent majority" that's simply too afraid to speak. You need to build that majority. All movements start out as fringe, but by sustained activism, sustaining pressure, raising awareness, and organizing; they begin to build momentum, to build a majority. That's why Nazis will fight tooth and nail to claim any platform they can get their hands on. They know that without a platform they are nothing more than voices lost in the wilderness of obscurity. Carthage (talk) 14:05, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Or glibly put - 'the Democrats need to rebuild their political machines'; ward heelers, precinct captains and bosses. The Religious Right has shown how it can be done. But the problem is that from as far as I can tell the establishment Dems don't want a mass party, instead relying on appeals to managerialism, a a clutch of wealthy donors and a passive democracy where we only turn out to vote when required. KarmaPolice (talk) 15:07, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Democratic political machines were not a good thing, bringing us Tammany Hall, Frank Rizzo and Richard J. Daley. They probably can't be rebuilt anyway. Bongolian (talk) 16:31, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Those ones were not. Does that mean the principle of political machines is bad - hell no! To have semi-professional activists all year round, building up voter blocks - rather than just election time. Finding out their hopes and dreams, those little bugbears which if sorted will convince them that the Democrats do give a toss about us. To convince us they are us. That isn't it a good idea to elect others like us to positions of power, to get shit done? That if a senior politico turns up, we can get out the base? KarmaPolice (talk) 19:30, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

But the absolute dumbest way to express that is to either vote Trump or not vote. I am a registered indepedent, I want to appeal to authority here. The fuck do you think is a worse administration? Independent, it's gonna be Democrat or Republican? And I get, the 'devil you know' weird support of right wing, but they are liars too. Who do you want to be possibly responsible for their lies? How is this difficult? They can both be bad, but you gotta pick one, and you're confused? Sell me a Republican that isn't weird. Torrent (talk) 10:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Again, who here is suggesting to vote for Trump or not vote at all? While I won't be shamed to vote any way other than my conscience, as I don't owe any politician my vote, they should work to appeal to me as a part of the electorate, I am still going to vote for Harris this time around. You can vote for Harris while also working on building a sustainable movement. It's no wonder America is in the rut it's in since all that's expected out of its citizenry is to show up and vote for a curated selection of candidates every two-to-four years. A politically unengaged citizenry is the death knell of any democracy. Carthage (talk) 14:51, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I call this a 'passive democracy' - where all we are expected to do is trot out and vote at the appropriate times. And this is where machines come into play; that human populations are too big for elected officials to even notice the individual voter, let alone interact with them now. That the 'political machine' goes out to find 'groups of voters' which then can be communicated with and in return, activists build machines of their own so the political one realises that there is a body of X viewpoint within their constituency and y'know, it might be a good idea to try to appeal to them? KarmaPolice (talk) 15:37, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ GOD. FUCKING. DAMN IT. TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 04:07, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Wonder how that measures up to this. Chillpilled (talk) 06:29, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

It isn't really a surprise to anyone that's paid attention to her record that Harris was a scummy prosecutor. Carthage (talk) 16:03, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I Am Against the Death Penalty

I'm against it for a really easy reason. If the death penalty is delivered even once by mistake, it is state sanctioned murder. I want to trust the institutions I live with to, at the very least, not murder people. There is not a statistic in my mind that allows for a .001 percent of innocent people found guilty by mistake. I've had this argument a hundred times before face to face. I am against the death penalty. Statistics only mean it can be done to an innocent person, and one innocent person killed by mistake is fucking gross.Torrent (talk) 10:57, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree for a lot of reasons. Life in prison is a harsher sentence. I don't think the State should have the power to kill someone, either. Plus it's ultimately more expensive to execute someone than to imprison them for life. All this being said, if you're going to be executed and you have a choice of how, a firing squad is the best method. It's the quickest and least painful method, since getting hit by several rounds will completely destroy your organs. IntrepidSkeptic (talk) 12:42, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

See the UK examples (Timothy Evans, Derek Bentley, the Guildford Four, to some extent Ruth Ellis, and the changing views of Albert Pierrepoint are often referenced).

If the death penalty 'worked' (by making people think again) its application would be much more limited. (War Crimes, and certain cases of 'persistent and long term malicious activity that can be described as being evil' etc are in a different category.) Anna Livia (talk) 13:10, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Why should we have life imprisonment anyways? That seems to me to be just as cruel as the death penalty, and also a drain on resources. Even other countries tend to, when instituting life imprisonment sentences, have fixed terms that do not equal an entire lifetime. Carthage (talk) 13:13, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

The main problem with the death penalty is not that states sometimes kill the wrong person. Though it's obviously terrible when that happens. The arguments against are already in our article on the topic.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 13:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Hard disagree. There are some truly heinous people out there, and they deserve to rot in prison for the rest of their lives. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 14:28, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I think one can agree that separation from the general population is a necessary evil for some people, while also acknowledging that at the same time the current carceral system we have is irredeemable as an institution. Carthage (talk) 14:36, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion, life in prison is a form of death penalty. As they say in the business of animal shelters, no kill is slow kill. 71.208.249.110 (talk) 14:38, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Being subject to the American penal system is a fate worse than death for many people. Carthage (talk) 14:39, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, and the thing about life in prison is it is often used as a cheap excuse not to have the rigorous appeals that happen in death penalty cases. How many people spent almost their entire lifetime in prison only to be cleared when they are old, or worse after they have died? Life sentences should get the same appeal process as death penalty cases. 71.208.249.110 (talk) 14:42, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

What's truly evil is that we subject minors to this fucking shit. Look up the "Kids for Cash" scandal and its aftermath. People's lives have been ruined for shit as petty as making a page on Myspace making fun of a school principal. Carthage (talk) 14:44, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

The criminal justice system in the United States punishes the mentally ill and the falsely accused more than the dangerous criminals it should be punishing. For the former, US prison (and the criminal record that follows it) is devastating, for the latter it's just their way of life. 71.208.249.110 (talk) 14:53, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh and another ridiculous thing about the US justice system is it is pay to play. If you have money, you can sue anybody who harms you in anyway, and you can enjoy everything the Constitution has to offer when you're accused of something. If you don't have money, you're only hope of winning a lawsuit is if it is such a slam dunk that attorneys will gladly take it as a "no victory, no fee" case, and you better hope you don't get sued or arrested, as this site is finding out with its current legal issues. 71.208.249.110 (talk) 14:59, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Behind the Bastards had a really good episode on that scandal. Sadly, as is often the case, there was no true justice in the end. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGkvl02xdOE IntrepidSkeptic (talk) 17:41, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

You'd probably like FD Signifier's video on the subject of criminal justice: [6] Carthage (talk) 17:57, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Unpopular opinion - life imprisonment with zero hope of parole is in fact 'cruel and unusual punishment'. They have nothing to really live for, no prospect that if they truly 'reform' they'll ever get out. If we have a fair and just legal system [which is a big condition, I get that] and it decides with a near-certainty that they're guilty and the conviction carries 'life with no parole' the death penalty should be considered. There are some people who simply cannot be rehabilitated and/or have committed crimes so heinous that the public is unanimous that they never wish to see or hear from this person ever again. What's more, there are the rare occasion where the prisoner is simply too dangerous to leave alive - I am thinking here of huge crime bosses and politically-motivated terrorist leaders, folks that even if in solitary forever would have 'power' in the outside world and minions etc actively trying to break them out etc. KarmaPolice (talk) 23:12, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Not unpopular with me. IMO life without parole or death could be for those cases where there is NO DOUBT about guilt for particularly heinous crimes...... not just guilty "beyond all reasonable doubt" - which still allows some doubt. Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 03:52, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

i am failing to imagine a scenario where someone would be too dangerous to leave alive. criminal organisations still function after the loss of its head to prison cell. their underlings are usually capable and more than willing to step up. no matter how loyal their underlings were and how determined they to still be boss, the ability to run their criminal business is going to be severely curtailed even under the best circumstances. the same applies to terrorist leaders. terrorist organisations are probably even more resistant to the loss of their leaders. terrorist cells often work independently from one and other and the members fanatical to their cause. trying to actively break out the leader from prison is not really a viable threat in the developed world. if it were, better security is the answer there hostage taking of course does occur, but would also if their leader was alive in prison, dead, or alive and at large. i would require far more details for these allowances for a death penalty to be valid.

as for life imprisonment being cruel and unusual punishment. in reality it is just cruel punishment and is pretty usual. but that need not be so. prison reforms are required to fix this problem. execution as a mercy to the condemned is not. i see no reason why life without parole cannot be managed in way that is not a form of unbearable torture. a life in prison is and probably a limited life than one on the outside, limited does not mean worthless or hopeless. the problem is often of public perception. anything that treats prisoners with even the hint of human decency or grants them the smallest of comforts is a public outrage, cue prison is like a hotel hysteria. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:37, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I do think an important note of context about "heinous offenders" is that most sexual assaults go unreported, and many murders go unsolved. Most sexual assaults that are reported don't go to trial. Is the system really protecting people from these heinous offenders? Ask anyone who's reported a case of sexual assault to the police how they were treated. They tend to be traumatized by the police. Most people here don't seem to really interact with the criminal justice system on any real basis. So I think a lot of the narratives being spread here should be questioned. We are a skeptical wiki, ostensibly, but we're not subjecting due skepticism to these traditional hegemonic narratives. That's interesting. Carthage (talk) 18:12, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

the many failures of the justice system in the handling of sexual assault cases are for most part somewhat irrelevant to the current discussion on the death penalty. if not for anything else the many difficulties in getting such cases to trial or even getting victims to report such crimes are all occurring before anyone convicted of such crimes needs to worry about the ethics of capital punishment. 18:43, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

That's true, but this thread has been meandering into many different points of conversation already. I was simply commenting on a comment that was expressed earlier. You trying to get the thread back on track? Carthage (talk) 18:46, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

not especially but sgetting justice for the victims of sexual assault is probably a meander to far and topic that would not be given justice in this current thread. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:08, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

one criticism against the death penalty which i do not think is covered in our article concerns plea deals that seem a feature of us justice(it might not even be valid criticism, its just a thought thats popped into my head and sounds like it definitely happens). if i was a poorly educated minority with shitty legal representation, and i was being rail roaded for a crime i did not do, i might be convinced more easily to confess to committing i was being framed for if the police were telling me if i didnt and went to trial i would get the chair but go easy if i did and only send to me to prison for life without parole. especially if your shitty lawyer is telling you take the deal or they will kill you. forever in jail for something you didnt do or death, i might take jail. i can at least hope to appeal or someone will prove my innocent later down the line, but if a trial goes badly and its death, even with years before its carried out, i still might not live to see my name cleared. take the threat of a death penalty out the equation for extracting my confession, plea that reduces my sentence from forever to maybe i can some semblance of life when i get out, if i were innocent i still might risk it for my day in court. it might not even go to court if the police were pinning all their hopes of confession. the threat of a death penalty makes getting a confession that much easier.

or maybe it doesnt. just a thought i hadAMassiveGay (talk) 19:13, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Cool take. Torrent (talk) 08:10, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

RFK was murdered in 1968. His murderer, Sirhan Sirhan, was sentenced to death. The sentence was commuted to Life after the penalty was banned in NYS. Recently, however, there have been talks about giving him parole.

RFK was not some nobody; there was a strong chance that had he lived, he would've been elected to the presidency in the 1968 election. Instead, Nixon won. Sirhan forver altered global politics as a result of his actions. Yet there are talks about parole, because most of the people alive today were not around in 1968. If his victim had been some nobody, like your father or your sister, he likely would've been released years ago.

I don't like the idea of executions. I also don't like the idea of murderers being allowed to go free. If you can't guarantee me that the guy you sentenced to life in prison is going to stay there, then, well, I'm going to support the other option. CorruptUser 17:30, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

A significant chunk of murders go unsolved anyway. If the goal of the carceral system is rehabilitation, and not, say, profit, then it makes no sense to keep people penned up like livestock for decades at taxpayer's expense. Of course, if you have a financial incentive to keep people locked up for as long as possible and do everything in your power to encourage recidivism.... then you get the fucked-up system we have now. One argument you can use against the death penalty that may appeal to you is that a significant portion of people currently on death row are innocent. That right there is one incentive to not use the death penalty. Carthage (talk) 18:10, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

What in the world of alternative medicine is this bullshit?

I stumbled across this clusterfuck when researching a particular person of RationalWiki interest, the first thing I notice is .com instead of .edu. It's apparently a full fledged non-accredited university dedicated to alternative medicine horseshit (it at least doesn't appear to be an outright diploma mill where you pay a fee for a piece of paper). Worthy of an article? 71.208.249.110 (talk) 14:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I feel nauseous discovering how much pseudoscientific garbage fellow Canadians are generating and buying into. Read a recent news story about a public university in British Columbia planning on offering a degree in traditional Chinese medicine; an Ontario college previously also had plans to offer a degree program for homeopathy. It's upsetting. I blame trouble with Canada's healthcare system as implemented by the different provinces for the increase in such nonsense. For example BC's system use to be fee-for-service, where doctor's were paid a flat rate per patient visit, which can be problematic if a patient needed more time with the doctor for things to be explained and addressed adequately (as doctors were inclined to quickly go through patient visits to obtain good pay). In other provinces like Alberta, it seems the conservative provincial governments are intentionally degrading the quality of healthcare to push privatization. Impiricism (talk) 18:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

One of the faculty members of this "university", Joseph Dispenza, is mentioned in an article on a 2004 quantum woo film. Looking at the rest of the faculty list, it contains quite a number of other charlatans and cranks RW covers, such as Bruce Lipton and (name redacted via bullshit lawsuit) *cough* on staff, and guest speakers like David Wolfe and Masaru Emoto. Worthy of an article? If one can find enough information on this "university", certainly. BobJohnson (talk) 20:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Got linked to the Wikipedia page for a Jane Roberts while browsing content for Joseph Dispenza. The lady appears to have gotten mildly famous and wealthy for her collection of writing called "Seth Material", where she claims to have been contacted by and channeled the consciousness of an energy being called "Seth". Got a good chuckle reading that a Christian talk show host at the time, John MacArthur, called The Seth Material "a book entirely written by a demon". It was the '60s; a much more mundane and likely explanation is drug use (LSD perhaps... timeline does match) and entrepreneurial creativity. Impiricism (talk) 21:38, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Apparently this university used to be called the "International Quantum University of Integrative Medicine" (at the very least, iquim.org in this article [7] redirects to the Quantum University web site). According to a 2007 Seattle Times article, the International Quantum University of Integrative Medicine was linked to Desiré Dubounet (née William Nelson in the Seattle Times article). Dubounet was the "inventor" of a quantum biofeedback bullshit thingy called "EPFX", and is currently "in exile" from the United States courtesy of fraud charges from the FDA stemming from said device. (The Seattle Times article describes how some people have died when they received treatments from people with bogus diplomas, so it seems like that some of the purpose of these type of places is to set up a bogus sort of credentialism to fool customers into thinking that the "holistic doctor" is somehow legitimate medicine.)

Incidentally, the Rationalwiki article on Dubounet is... quite cringe-y, I must say, in that 2000s era troll sort of way. BobJohnson (talk) 01:07, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Half of the content here is cringe-y, especially anything written in the old guard days. 71.208.249.110 (talk) 16:31, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I personally find it rather... interesting that this topic was raised by a BON which their other sole contributions have been regarding a lawsuit which involves the very [redacted] who is an instructor at this 'facility'. Esp when their contributions have generally been as constructive as someone pissing into a tent [which is saying something as I'm often the Eeyore]. KarmaPolice (talk) 22:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

It's not a coincidence, I found this "university" by plugging his name into a search engine. Now, had he founded the university, no way in heck I'd bring this up here, especially as a BoN in which his attorney could easily send a subpoena to Lumen and name me a defendant. I just saw this and immediately thought of RationalWikians like Rationalzombie who follow whack educational institutions. 71.208.249.110 (talk) 23:44, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Real universities do not list dead people (Masaru Emoto) as current faculty.[8] Bongolian (talk) 05:09, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Why do I get the feeling a lot of Qanon-tards fall for this place? 71.208.249.110 (talk) 16:10, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Quantum woo has from my perspective been more of a New Age thing, although the lines are blurry these days ("New Age" is like a peak hippie to 1980s term, has anything come along to replace it yet?) and QAnon does have a conspirituality side. Nonetheless, buzzwords like "holistic medicine", "wellness", "collective consciousness", "energy scans", "frequency medicine", and the like (as found on their Facebook page) leads one to envision this sort of thing. Given that the purpose of this place is diploma mill adjunct, it's basically for the type of person that wishes to market "wellness woo" to others. Sort of like how it's hard to think of why anyone would attend Liberty University unless they were heading into a career in the "fundie business". BobJohnson (talk) 00:05, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Comparing this joke of a university to Liberty University is like comparing a flattened Hot Wheels car to a Ford 150; a Ford 150 might not be one's personal choice of vehicle, but it will get one from A to B, likewise Liberty University or even Pensacola Christian College (since it became accredited with TRACS) might not be one's chosen institution of higher learning, but as an accredited university, one can use a degree from there to meet the educational requirements for a license or a job (a fair number of places don't care where you graduated from, as long as it's not from a diploma mill). In contrast, I have a feeling a degree from this Quantum University is as useful as a Hot Wheels car that's been run over by a garbage truck. 71.208.249.110 (talk) 14:41, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Also, a degree from a religious school (whether from Liberty, a catholic school, a Jewish school, etc) could be a strategic move because a lot of companies today are heavily vested in DEI initiatives, and religion is one of the protected classes. The same applies to historically black colleges and foreign higher learning institutions to an extent, in that such institutions stand out to employers looking to have a diverse workforce and might be more likely to contact those applicants. Things can also go the other way, but that can work to the applicant's advantage as well if they can build a case of discrimination. 71.208.249.110 (talk) 14:50, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Good Article, Suspect Site?

I have a little issue. I'm working on doing a total rebuild of the Technocracy page and have been looking for a good ref to show how WW1 helped create it. And I found one. Problem is, it comes from the Foundation for Economic Education who are politically biased. However, in this particular case the individual article is actually quite good [I've proof-read it], though admittedly not utterly devoid of flaws [has a couple of cases of loaded language etc].

How do you handle this issue? And what should I do about this? Don't blithely tell me 'find a more reliable source', because I've spent a good half-hour searching for one and come up empty-handed and while I could dig out a econ history book to quote, it's hardly an 'accessible' source, is it? Personally, I am inclined to use this ref and put in the talkpage that as a rule I wouldn't use FEE but in this individual case, believe the individual article is good. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:07, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

My opinion is, if something is reliable, then it's probably somewhere else. IMO we should avoid using the FEE as a source. They aren't among the worst libertarian think thanks, but that doesn't mean a lot. I can recognize some of the faces here[9] and while I respect some people on their staff I don't like most of them. I also don't like using opinion articles as sources, though I think I've used them before. That being said, I've seen people unironically using as a source CounterPunch, a site that was engaging in 9/11 conspiracy theories only a few of years ago[10] (though, to be fair, I don't think I've seen people using it in the last few years, now we have much higher standards and whoever use it would probably be reverted), so if you really think that the information is reliable and the author has at least some credentials, I don't think we can't use it. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 13:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

What part of 'Don't blithely tell me find a more reliable source' was confusing? I'm now on page 12 of a Google search and the next-best I've found is a rando group blog with no refs of their own, a three-sentence 'mention in passing' in a history revision guide for kids, a Quora question, a semi-stub ultimately from the Cato Institute or a couple of academic abstracts which kinda touch on this. I've taken a look at the appropiate WP pages to see if I could cite their refs, but they're all books. The key issue is that this isn't say, a news report or a public interest story, but a rather niche-y topic in economic history so there's not much choice going.

Which was the perhaps the 'general question' I wanted to discuss - the situations where the best online sources we can find for refs are from sources of somewhat suspect origin - for example, rando bloggers. One sticks in my mind from the past; that when I was doing 1997 United Kingdom general election I found said rando blog article which laid out 'Tory Sleaze' very well indeed and because it was in pre-internet era there was little direct reports to cite but it's too recent/niche to be covered as a historical matter. Ultimately, I elected to use it and be prepared to justify it's inclusion later on if someone questioned it. KarmaPolice (talk) 14:10, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

For history articles, I've found the following sources worth scanning to see if they have useful docs:

A) The Internet Archive. You won't find too many up-to-date books here, but there's a lot of old history books to thumb through. General public accessibility is not a problem.

B) JSTOR -- a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary sources. For the vast majority of their articles, their terms IMHO are quite generous -- for personal accounts, a registered individual can read up to 100 articles online for free every 30 days. That's usually *more* than adequate to help source an article, if the sources are there. (The locked articles, however, are frustrating, though apparently you can get access to even these via some institution logins.)

C) On occasion, Google book previews offer enough "meat" to be useful as a link. (Not often, though, sadly.)

D) (Sigh) The pirate seas. Specifically, Z Library for newer scholarly books and Sci Hub for scientific papers (the later not as useful for history stuff.) As long as the legit "digital library" options are as incomplete as they are, that's what we got. Obviously, if you've got a good library nearby (like what you have in a university), you'd use that.

I consider sources from (A), (B), and (C) very easy to access, so I think they are far preferable to "gate kept" sources (such as what you find in (D)) that you either have to truck over to your university library or put on your pirate hat to read. But sometimes there is no choice. BobJohnson (talk) 15:29, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's that clear cut. WP does for example get that sources can be 'uneven' in reliability - that [for example] the Jewish Chronicle is less reliable when reporting left-wing antisemitism claims or covering the Israel-Palestine issue - I would also add The Guardian [suspect: trans issues] and Morning Star [suspect: foreign news]. And there is a difference between 'bias' and 'reliability' - MFC itself does note that the EDD might be 'mostly factual' but then goes on to note it's got a libertarian bias and can't be trusted on global warming. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:01, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I did point out that there is a lot of nuance here. What I find laughable is that many organizations like the BBC or The Times claim to be objective and free of political bias. But that's quite clearly bullshit just by reading the headlines. Look at the bias in headlines about Yemen and Ukraine, and then tell me how this is objective reporting. Carthage (talk) 18:15, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Nothing is free of bias. The "problem" with sites like Counterpunch (and others of its ilk like National Review, Jacobin, etc.) is that they are editorial advocacy first, journalism second. These type of sites wear their bias on their sleeves, and consequently are much more prone to overly-emotive tones and language, which functions more as preaching-to-the-choir than solid reporting. This doesn't make them useless. If the factual aspect is good, these type of sites can be useful to reflect the paradigm of the community they target. But in writing articles, you can't *over-rely* on these type of sources, because they only have one viewpoint, as it may not be "the whole story" -- these sites tend to skip "the whole story" when the facts contradict their editorial narrative.

Now, this isn't advocating balance fallacies, as one side might be full of it. When a news source tends to go into pure bullshit territory, one should avoid the source entirely, methinks. A good example: National Review should *never* be cited as a source for anything on climate change, except for their noted climate change denialism instances being symptomatic of a larger anti-science bias within the Republican Party.

Mainstream media of course has its issues. American media has been IMHO poor for a *long* time on foreign stories (this includes the New York Times), so no surprise about them giving poor coverage of Yemen. I also think that since the Internet age, overall, American papers have declined in their ability to report information in a relatively sober manner; news agencies like AP and Reuters tend to be better sources than the NYT or Washington Post these days. BobJohnson (talk) 19:56, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

@BobJohnson I'm not sure about National Review but I don't think it's fair to compare Jacobin with Counterpunch. Jacobin has written some horrible shit and doesn't mind supporting dictators as long as they are leftists. CP on the other hand said that the US government is behind 9/11 and that "most peasants accepted the collective farms and worked well in them" in Ukraine under Stalin. These are not an opinions, these are things that didn't happen. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 20:09, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

William F. Buckley, the founder of National review, supported segregation. A somebody. (talk) 20:21, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Jacobin is Tankie? Damn. I thought they were reliable, but then again my only real interactions with them were using an article they made on Andy Ngo in an argument. TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 20:19, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

GeeJayK: I'm honestly less familiar with Counterpunch than Jacobin or National Review so it's possible that Counterpunch has published some crap over time I don't know about. Their Wikipedia article doesn't describe those issues but does described being fooled into posting several pro-al-Assad / pro-Russian pieces by a "Alice Donovan", which didn't exist. Ad Fontes rates Counterpunch poorly, but Media Bias/Fact Check rates them as "mostly factual". So... kind of mixed.

I wasn't able to find a Counterpunch 9/11 conspiracy article, but yeah, Holodomor denialism? Pretty nasty. So like National Review with climate change, I'm thinking that you have to be cautious of anything that looks tankie from this source.

TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan: Yeah, Jacobin can sometimes get tankie as well; the thing is, they *can* be reliable, you just have to know the "gotchas" when referencing them. BobJohnson (talk) 20:27, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't really trust the Washington Post to be bias-free or objective about worker unionization when its owner is literally Jeff Bezos. That's the kind of thing that sites like Ad Fontes and Media Bias/Fact Check don't really consider in their methodology. I'd rather a source that's open about its bias than one that's dishonest about not having one. Carthage (talk) 20:36, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

no news provider, online, on tv, or in print is ever free from bias nor are they free from getting things whether that is factually or the editorial line taken. bias is not a major issue generally, if the facts presented are accurate and the spin is not so egregious as to obscure the truth. consistly poorly facted articles are bad and when combined with egregious opinion the worst. i think there is real danger of righting of whole news networks, in particular the ones that a reputation for at least trying to be fair and balanced in their reporting, for one or missteps in their reporting no matter how egregious it may have been. this is a major problem these days with the proliferation of fake news and news channels who only present opinion as news. we should not over look mistakes from trusted sources, but we should not condemn them either, especially if they are receptive to criticism and to correct error. for more and more people all news is fake news and so will only to loudest partisan voices that say what they want to hear. some of the new providers i hear being attacked or dismissed on the strength of a few missteps saddens me. we dont know what we have got until it is gone, and we will miss greatly some of these new sources AMassiveGay (talk) 20:46, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I show the difference between 'bias' and 'reliability' in that with the former, you can still decipher the facts out of it with a sharp eye while the latter is 'making shit up territory'. And yeah, Media Bias people more into false reporting or sensationalistic reporting, rather the whole 'discreet silences' over topics that conflict with editorial policy [official or not]. It's even easier these days because much of the time it's not an editor 'refusing to publish' copy done by a subordinate but them merely 'declining to purchase' the article written by a freelancer. Journalists have to eat too and what's the point of spending all that time writing articles nobody shall pay you for?

And that Counterpunch article is truly shit. I'll grant them 'fair point' for one bit and 'plausible alternative interpretation' for one other but the rest of it is as believable as Trump's hair. KarmaPolice (talk) 20:56, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't quite get why my entry in the WIGO Clogosphere page (The one about Kamala and the Catholic Church) is getting downvoted

Is it because of the age of the article or the way I phrased it or something like that? This reaction actually kind of caught me by surprise tbh TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 22:19, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Because people will downvote entries they don't like as opposed to voting on the quality and relevance of the entry. Carthage (talk) 22:30, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Then why are people upvoting entries about Trump and Alt-Righters? Do we really have that many Nazi Lurkers here? TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 00:00, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Individual people can also votebomb entries. Just grab a VPN and keep switching IPs. Or have a bot do it for you. Carthage (talk) 00:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure who the hell would decide to singlehandedly vote bomb a RW WIGO entry of all things, let alone so damn slowly, but I guess we've seen crazier. TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 00:41, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

What Carthage said. This is also happening with most entries that speak bad about the IDF or Israel. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 22:37, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

What if we get rid of the downvotes on wigos? Don't like something? Don't vote. Just like Facebook and Twitter. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 23:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't really downvote. Don't see why we'd remove that one bit of interactive feedback we have though. Facebook and Twitter aren't so great. Chillpilled (talk) 08:29, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that most people here won't be on board with that. Also, Mass upvoting is as much of a problem as mass downvoting. Youtube is the perfect example of this. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 10:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

It places an non-ideal ally in some cases (to people usually unable to bring a criminal trial) though still one in others, against a victim creator both in his personal life and via policy. Someone he released from prison (a cocaine trafficker and murderer) has actually just been sentenced again, this time for assaulting his wife.

I have no idea if the explanation about victim privacy from Harris's old office holds up or not, though on principle (abuse victims > cops) I would lean towards believing SNAP about it. Though then, I look they'd been sued for defamation before. Which, getting entangled in defamation suits for something not even liable for criminal trial may have been something her office may not want to step in. Looking at an articles on one of those defamation cases, the SNAP leader actually says the Church people were trying to design questions posed to him in such a way as to identify victims. Chillpilled (talk) 00:28, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Didn't vote, but I think the text ("Kamala Harris allegedly actively covered up sexual abuse scandals within the Catholic Church when she was San Francisco's District Attorney.") doesn't match the AP article ("Victims question Kamala Harris’ record on clergy abuse") very well. It seems like the gist of the issue is Harris has refused to release certain San Francisco Archdiocese files relating to sex abuse cases to the media. Aside from the media, it looks like one other guy, an activist named Joey Piscitelli, has a beef with Harris on cooperating with releasing information to him as well, as his name comes up with multiple articles with the same theme, stretching over years. There's always a potential problem with "single source reporting" (same with the anecdote-style reporting you see everywhere these days), it's not very explorative. And IMHO it's a stretch to go from "we're not releasing information to the media at this point" to "actively covering up sexual abuse scandals". BobJohnson (talk) 14:09, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

why would people vote this wigo down? maybe they read the accompanying article. the only unquestionable fact given is kamala refused to release documents on ground of protecting victims identity. SNAP dispute the protection reasoning saying you just redact children names. that is so much bullshit. its so much more than redacting the names of victims. the can identified from everything recorded in the documents that give context, times, places, where people stood, and so much more, it probably would have been an impossible task given there were said to be thousands of documents. disputing the validity of protecting victim identities with nothing more than say 'All she had to do was redact any identifying information' then they have nothing. as if knowing this claim on its own was not enough, and it isnt, they claim kamalas refused imformal requests to help and was the only bay area da not to cooperate with snap. no details on what this all looked like. related to refusing to release documents? nothing especially egregious they could have enlightened us with. just the insistence she refused to help, and in their opinions she was not very good.

the only one thing they can say kamala did without any doubt was not release documents. the grounds given of protection of victims identities holds up. especially to why SNAP disputes it. no evidence is given for anything else claimed, and its mostly them saying kamala was rubbish and lots of catholics in kamalas district so you dont fuck with the church. there was no substance to this in 2019 when it first popped up and there appears to be nothing more added now its reappeared. but still 'kamala covers up child abuse in the catholic church' is' a headline that burns into credulous brains like a blowtorch AMassiveGay (talk) 16:49, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

it could also be getting downvotesw because its in elections, not clogsAMassiveGay (talk) 17:00, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

All fair points; Do I remove the entry or something? TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 17:05, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

i wouldnt worry it about unless the shame of a poorly received wigo is too much to bear, in which case the foreign legion could give you a fresh start. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:23, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

in which case the foreign legion could give you a fresh start.

Is this some in-joke I don't get? TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 18:32, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

its not an in joke, but it is a joke you apparently dont get. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:53, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Hyperbole. I would probably not remove the entry, it's salient to know this is going to be something talked about. I had heard a lot of dirt or purported dirt about her past back around 2019 during the primary, but not this. I was given an impression of her back then that she was some hardass prosecutor locking people up for petty crimes but I think that may have been a misrepresentation. By the way something similar happened to Ron DeSantis during the GOP primary, where they brought up this case. Chillpilled (talk) 20:52, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Reminds me of the one WIGO post I made about some (not all) parents of Texas' Uvalde School Shooting victims suing the publisher of the Call of Duty video games because of the classic " it's what caused the perpetrator to become violent!"; the WIGO entry got downvoted into oblivion for some reason. Impiricism (talk) 19:18, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I was surprised the entry I added to WIGO Blogs, a commentary against the COVID lab leak theory, had as many upvotes as it did (more than the amount of people I thought would even see it) considering only about 20 percent of Americans believe it was a zoonotic spillover at this point. I have to guess the fact it was a commentary in specifically a virologist journal had something to do with people being receptive. Chillpilled (talk) 20:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Ideological orientation of RationalWiki

So, what's your political ideology? Why am I interested? Just because it's fun to see where RationalWiki is (specifically) positioned on the political spectrum, by seeing the ideologies of different users. I'll ask those interested to identify with the following:

- Far-right

- Right-Libertarian

- Moderate Right-wing

- Conservative

- Conservative green

- Economic liberal

- Social-liberal/Third Way social-democrat

-Economically liberal/capitalist green

-Moderate Left-wing

-"Left-conservative"

-Populist/old-style social democrat

-Eco-socialist green

-Radical Left

-Left-libertarian/anarchist

-Far-left 80.187.75.10 (talk) 10:20, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

The phrase that initially read "So, beyond being atheist, what's your political ideology?" was changed later, because not all users of Rationalwiki are atheist. 2A01:E0A:A84:5C70:58C9:9A9:E011:7453 (talk) 20:50, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I have trouble clearly identifying with any label but I could hazard "left-libertarian" is probably the closest in ideals. But we live in a different society than I'd like, which may practically need evolutionary periods to get to an ideal. Providing someone a label to put on you is a great way to get them to psychologically box you in though, and expect things of you that you wouldn't intend. Someone might expect a "left libertarian/anarchist" to go live on a hippie commune instead of participating in this society. But that assumes various things of me that aren't true. Chillpilled (talk) 11:03, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Are AnPrims considered to be hippies aswell, since they don't participate with society either? Personally think they're batshit insane. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 11:20, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Probably some of them but I don't think you could call the Unabomber a hippie. Chillpilled (talk) 11:37, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I prefer this political compass. Even then, it has it's limitations. Most obviously, it's possible for someone to be economically progressive and socially conservative, or vice-versa. Lastly, I do try to write from an ideologically neutral POV when doing mainspace [not counting 'hating stupidity/dogmatic ideologes' as ideology here] - even if you tried to 'smoke me out' on what sources I use for refs, you'd partly be hit from selection bias aka I often end up resorting to BBC/Guardian refs not because I am ideologically in agreement with them, but because they're generally reliable, non-paywalled affairs which appear generally to be resistant to link rot. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:23, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Social democracy with American characteristics. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 13:57, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Assuming "atheist" as a description of every user is a bit simplistic and almost certainly wrong. For the rest - I really don't think that my (or anyone's) opinions can be put in neat little boxes. Ask about an issue and see what you get.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 14:02, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

For anyone confused by the reference to "Assuming atheist" the original question was "So, beyond being atheist, what's your political ideology?" After having been told that this assumption was incorrect the OP edited their question to remove that reference.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 18:05, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Use too many labels and you just end up looking like a Ben Garrison comic. I'd certainly consider myself left of center, though, both because reality has a well known leftist bias and because I want the maximum good for the maximum number of people, and this seems the best way to get it. IntrepidSkeptic (talk) 15:41, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I concur with Chill and Skeptic. Carthage (talk) 15:44, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Socialist, Progressive, and Theist, but questioning my faith. (PS: I don't see how being Atheist is a political ideology; Did you mean to make it come across that way, or is it just weird phrasing?) TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 17:07, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Weird phrasing. 2A01:E0A:A84:5C70:D825:D644:6E32:B3B0 (talk) 17:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

A certain proportion of RW regulars and occasionals are not US citizens and would assign different definitions to some of the entries. As for religious beliefs - there are likely to be several varieties of atheists, agnostics, theists, 'those choosing to be neutral while in the wiki, and at least some middling-strong believers (religious and political) who are looking for discussions. Anna Livia (talk) 18:52, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I tried to be generally vague. I'm not a US-American either, so I rather had concerns about US-American definitions. What entries specifically? For clarity, Liberal does not have the north-american meaning here, and "Economically liberal/capitalist green" is close to Die Grünen/Bündnis 90 in Germany, while "Eco-socialist green" is similar to the greens in France, the UK and the US. Radical Left is the type of parties between Third Way-style social democrats and the far-left. Thanks for the suggestions though, I removed atheist now. 2A01:E0A:A84:5C70:D825:D644:6E32:B3B0 (talk) 19:22, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Changing the initial question after people have responded to it is not the best way to go. It would be better to add a line clarifying/apologizing directly below the question so that the subsequent responses then make sense.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 19:28, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I'll go with "radical left" only because saying it makes me think of the amusing idea "radical left university professors indoctrinating our kids into the globalist cultural-Marxist LGBTQ+ agenda (oh noes!)". As others have pointed out, there can be a lot of fuzziness and uncertainty with declaring membership to one of those groups, or with the names of the groups themselves. Impiricism (talk) 20:22, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

it would be cowardice to not name yourself on the board, but I think the board itself is dumb. We are better without genres. I am not affiliated with any of that, but I can agree with the idea. The closest I would agree to is anarchist. But I'm not exactly that, so I think the question is bunk.Torrent (talk)

If you were to ask me in 2010, I'd be what was then called "the new Left". My politics haven't changed much since then, but the Democrats have gone off the deep end, so I guess I'm a "never Trumper" moderate-right. CorruptUser 17:32, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

@CorruptUser Can you explain why you think the Democrats have gone off the deep end? Just curious. TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 18:36, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

@CorruptUser Pinging you again since I think you didn't see it the first time. TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 04:25, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

A myriad of different ways. For starters, they've spent more than 3 years not only lying to my face about how senile Biden has gotten, but did everything to humiliate anyone who noticed, until it became blatantly obvious during the debate, and even then 1/3 of people were still so willfully blind that they thought Biden had won the debate. Even Jon Stewart was "both-sidesing" the debate, when clearly, the 25th amendment should've been used years ago. Worse than that, the media itself was running non-stop cover and propaganda for him, effectively defeating the entire purpose of a free press. Remember how the Hunter Laptop story was officially called "Russian Disinformation"? And in 2022, they were blatantly lying about Fetterman's health, and calling anyone who noticed "ableist" for suggesting that someone with severe brain damage shouldn't be a Senator.

Maybe it's my nostalgia, but the press and the D party as a whole would never have let Clinton get away with everything that happened with Biden. I still remember the Gary Condit story, or Rod Blagojevich. If either of those happened today, I get the impression that both the D party and the media would try to humiliate you for even suggesting there was an issue. CorruptUser 06:55, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Instead of using buzzwords, let's talk policy. What are the policy positions people here support? Values can inform our policy preferences, of course, but policy preferences alone tend to go on a left/right axis anyways. You don't see many lefties arguing for Trump's tax cuts. Instead, they argue to increase taxes on the rich. Their policy preferences are informed by an ethical prioritization of fairness and equality. Carthage (talk) 17:53, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

1. Staying out of foreign wars
2. Ending dependence on fossil fuels, through nukular powar!
3. MOAR Space Program
4. Capital gains tax to be same rate as income... but adjust for inflation
5. The "unrealized gains tax" should exist, but ONLY on stocks/property used as collateral for loans and such, and not anything that's just sitting there. E.g., if you have 10k shares of stock you bought for $10 that are now worth $100, you can borrow $100k without being taxed since its book value is $100k. But if you want to borrow $1m using all your stock as collateral, NOW you've "realized" it to some extent, so you gotta pay
6. Slowing the "phase-out" of welfare systems to eliminate the welfare trap
7. Also, combining ALL forms of welfare into a SINGLE agency
8. A total ban on Payroll taxes; place them all on the payor, not the employer, but obviously adjust contracted wages and minimum wage so the net is identical. I just despise "stealth taxes"
9. Social Security benefits for the worker ONLY; for spouse, benefits accrue only for years married. E.g., if you married your wife 20 years ago, you accrue the benefits for those 20 years of social security contributions, not the 40 she worked. Includes ex-spouses, of course. But if you marry someone after they retire, sorry, no SSA benefits for you
10. Phasing out of EEOC and Affirmative Action
11. Normalizing gay marriage, but more importantly, normalizing gay monogamy
12. Universal "bare bones" healthcare; not quite medicare-for-all, but the absolute basics like vaccinations, broken limbs, childbirth, etc
13. Vastly increasing the number of visas and streamlining the immigration process, but zero-tolerance of illegal immigration
14. Also the replacement of H1B's lottery system with a "whoever gets paid the most" system
15. Slightly in favor of more labor unions; I want more jobs to be unionized but I also want to be able to fire incompetents
16. Speaking of unions, more ability to get rid of "bad apple" cops
17. Reopen the mental health hospitals
18. Far more funding of CPS CorruptUser 18:08, 7 September

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

1. An arms embargo on Israel as well as economic sanctions and divestment from Israel. Give it the apartheid South Africa treatment.
2. Continue to back Ukraine.
3. Apply international law equally, without exception.
4. Have the US ratify the Rome Statute.
5. End dependence on fossil fuels through nuclear power.
6. Increase funding to the space program.
7. Normalize trans existence and polyamory.
8. Investigate alternative means of dealing with social deviancy through measures other than the police and the criminal justice system. (I outline my thoughts here.)
9. Abolish police unions.
10. Abolish life-imprisonment.
11. Abolish the "crime exception" to the 13th amendment.
12. Medicare 4 All.
13. Open borders.
14. Return land to indigenous ownership and support indigenous sovereignty.
15. Increase taxes on the rich.
16. Divest funds from overinflated police and military budgets to support social infrastructure.
17. Abolish qualified immunity.
18. Support co-ops and workplace democracy.
19. Make internet a utility.
20. Build more subsidized housing.
21. Abolish "right-to-work" laws.
22. Legalize sex work.
23. End the war on drugs.
24. Reparations.
25. Free tuition.
26. I'm coming around to supporting UBI.
27. We should increase penalties for people who threaten political violence against officials.
28. Abolish the electoral college.
29. Implement term limits on the US supreme court.
30. Protect the right to access abortion.
31. Implement a truly representative voting system.
32. I support the right to bear arms. Carthage (talk) 18:23, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

this site has drifted to the left by a noticeable amount even in the seven years i've been following it. while i don't agree with this political realignment, i still value the skepticism and snark on this site, which is why i still edit here.

as for my personal views, i used to be more sympathetic of the international left. however, it's increasingly difficult to find leftists who aren't anti-western and/or pro-russia. i'm especially disgusted with all the so-called "democratic" socialists who support repressive left-wing and/or anti-western regimes (e.g., cuba, venezuela, russia, iran). even more infuriating is how many pro-palestinian activists support the very anti-democratic hamas. i guess no one likes democracy and freedom anymore. it doesn't help that the western right is also flirting with authoritarianism and putinism. i'm almost declaring myself politically homeless at this point. The G (talk) 18:17, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, and apparently, it's also hard to find rightwing people who are also secretly being supported by anti-western regimes. As for the left in general, I'm always skeptical of any environmentalist that opposes nuclear power. Their means of "saving the planet" is almost always "destroying Western infrastructure". Watermelons, green outside but red inside, are absolutely a thing; just look at Greta Thunberg. CorruptUser 18:33, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

It's really interesting how a "instead of using buzzwords to indicate our alignment with whatever tribe, we should state our policy positions so people understand us more clearly" became yet another "indicate our alignment with whatever tribe" session. Carthage (talk) 18:36, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I would state my policy positions on the things that I have enough knowledge about to pick a side over, but I'm pretty sure I would be rehashing a lot of the stuff Carthage said. TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 18:42, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I already have an essay where I go into my political views quite extensively. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 18:54, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

i am not a fan of questions that ask me to declare my political tribe nor the frequency with which it is requested. i especially dont enjoy the endless interrogations searching for evidence of heresy when arguing what specifically kind of leftist, or rightist or whatever i might be, with there seemingly an infinite variety of divisions and sub divisions. i should have been grateful for the relative brevity of these discussions. now what is asked of us is an expansive detailing of policy positions and effectively coming up with a fully fleshed out manifesto for our plans to change the world, brings us to a new circle of hell. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:34, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

@CorruptUser what's with the part about normalizing gay monogamy in specific? I don't get it TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 21:04, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

its marriage equality that does the normalising of the monogamy, by having having them state recognise our relationships like they do with the straight relationships, plus confer protections like pensions passing over the surviving partner in the event of one dying, and visitation right in hospitals when one is ill, to name but few. it also conveys a sense to us that relationships are worthwhile and not disposable when we know we can make a legal binding commitment via marriage as a possible outcome, encouraging us to work at a relationship when it could be something more than a casual fling. quite how else you might normalise monogamy over a more promiscuous life i do not know with a lot of tut tutting and shaming us as vectors of STIs AMassiveGay (talk) 21:32, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Pretty much what AMG said. CorruptUser 21:46, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Mets

Can they actually make the playoffs? 2600:4808:353:7B01:7F6:1C65:1DC4:44F5 (talk) 19:46, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

anyone heard of this guy?

https://manlyburger.substack.com/p/the-crime-of-homestuck

warning: this page is definitely subject to the time cube law i couldn't really find much about him online other than his personal pages despite the fact that he's apparently been in close contact with people who have worked on homestuck. does anyone here have any info? sorry if this is off topic 192.150.174.39 (talk) 20:08, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

it might make sense if you are a fan of webcomics and of spirituality. its impenetrable otherwise, and still probably is even if it is your thing. if you find his writing engaging enough to keep your attention, fill your boots. you might find something for you. its a little too niche for me having no interest or knowledge of web comics referenced i doubt could appreciate too much of what they have to say. its fine that some things are not for everyone and some things are for even less people.no one should be compelled to like something because i do nor should i not enjoy something i am told is utter trash.

its probable this chaps stuff wont resonate here, but so what. what do you get from it? AMassiveGay (talk) 21:27, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

It reads like someone with a persecutory delusion towards webcomics and the animation industry, and also he seems to maybe think elements of the webcomic Homestuck are real life but I can't totally tell. At first I thought it was just someone living in an opaque labyrinth of in-references and media-critic brainmelt but there's something extra going on there. It's not especially interesting, in the sense you can find people online with their bolts screwed on the wrong way anywhere now, but if Max Azzarello gave any signal it's that a better society would maybe try to stop such people from spiraling before they decide they're going to set themselves on fire in public. Chillpilled (talk) 13:55, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

@Chillpilled Why did Max Azzarello self-immolate? I haven't been able to find anything about it, but I didn't look into it too much. TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 18:32, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

It was to draw attention to a supposed conspiracy involving Peter Thiel and cryptocurrency, purportedly Biden and Trump were both involved and intending to cause a worldwide economic collapse. I didn't really understand it beyond that. By the way he posted on r/stupidpol, and seemed to be rather focused on class divisions. He made allusions to media productions like The Simpsons and branded drinks sold in grocery stores containing messaging meant to make people feel disempowered. It's an interesting case in that he seemed to identify real problems while mixing it in with boilerplate conspiracy theorizing that is probably not true. His Substack is still up here if you want to read but I didn't go through all of it myself. Chillpilled (talk) 18:38, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Huh. I was expecting him to be your average far-right crank, not a Nazbol. TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 18:51, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the "Naz" part. Chillpilled (talk) 04:22, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

To my knowledge, r/stupidpol is a Nazbol subreddit. TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 04:23, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

If I recall correctly they treated him like the local kook. He seemed to post the same things there as on his Substack. Chillpilled (talk) 05:59, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

"Unexplained" Mysteries and More Content Farm Nonsense

Merely searching for certain keywords on sites like YouTube returns dozens upon dozens of channels claiming to post "unexplained" mysteries or spiritual, occult, and anti-scientific bunk due to their algorithm being deceived. Almost all of them claim to have "exclusive information" or "what they don't want you to know", and YouTube more often than not fails to deplatform them for spreading misinformation. Are these channels merely content farms trying to fleece money off of advertisers by fooling the gullible, or is there more conspiratorial thinking under the hood that isn't being noticed? TheEternalOutsider (talk) 11:03, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Advertisers don't really care if the creator they're sponsoring is a bunko artist. They know that shit gets clicks, and gives them attention. Carthage (talk) 11:13, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Does that mean the advertisers are just as guilty for allowing this in the first place? TheEternalOutsider (talk) 11:36, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Some advertisers are themselves bunko artists. I've seen this one on YouTube incidentally, "Whole Body Deodorants":[16] how badly do people stink anyway? Bongolian (talk) 18:37, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

While sweating is natural, there are times you don't wish to/want to (warm day, you're about to close big sale... and you're visibly sweaty). Some people are susceptable to bacterial infections (and 75% of the time it appears to be genetic in origin) and you need to treat all the problem areas (underboobs, groin, feet) - the folks are the sorts who smell rather 'off' even if they'd rank 9 on The Sims 'Clean' rating. If you need/want to do this, why not have one for all, so you can avoid the often overpowering reek which is 'fragrance layering/clashing'? Some folks might choose one good, all-over nice deo as a kind of 'everyday perfume' while others might like it as a multipurpose item which is perfect to keep stashed in a bag or travelling washbag.

I agree that a lot of folks won't need it. But I could see some people who would get decent use out of it. KarmaPolice (talk) 09:28, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Should we make an article about FATAL?

I feel that F.A.T.A.L. is at least somewhat missional for RationalWiki due to its sexist and racist content. We don't need to go anywhere near as in-depth about why it sucks as 1d6chan does (in fact, we could probably defer readers over there for more detail), but we should at least give shit like "Armor of Nigrous Nincompoopery" and "Armor of Jewy Jewbacca" the mockery it deserves. Luigifan18 (talk) 13:07, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

You have a keyboard, don't you? Write it yourself. Carthage (talk) 14:43, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we should give oxygen to something to small. You can, of course, write an article if you disagree with me though. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 15:23, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

https://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/14/14567.phtml

Not sure anyone can best this! KarmaPolice (talk) 15:30, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Ah, the classic FATAL review. I still haven't read all the way through that. Luigifan18 (talk) 16:07, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

It's worth doing (as in, reading the review). KarmaPolice (talk) 16:26, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Is there anything an RW article on FATAL could provide that the existing 1d6chan article about it doesn't already? (I did like the latter's article about Chris-Chan, but they unfortunately later decided to remove it.) IntrepidSkeptic (talk) 19:37, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I think the rationale is that Chris-Chan's antics eventually got so weird, toxic, and pathetic that 4chan (or at least /tg/) decided that talking about him was more "depressing and horrifying" than "strange and funny". As for having our own coverage of FATAL when 1d6 has already tackled it, see the sub-section below. Luigifan18 (talk) 15:31, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

I'm not sure it's needed here. First, as some have noted above, it's been dealt with rather thoroughly elsewhere (1D6chan, TV Tropes, and the famed RPG Net review), and secondly it has about as much impact on the tabletop gaming world as a snowflake does in the crater of Mt. Pele. Seriously, it's not a player in that genre in the least. If anyone looks it up it's out of bile fascination at best. It's vile, it's revolting, and it's unspeakably sexist and racist and most other kinds of --ist, but it's also far from notable to anyone except those who have an interest in really really awful RPGs. Kencolt (talk) 02:02, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

The whole thing is just the project of a deranged man who had his moment of gamer infamy nearly two decades ago. I can't imagine it has any unironic fans. Also, the author is doing time for drugs and rape. So there's that. Paul S (talk) 02:08, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

However, taking a look at our Role-playing game page FATAL could easily get a semi-stub paragraph under 'types'. After all, we do have a page on Racial Holy War... KarmaPolice (talk) 09:07, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

That is similar to what I was thinking — RationalWiki doesn't need to go as in-depth on FATAL as 1d6chan, and we could focus on the parts of it that are relevant to our mission, i.e. the sexism, racism, and mind-boggling amounts of rape. Indeed, it was always my intention for our FATAL article to be something of a gateway to 1d6chan's article, since it's more relevant to them than it is to us. (This kind of thing cuts both ways, BTW — we go a bit more in-depth on, say, the Satanic Panic or Jack Chick than 1d6chan does, since they focus on the impact those things had on tabletop gaming (which means that they go a bit more in-depth on that subject while we cover the entirety of those topics). 1d6chan does go more in-depth on Racial Holy War's origins in their article on it than we do, but that's because they don't have any particular reason to have a separate article on the Creativity Movement, whereas that depraved cult is missional for RationalWiki. Holy Terror is just one more entry on 1d6chan's article about edgy shit, whereas we have a full-blown article on exactly why it's repulsive. And their article on MYFAROG treats Varg Vikernes himself as just a framing device for the game's crappiness, whereas our article on Varg Vikernes treats MYFAROG as just another of his repulsive brain farts.) So, yeah, that's my take on it. FATAL is just one more area where 1d6chan and RationalWiki have overlapping interests that can be used to supplement each other. Luigifan18 (talk) 14:40, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I purely personally are against effort duplication but also okay with RW pointing out good/reliable other sources etc where they come up. So in FATALs case I would do a one para précis and then point readers towards more in depth articles etc. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:38, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

An alliance between RationalWiki and 1d6chan

I did allude to this the last time I brought up the subject, but I have noticed a good deal of overlap in the interests, tone, and overall opinions of both RationalWiki and 1d6chan in my time on both sites, and I think that both wikis could benefit from cross-referencing each other in circumstances where a given subject is relevant to both — especially when the subject in question is more relevant to one wiki than the other, allowing the less-invested wiki's coverage to be the "entry-level" version and the more-invested wiki to go into further depth for more interested readers.
Now, 1d6chan is still a 4chan derivative, and while 1d6chan emphatically does not like /pol/, they are also somewhat annoyed by "SJWs", so we can't really get too buddy-buddy with them and it might be a mistake to try. We also need to acknowledge that there will be subjects where RationalWiki and 1d6chan won't necessarily be in agreement. Take their article on religion, for example — they treat the subject with a great deal of tact and nuance (though they're still notably snarky about it), acknowledging its contributions to society and human development while also warning of the dangers that it can pose when followed to excess, but they remain overall neutral about it. RationalWiki is not neutral on religion; we don't hate it with a burning passion, we acknowledge its positive aspects where it is pertinent to do so, and our overall stance is tolerant yet wary, but we generally tend to view the concept of religion with some degree of disapproval. (We don't subject religion to criticism it doesn't deserve (unlike some people (see our articles on Islamophobia, militant atheism, etc.)), but we don't overlook areas where it doesn't make any sense or has actual blood on its hands, either.) Thus, cross-linking between RationalWiki and 1d6chan on religious subjects may not always be a good idea. Still, I think that an alliance between the sites could have a positive impact on both. Luigifan18 (talk) 15:16, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Chat, is this for real?

Someone posted this video in a Discord server I'm in, and I can't tell if it's real. The thing that's making me confused is the presentation, because usually 'Dramatic reading overlaid with a drawing' is the type of thing you would expect to see done to silly internet drama, not this.

The answer may be in the description, but I haven't bothered checking it because morbid curiosity and not wanting to see the cesspits that Youtube Comments tend to be in these types of videos is a very bad combination. TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 04:16, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Appears to be real, though Mike Howell is described by the Heritage Foundation's own website as "executive director of the Heritage Oversight Project... Heritage’s investigative and oversight arm" rather than general head of the think-tank itself. Impiricism (talk) 05:54, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Serious: What would you do as president of your country?

What would your policies look like? How would you interact with foreign leaders? What would your foreign policy be like? Would you fundamentally change institutions, or let them be? To those interested, Please give at least somewhat serious answers, even though the question is almost certainly unrealistic. It doesn't have to be the US, you can choose your own country or any other country too. This is the same person who posted the question on ideological orientations above. Since that seems to have become controversial quickly, this is hopefully going to work a little better. BoN (talk) 10:57, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

It you want short answers, you might be better off asking questions about one topic at a time. You are inviting people to invite essays with this one.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 13:41, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I have absolutely nothing against developed answers. With this post I'm just trying to formulate the question better than last time, and reduce the tension a little bit. (As a side note, This is my main account. I have not used this one since the question is rather controversial, and causes tensions). New world (talk) 14:03, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

My foreign policy would be non-intervention. I would 1) Rework public education entirely, with an emphasis on abstract problem solving and critical writing/analysis. 2) Revoke The Federal Reserve's issuing power and prosecute its leadership for malfeasance, abuse of power, fraud or whatever the proper charges are. Implement monetary reform. 3) Fire the whole state department and prosecute its leadership for treason and war crimes. I could go on in this vein, but you get the point: I'd rid the government of swine. 4) Sabotage the entertainment industry, e.g. by revising copyright laws to make it unprofitable, by imposing taxes, and generally any other available means so long as they do not infringe upon freedom of expression, which I would reinforce so that social media companies cannot shape public discourse/opinion through censorship. 5) Put stronger regulations on the food and beverage industry to improve public health. 6) Crack down on big pharma's profiteering, as well as anti-competitive business practices in general. I'd do a whole bunch of good stuff, but these are just a few things off the top of my head. Fun question. Accumulator (talk) 14:28, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I'd also strengthen consumer protection, for example by implementing policies against planned obsolescence. Accumulator (talk) 14:58, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Suppose I am the leader of the United States. I would abolish all tariffs and trade bans, especially with China and Cuba. This would help with the import of Chinese electric vehicles, which are very affordable and will improve the environment.

I would upend the public education system entirely. There would be mandatory courses on mental health to teach you how to help people with depression and what to do if you have depression yourself. This is important as a lot of mental disorders develop in your early 20s, which is right after you graduate from high school. There would be a comprehensive sexual education which would have emphasis on transgender issues; Julia Serano's Whipping Girl would be mandatory reading. Students will learn how to read via phonics teaching methods based on the latest scientific evidence. There would be an additional fifth year of high school, which would reduce the time it takes to graduate with a bachelor's degree from four to three years, as well as get rid of several courses that would be mandatory in college. I mean, has anyone seen MIT's General Institute Requirements? They're practically making you do one year of high school that you pay money for [17].

Abolish the SAT, LSAT, MCAT, GRE and all other standardized tests; they discriminate against people who cannot afford courses to do well in them. I would also abolish all copyright laws and set up a comprehensive digital library without the stupid loaning system that the Internet Archive has. And I'm now too tired to keep writing, so that's all. 45.67.97.21 (talk) 14:56, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Trolling tip: start the lead sentence with "Serious" or "Seriously". Fantasizing about leading a country is not being serious. Bongolian (talk) 14:59, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

On the contrary, it seems like a good exercise. A bit of fantasy makes it fun. Accumulator (talk) 15:12, 8 September 2024 (UTC)