RationalWiki:Saloon bar

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Saloon bar
WIGO Bar colour.png

Welcome, BoN
This is a place for general chit-chat about virtually anything that doesn't fit anywhere else.
Beer.gif For previous conversations see the automagic barchives.Invision-Board-France-355.gif

What is going on?

The Bar
(talk) (talk) (talk) (talk) (*cough*) (hic)

Pointless poll

Who is the biggest traitor to the United States?

Aaron Burr (plotted to steal part of the US to form his own country with British help)3Vote
Aldrich Ames (sold out more than 100 CIA agents to the Soviets)26Vote
Benedict Arnold (turned against the US in the Revolutionary War)2Vote
Donald Trump (attempted to stage a coup by sic-ing a bunch of braindead wannabe Nazis who literally think they're the CSA on the Capitol building, all because he didn't like the results of the election he actually lost fair and square no matter how many times he says otherwise- this is all from the same guy who has the audacity to lecture "the libs" on patriotism)28Vote
Gerald C. MacGuire (plotted to overthrow FDR and install a dictator)1Vote
Jefferson Davis (president of the Confederacy)73Vote
Joe Dresnok (defected to North Korea to serve as a propagandist)0Vote
John Tyler (former US president who joined the Confederacy)1Vote
John Walker, Jr. (sold info about the US nuclear arsenal and Vietnam War operations to the Soviets)3Vote
Julius and Ethel Rosenberg (gave nuclear secrets to the USSR, which helped them build the Bomb)8Vote
Martin James Monti (US pilot who defected to Nazi Germany and joined the SS)3Vote
Robert E. Lee (led the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia)6Vote
Michael Flynn (Avocating terrorist plot to install Trump as a dictator)3Vote
Me (I personally want to overthrow the US government myself and replace it with communism, killing all the centrists and rich people)2Vote
Me (I personally want to overthrow the US government and replace it with a hereditary dictatorship ruled by the Trump family)1Vote
Me (I personally want to overthrow the US government and replace it with complete anarchy! BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD1111!!!oneoneelventy11one!!111one!!!11!!)6Vote

What is the best solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict?

Two state solution70Vote
Three state solution (return Palestine to Egypt and Jordan)9Vote
Three state solution (separate states for Israel, Gaza and the West Bank)4Vote
One state solution (binational)35Vote
One state solution (Israeli dominance)13Vote
One state solution (Palestinian dominance)10Vote
Maintain the status quo3Vote
I don’t think the conflict can be solved22Vote
All states are illegitimate and must be abolished for there to be lasting peace41Vote
One state solution (Goat dominance)1Vote
Just have a meteor wipe out all people on Earth and end it already!2Vote
Idk, all of these ideas are shit3Vote
To do list

Arming teachers College hw assignment[edit]

Hey my fellow rationalwikians. I came across this topic as it is my online assignment that is due at 5pm est and could use some help as I type my response in my discussion post. Its dicussing the tired old topic of whether arming (a select few) teachers would be an “effective detterent” against potential school shootings. Here’s the video offered for more context [1]. SensaurC-137 (talk) 14:23, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

  1. The students can't view the teacher as the person whose job it is to execute them if they get out of line. Otherwise the teacher is no longer the helper, but the enemy.
  2. Teachers aren't soldiers. Yes, some were, but "firearms proficiency" isn't something you acquire in that line of work.
  3. Access to guns means mistakes will happen. A teacher will make a mistake and a gun will be left out in the classroom, or the gun drawer will be unlocked. The safety might be turned off and the gun may accidentally discharge, and so forth.
  4. Teachers freak out all the time. The last thing a person having a freak out needs is access to a deadly weapon.
  5. This would further normalize guns as a solution to everything.
  6. If the only goal is to deter school shooters, you are better off letting people think the teachers have guns than actually having the guns. But it still causes the problems associated with people thinking the teachers are armed. Sort of like with Saddam Hussein, who found it to be easier to pretend to have large amounts of chemical weapons than to actually have them.
  7. School shooters, and mass murderers in general, are caused by 4 things. Early childhood trauma, crisis point, inspiration, and access to the means. You'd be better off expanding Child Protective Services and changing the media to not "glorify" mass murders.
  8. Speaking of, schools are targeted because the shooter wants to "live forever" by doing something that people will remember. If we changed how we cover mass shootings, e.g., not showing the perpetrator's face on TV, not spending hours talking about the shooter, instead focus on the victims and heroes and whatnot, we would see fewer shooters. The media has known this for a really long time, and honestly, half the reason they've been so slow to change it is because the individual stations that change their ways would see lower ratings for a bit, and as an industry, stopping school shootings would reduce "interesting" news stories and the whole industry would suffer. Corinth (talk) 15:15, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
I think having a bunch of panicky civilians firing guns during a situation like that would be much likelier to increase the death toll than anything else. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 17:07, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

totally agree.Not to mention the total waste of tax dollars and federal school funding it would take to train teachers that would be better spent on actually improving the school educationSensaurC-137 (talk) 15:44, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Everywhere but schools, it’s obvious and non-controversial that the primary way to defend against attackers with guns is to have friendly people armed with guns already on the scene in case they are needed. Banks, politicians, office buildings, etc. have armed guards because they have been judged to be an effective response to potential threats. When I tutored at an “urban” grade school, the doors were locked, with monitored access, the entrances had metal detectors, and there was an on-duty police officer to deal with trouble that may arise. Do you imagine that “arming teachers” would involve tossing a Glock 19 at everyone on staff and telling them to look out for trouble? 192․168․1․42 (talk) 12:19, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
I would imagine that arming teachers would involve arming teachers, whereas what you describe is having armed guards. Arming a select few teachers would be akin to arming a select few bank tellers, a select few politicians, or a select few office workers. I think arming teachers is a bad solution, and I think doing these other things in these other contexts would also be a bad idea, a much worse idea than having guards. It is also worth considering the difference in context. A bank has good reason to be concerned about, say, an armed robbery, which might pose significantly different challenges than, say, a student-turned-suicidal-mass-shooter. In the former case, at least, the point is to steal money; in the latter case, the killing is the point. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 talk 12:34, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
I notice everyone except 192․168․1․42 is ignoring the fact that most teachers aren't trained in killing people. Make of that what you will... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 12:48, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
I notice that you ignored point 2 of my list... Corinth (talk) 12:53, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Dude, you ignored what I said too. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 12:58, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
For youngsters too young to remember early 2000s memes, let us not forget the lessons of Lee Paige, the "only one in the room professional enough" to shoot himself in the foot in a classroom (while purportedly demonstrating gun safety). Shaking hands with danger, indeed. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 13:00, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
I derped and misread the posts. I blame the lack of coffee. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:05, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I was trying to direct the conversation towards the actual issues and solutions, and going point by point through tangential comments is usually a distraction from that. But if you insist:

So with that out of the way, is anyone interested in a discussion about these issues and what should be done? 192․168․1․42 (talk) 02:15, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

You know, school shootings happen on occasion, and on many occasions, they happen with an armed guard present who couldn't stop him. In fact, there's one study out there that says that armed guards actually increase the violence of the event. Active shooters are not in a normal state of mind, and just like you shouldn't feed trolls, you also shouldn't feed assholes who want to go out in a blaze of glory. Officers that arrive will be better prepared for this sort of event -- this is the sort of shit that all that tactical gear, pepper spray, tasers, and SWAT stuff actually might be helpful with. Police officers responding to this sort of thing will usually carry more than just a firearm, you know. Want to outfit teachers with Kevlar helmets too?
School shootings are high publicity, rare events. Firearm events do sometimes occur on schools today, but most of them don't involve a mass shooting. A fair bit of them are accidental events. A fair bit of them actually are suicides. A teacher who is improperly trained and improperly stores their weapons probably will increase the risk of both in everyday life. So unless one can demonstrate it can actually be helpful overall, why bother? The NRA's desire to increase gun sales doesn't count. Now, I'm fine with proper marksmanship training, mind you. But even the JROTC uses air guns these days, if I recall. (You don't get to handle the real weapons until college.)
The worst thing about US weapons culture is just how dumb, immature, and macho is. Buy a rifle and all your problems are solved, and then you buy some more. What, you're gonna buy a piano next and think you can instantly be able to play Rach 2? I've seen the link to higher suicides and accidental deaths that simply having a gun around the house entails, and hopefully you aren't buying your firearm for dumb anger issues either. Proper firearms skills aren't even *that* hard to acquire, but it's pretty clear that a buttload of American firearm enthusiasts don't have even that. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 03:12, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
No one is also going into how students would feel if their teacher is armed. It would certainly promote a far more hostile environment and would increase tension for students I feel. If I were an elementary school kid and knew my teacher was armed, that'll add a lot of stress just knowing that weapon is in there somewhere. Also that "well students could use other deadly weapons" is easily countered by that they're nowhere near as deadly as guns and a knife in a backpack won't trigger a lockdown nor would it risk being accidentally set off and also trigger a lockdown, and lockdowns have negative psychological effects on children. ". One possible response is to acknowledge that guns are by far the most useful defense that law-abiding citizens can have against violent attackers who may use various mundane objects as weapons, and that regulations should be formulated with that in mind." that's just typical pro-gun talking points. Guns are not the "most useful defense" (there are multiple accounts of them being discharged for threatening situations like freeway merging, snow shoveling, seeing someone talking on a phone in a theater, and someone playing music at a gas station) and law-abiding citizens are law-abiding until they're not. People vastly overestimate their ability to restrain using a gun as well. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 03:22, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
It would seem that no one is interested in discussing how to deal with the problem, either long-term to reduce its incidence or a means to deal with when it happens. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 09:49, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Is empathy just lying to yourself?[edit]

Because you aren’t the other person, you don’t really feel their pain or understand it. It’s based on your personal history. If you never have been without then it’s hard to have empathy for the poor because you don’t know what it’s like to go hungry for days. Even if terms of death everyone is different so saying you feel someone’s pain is a lie. Reminds me of a phrase how we are all fundamentally alone in our struggles, other people can wave on the beach and throw a life like but they aren’t swimming with us in the midst of the storm (or something along those lines).Machina (talk) 01:15, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Firstly, the fact that empathy does not involve past experience of a kind is already implicit in the distinction between empathy and sympathy. Second, that the particular details of various forms of pain are different for different people does not indicate that there is no element of shared experience or understanding. Your particular loss of a loved one and my experiences of losing loved ones will have distinctive features, but that does not mean that they have nothing in common. Furthermore, if I, say, witness somebody burn themselves, I might not experience the same physical sensation, but that does not mean that I cannot, in some sense, appreciate and understand their pain, even if I have never been burned before. Empathy is a sort of feeling or attitude, not a proposition; it cannot be true or false. Since lying is generally taken to have some aspect of falsehood, it is difficult to see what you mean by saying that empathy is lying to yourself. Lying to yourself about what? The way you feel? Perhaps you think that people are lying to themselves because you think that they believe they feel exactly the same as those they empathize with? In that case, let me assure you that nobody, when they say "I feel your pain" to somebody who has just lost a loved one, having not recently lost anybody themselves, means "I feel exactly the same emotions that you feel, in equal intensity". 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 talk 01:25, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
It depends on whether you’re running updated drivers enabling “Theory of Mind.” If you are, then you’re likely capable of “empathy” for another person, a projection and abstraction from your own experience in similar states as you understand it and which if you’re being honest could be flawed (it’s always an orphaned project or WIP, never done, like balancing a set of MMO classes). It’s usually disabled if you figure everyone is thinking like you, and this is unfortunately the factory default of most humans (the manufacturer really didn’t want us playing with this setting, ToM uses a lot of memory and processing power if it’s turned on and this often led to us getting eaten/distracted by things other than food, procreation, and sleep, so we have to make do with user-defined exceptions [Buddhism has some useful built-in tools for managing this, but it rightly has its detractors and is pretty old]).
A high degree of correlation in experience between the two parties enables empathy’s badass grandma, “sympathy.” The only truly objective version of this state was achieved by Kevin Warwick of the University of Reading with assistance from [his lovely wife: header not found], but deferred memory shared between elder couples has suggested when one of the two is rendered inoperable before the other that it’s a pervasive operating state among humans, likely primates, possibly eukaryotes if "My Octopus Teacher" is to be believed [citation needed] (try not to be moved when you see it playing with fish then rush and cuddle its projected/likely "friend," the camera man and documentarian recording its brief existence like a Tolkien elf).
There are human units in the population who lack Theory of Mind, and they’re basically power gamers: their achievements are unrivaled and they're fiercely competitive. They’re often mistaken and correlated with units with corrupted/outdated drivers, and while there may be a degree of overlap between the two [citation needed], their respective communities have a high degree of independence if not outright disdain for each other (one is frequently concerned with debugging and troubleshooting, the other seeks exploits). Artificius (talk) 06:15, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

@Machina In psychology empathy describes two similar yet distinct things. Emotional empathy, which is what most people think of when they hear the word. This helps humans form emotional connections with each other. There's also cognitive empathy, which let's someone understand things from another person's perspective. Cognitive empathy doesn't necessarily require emotional empathy, merely an understanding of another's perspective. Both of these functions are part of the psychological bedrock of human society. So to answer your question in short, no, empathy isn't just lying to yourself. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 12:08, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

That still sounds like lying though since you are making assumptions about their perspective. You don't really know you are guessing. I've lost loved ones before but I don't understand how people cry about it. Death is inevitable. Same with people breaking up, I've broken up before and just moved on so I don't understand how people get so messed up. Same how people can get so enraptured by their "love" they commit some heinous stuff. It would be stupid and arrogant to presume any sort of empathy because I don't understand their feelings or position, because I'm not them and wouldn't behave as such. So yes, empathy is lying to yourself. A useful lie but still a lie.Machina (talk) 04:59, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
if you are trying for stoic acceptance or a stiff upper lip, you've not quite pulled it off coming across emotionally stunted instead. its you who does not understand why people cry over death. its you who does not understand why the end of a romance can cause people pain. its you who does not understand the feelings of others or positions. you openly admit this. but somehow, despite this stated lack of understanding, you declare that we lie to ourselves if we say we can empathise. empathy is a lie but you are able to know we are lying to ourselves. no. you say empathy is a lie because you yourself are unable (or unwillingly) to empathise. but is only a lie for you. you cannot declare no one else is capable of empathy because you, as you have already stated, do not understand the feelings and emotions of others and do not try to. how can you presume to know what others can understand based only on your own inability to understand?
empathy is not unerring. it is not a certainty of knowing exactly how someone feels about something, it does not require that we must feel as they do. it is not presuming to know how someone else is feeling or insisting someone feels a particular thing. it is a willingness to understand what drives other people via a shared sense of humanity. it requires us to engage with one another. to listen and learn. it can fail us when we stop seeing our foes as people enabling all kinds of cruelty to be inflicted, and it can fail us just by being so disconnected from anothers reality that we cannot relate easily.
seems that finding ways to not engage with people and dismissing their views and experiences as lies and delusion to justify not doing so does not give someone much capacity to empathise. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:59, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
(EC) Frankly, it sort of just sounds like you don't have empathy. Your argument appears to be something like this:
P1: Empathy involves an understanding of another's perspective.
P2: I cannot understand another's perspective.
C1: Therefore, empathy is a lie to oneself.
However, a better conclusion would be "C1*: I do not have empathy." Note, first, that because you are drawing only on your own experience, your conclusion is not generalizable to other people. Second, that one is able to have empathy does not imply that one is able to have empathy for all people in all situations. It is possible, for instance, for somebody to feel empathy toward a person who has lost a loved one, but feel no empathy toward somebody who commits murder in response to a breakup. If they told themselves, in the latter case, that they did feel empathy toward the murderer, then they would be lying to themselves. That one has not felt empathy in some cases is not a proof against empathy even for that person; though I think most could understand why people cry at the loss of a loved one.
"You are making assumptions about their perspective. You don't really know you are guessing". I'm assuming the latter is meant to be "You don't really know: you are guessing". Suppose that it is true that I am making assumptions about their perspective, and that this is a necessary component of empathy. So what? Does it follow that, because I am making assumptions, my conclusions must be unreasonable? In pretty much any context, some assumptions are reasonable, while others are ridiculous. Losing a loved one tends to involve grief and grieving, and so it is reasonable to think that somebody who has lost a loved one will be grieving. It would not be reasonable to assume that they are excited, elated, joyous, etc. Furthermore, one does not need to have lost a loved one oneself in order to know this. However, it is questionable how much one really needs to assume. If I see somebody who has lost a loved one, and they are crying, shall we say: "you cannot say that they are sad, that is merely an assumption and therefore unjustified"? People express their perspectives. Additionally, it is not clear that even those assumptions that we might need to make are assumptions in the ordinary sense. Empathy, as a feeling or attitude, does not seem to require any conscious or intellectual reflection. Rather, it is an automatic response. Often, one does not even need to know that somebody has lost a loved one to perceive that they are grieving, and one can feel empathy for them even without knowing such details. Young children can feel such empathy, and express it, though they have almost no life experience.
That empathy refers to something can be seen if we consider possible rejections of empathy. We can imagine somebody who feels that their experience is so singular, that to feel empathy for them is impossible; only sympathy, involving a kind of shared experience, is possible. Suppose that my friend has just been turned down for a date by Alice, whom he had a crush on, and I have said to him, say, "I know the feeling". Consider two possible responses:
R1: Do you? Have you ever been turned down by your crush?
R2: Do you? Have you ever been turned down by Alice?
R2 points out an obvious distinction between my experiences and my friend's, but it nonetheless seems like a lousy complaint, because it points to a feature that is not salient to empathy or sympathy. It is not important to either of these that I have at any point held any view about Alice. Supposing that I have never had a crush on anybody, it would seem reasonable to think that I could not extend sympathy, and so R1 would be a plausible rejection of my empathy if my friend feels that only sympathy is possible in his case. R2, however, points to something insignificant; it implicitly presents a reason to reject my empathy, but the reason is a bad one. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 talk 14:05, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
It also sounds like a misuse of the term "lie". To lie is to intentionally deceive. When you do that unintentionally, it's called a mistake. As to how you infer what someone's thinking or where they're coming from, generally this involves comparing what they've experienced with memories, expressions, tone, inflection, personal history and other comparative experiences. Cognitive empathy specifically also requires a good deal of formal logic. I really don't know how to explain it better. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:23, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
I always thought that empathy was tied in to mirror neurons but maybe that's to mechanistic.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 20:20, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

The dictionary definition says it’s to understand and share the feelings of another, so even by that definition you’re still lying to yourself about understanding how they feel and sharing that feeling. Empathy also backfires as well when you let it cloud your judgment, and it can often be the root of vengeance as well. It’s not useful for seeing people as people, for that you need to be rid of it. Only though that do you see there are no enemies or allies, just people. I never said people weren’t capable of it just that it’s a lie we tell ourselves. I can’t say I understand their pain or share it but comfort is given all the same. Empathy would just get in the way of that. I don’t need to lie to myself to care what happens to them.Machina (talk) 14:30, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

So, here's your problem machina: Some folks are uncertain of their own minds; they fail to understand that they understand as well as is humanly possible. Understand? Not understanding is not the problem you have taken it for.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:04, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Escapism: Destructive Distraction or Necessary Relief Valve?[edit]

In these frankly depressing times, I find myself day dreaming and reading more and more escapist media instead of trying to keep current with the events of the world or philosophy. Do people think this is unhealthy, or just a coping mechanism? Do fantasies eventually overtake ones perception of the world, or are people effective at keeping them a fantasy? MirrorIrorriM (talk) 14:15, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Like many things it's going to be the dose makes the poison. It depends on how much fantasy, pornography or alcohol is "too much". I would suggest that if you are sufficiently self-aware to ask the question than you are probably OK. But - like John Snow - I know nothing.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

BLM Legacy[edit]

I figure the SB is the better place for this topic.

So... I don't think BLM has been a net positive for society. Here's what I see...

The Good

  • Ensured that a couple of cops were brought to justice
  • Has made the police more self-conscious about brutalization
  • Increased awareness around police brutality

The Bad

  • Police now refusing to do their jobs, Freddie Gray effect appears to be very real and very, very bad
  • Spread of COVID (yes, I believe that the protests did spread COVID; I thought it was a necessary evil at the time but, well, that's thing about omelets and broken eggs; "where is the omelet")
  • Destruction of property and businesses in the middle of a recession, will lead to "white flight" and impoversh numerous Black families

As for the Freddie Gray effect, well, after he was killed in a police clusterfuck, the Baltimore police arrested about 3/5th's (heh) as many people as they used to, and the murder rate jumped by 100 people per year. I don't know how many people killed through crime is equivalent to one killed by incompetent/malicious police, it'd definitely more than 1 for 1 but I don't think it's as high as 100's a year for 1 every few years.

I know something needed to be done to end police brutality, especially as it's suspiciously applied more often against Black people; I believe there was a good chance that if Michael Brown had been born Michael White he'd still be alive. But I just don't know what should've been done instead. Thoughts?Corinth (talk) 20:09, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

If cops won't do their jobs because they might be held accountable for misdeeds, fire them on the spot. If the entire department won't work, dissolve it. At that point it's merely childish tantrums that drain city and county budgets. Replace as needed. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:15, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Except that won’t actually happen, police unions wouldn’t allow it and no politician would try to make them. Lots of people talk about politics like they’re discussing what a benevolent dictator would do in a particular situation, ignoring that those in power are neither of those things. There is no easy fix to police brutality in the Unites States or anywhere else, and there’s not much else for regular people to do about it other than protest, people will continue to protest even if they don’t achieve anything systemic. Christopher (talk) 20:40, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Even then, there's a question of how accountable. Everyone fucks up in their job, no exceptions. The problem is when you have people who don't own up to their mistakes, which is my biggest problem with the police right now. The guy who refuses to admit a mistake is your worst employee, who will always fuck up the hardest even if they fuck up less often. Corinth (talk) 20:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Anyway, I think we all agree the police have a serious problem with accountability. But in terms of fixing it, I think we've made things worse. I don't believe BLM has resulted an omelet that justifies all the eggs broken. And I don't know what we should do going forward... Ugh, why can't life be simple? Life should be like a 80's Saturday Morning cartoon; there's the Bad Guy over there, you have a sword right here, now solve all your problems with violence in 22 minutes. Corinth (talk) 20:51, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
I think BLM is only a continuation of racial tensions that's been going on for decades. Any consequences here are merely extensions of the protests decades ago and I don't believe they're particularly unique to BLM. I think BLM is a net positive and I think its message is valid and should continue spreading. Spread of COVID is only short term relatively speaking. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 22:33, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
A short term thing which killed 600,000 Americans and leaves another 2,000,000 or so with some form of disability. Obviously the majority of those deaths weren't the fault of BLM, but I would expect that some of those deaths could've been avoided if the protests hadn't occurred and spread the virus before we had a vaccine ready to go. Even if it's only 1 in 20, that's still 30,000 people, much less if you consider that they tended to have a lower life expectancy to start with but still. Far more than have been killed than due to police incompetence. Corinth (talk) 22:54, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
There are two other bad legacies to BLM. Research indicates that riots cause many people to become more conservative.[2] After a rash of riots, Richard Nixon campaigned as a law and order candidate and it helped him get elected.[3] Presently, there is no proof that the co-founder of BLM used BLM money to finance a spending spree on luxury houses (taxes have not been filed yet), but she did resign after her spending spree came out in the press.[4] Supadaman0 (talk) 00:59, 15 June 2021 (UTC)


The general gist I would say on what can be done to improve the American police force would revolve on the following:
A) Better training. Compared to European police force training, the amount of training American police forces get is pathetic.
B) Better community engagement, de-emphasizing "warrior cop" type attitudes (fuck you, Dave Grossman) with a focus on improving community safety.
America is a relatively masochistic society, with ingrained racism creating (often unintended) cognitive bias in the police force, and an often immature attitude towards firearms. These don't help matters with police, unfortunately.
I kind of see BLM as an "it is what it is". It did, briefly, give a little pop in awareness to the police brutality issue. What I haven't seen is good data on BLM support by age. I suspect that younger people might be more supportive and maybe it will shape their worldview in the long run some. After all the 1960s American civil rights movement was also unpopular in its time (in 1966, Martin Luther King was viewed negatively by 63% of Americans compared to 33% positive) yet in the long run its hard to say nothing changed from that. The true positive impact of the BLM protests may not be known for a while.
Likewise, I do wonder if the cognitive bias / racism bit might slowly decline in some areas as America grows multicultural. We are far away from solving that issue, but we are also far away from 1960. So that might (slowly) help. ​PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk)
I'm not denying the protests and riots contributed to the pandemic but I also don't see this as particularly damaging to BLM's messaging or its relevancy? I'm not seeing many people use COVID as a strike against BLM and if they do, it's chalked up to just timing and that COVID also contributed to kindling the fire for the protests by exposing the huge weaknesses in American healthcare and employment that black people are disproportionately affected by. It's really, really disingenuous to compare COVID's numbers to police brutality numbers, I'm not sure why you brought this up. Of course a pandemic would kill more people. Police brutality's issue isn't sheer numbers but proportion. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 02:41, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
The positives of BLM must include this: for once, a leftish movement that at least at the outset was aimed at changing the behaviors of police departments and judges -- in other words, things that politics is actually good for -- rather than tearing down statues and similar forms of tribal territorial marking. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 03:10, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Is there any evidence that the protests contributed to the pandemic? Lots of people wearing masks outdoors (admittedly bandanas rather than surgical masks) aren't going to spread too much virus, and a lot of the protests were more or less socially distanced. --Annanoon (talk) 10:07, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
The evidence is... weird. The counties with protests ended up with a COVID rate 20% higher than counties without the protests, but the protests happened in denser areas too so the case rate would've been slightly higher regardless. The main reason that the protests didn't cause a more massive increase seems to be because they caused everyone else to stay home. Corinth (talk) 12:42, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
I’d like to add that BLM’s goal was not only to confront and raise awareness about police brutality but also to “uplift” a disenfranchised blacks across the U.S(and even around the world in the case of George Floyd). I believe that much of BLM’s legacy will be remembered something akin to the Black Panther Party whereas they’ve had positive implications in some areas but can become a little tribalistic which has been problematic to say the least. I think it is also important to note that BLM is culmination and result of what happens when you continue marginalize and oppress a community of people for too long. Far too often I hear the arguments of BLM being “too extreme” with their methods or that they “dont approach it in the right way” while overlooking that when your community are the victims of constant police brutality and harassment some are gonna take direct actionSensaurC-137 (talk) 22:32, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
@LeftyGreenMario is spot on, that this movement isn't any different from the Civil Rights movement from the 50/60's or Black Liberation movement from the 70/80's. The primary difference is social media that has made communication and solidarity easier. Civil Rights leaders needed to meet in secret in Black businesses and churches. Black Liberation leaders needed to meet behind armed security. Now you just need a Facebook group and a trending Twitter topic. I think it needs to be stressed the BLM is not the first movement that pushed for major institutional reforms. Besides the general whitewashing (pun intended) of the demands of people like Martin Luther King Jr, the movements lost momentum often times because their leaders were killed by state actors. @CorruptUser I also question the logic behind "Police now refusing to do their jobs". Since when is it their job to execute people? When is it their job to harass people? When is it their job to beat people with impunity? At each stage of the fight for Black freedom, there is a period of readjusting where institutions recognize a new way of doing things is required for demonstrations, in addition to a level of fatigue from mostly white allies who are only willing to push so far. We have reached that point now with policing now. The old ways, seemingly unchanged in any real way since the Civil War, must be addressed. Public safety needs reimagined.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 20:05, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
The police aren't simply refusing to brutalize petty criminals. They are retiring early or quitting, or cutting back on arrests. In Baltimore, after Freddie Gray was killed in a colossal police screw up, the police stopped making arrests unless they really had to, and the number of murders jumped up by 100 per year, making Baltimore technically more dangerous than Venezuela. Corinth (talk) 20:51, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
They also are significantly killing less people according to one study. And not every study has found evidence of the "Ferguson effectWikipedia" you are talking about. So meh. Sociology is complex and it will take time to see what the effect is long-term. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 12:31, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Never referenced the "Ferguson Effect", rather, I referenced Freddie Gray. There's a difference. Note that the linked article is 5 years old, it's better to look at the arrest rate and murder rate in Baltimore since then. It is not pretty. Also, I was wrong; Baltimore arrests plummeted by 60%, not 40%, from 40,000 to 18,000/yr. Corinth (talk) 18:30, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Lifejackets on passenger boats[edit]

Should all passenger boats have lifejackets for passengers, or should boats in certain waters be exempt? If so then which ones? What about waters that are calm, inland, and less than 1.5 metres deep which I'll call Category A? In addition to Category A waters, what about waters that are not Category A, but calm, inland, and less than 20 metres deep which I shall Category B? Where lifejackets are not provided should alternative flotation devices i.e. lifebuoys, and/or buoyant apparatus be provided in case of an emergency e.g. a vessel rapidly sinking or burning resulting an immediate evacuation being necessary without the opportunity to carry out a dry-shod evacuation i.e. an evacuation directly to shore or an attending vessel? Should liferafts be provided as well or instead of those flotation devices in Category B waters? How many alternative flotation devices and/or liferafts should be carried, should there just be enough for 10% of passengers in Category A waters, or should they provide for 100% of passengers in any event? How many are needed in Category B waters and which type? Should there be liferafts for at least 100% of passengers, just liferafts for a certain percentage (say 50%) of passengers with the other flotation devices made available for everyone else? Or just 100% of the other flotation devices without liferafts? Or something else? Thanks. Harry Potter (talk) 14:00, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand the reason behind the question? All boats should have lifejackets for the same reason all cars should have seatbelts even if only being driven in "safe" areas. Because sometimes, things happen. Corinth (talk) 14:09, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
It's hard to think of any good reason why a boat shouldn't have life-jackets. I used to go canoeing with hard drinking lumberjack style Canadian woodsmen and they think you're a stupid asshole if you are "too cool" to wear a life jacket. Why wouldn't a boat have at least as many as passengers? ShabiDOO 15:59, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Some time in 2014 my 250 lb nephew fall out of a canoe while I was rowing in the middle of a lake in Maine. I spent what felt like half an hour bent over the side of the boat with a friend holding me down as I was trying to hoist my nephew back on board so he didn't drown (nephew couldn't swim). The canoe took on a lot of water in the process and by the time we got him back onboard we weren't able to move very quickly at all from the extra water weight and drag. It started to grow dark as we were bailing water out of the canoe, but luckily a motor boat came by and was able to give us a tug out of the lake. If it wasn't for that gentleman my nephew may very well have drowned. Life jackets would have really been handy in that situation! MirrorIrorriM (talk) 18:20, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
You were on a canoe in Maine but didn't have a life jacket on? Your nephew couldn't swim but went on a canoe and didn't wear a life jacket? Look, I'm glad your nephew lived, but, umm, don't fuck around with safety rules in the future, ok? Corinth (talk) 18:37, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Enough flotation devices for about 300% of pax numbers - 150% lifejackets at a rate of 1 per adult person capacity plus extra for infants, children or other-abled, and then 150% "out of water" devices - boats, inflatables, rafts. I work in aviation - the issue in aviation is life jackets are not required unless outside a certain distance from land - but it is almost trivially easy to land in water over most of the world - almost everywhere is within gliding distance of a lake or river, and often water is the flattest surface around and the only place some sort of controlled landing can take place - but life jackets are not "required" and people drown because of that! Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 22:43, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Really? That's very interesting. Thanks.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:23, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
When did that last happen? How often? Maybe I could ask about that. ;) Harry Potter (talk) 23:50, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Resident Evil 5: One very long escort mission[edit]

Escort missions are highly annoying missions where you keep an NPC alive while impairing what you can do to defend yourself and probably gobble up healing items.

As for Resident Evil 5 you get a partner by the name of Sheva Alomar. In the cut scenes Sheva is shown to be a badass but for the actual gameplay she easily gets killed thus causing a game over. Sheva also gobbles up healing items and ammo. Resident Evil 5 is a decent game with the exception of your partner who is a ball and chain.

Not sure how many games are out there in which have a similar issue. --Boterham (talk) 02:15, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

RE 4 with Ashley. She was a hindrance since she could block doorways and couldn't defend herself. Nonstopmaximum (talk) 02:34, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
At least with RE4 you are not stuck with her 100% of the time. --Boterham (talk) 22:33, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

New video on Richard Lenski evolution project[edit]

Youtube channel Veritasium has posted a spanking new video interviewing Lenski on his ecoli project. Not sure where to post this but CP Main Page Right might be a good idea. FartyMcFart (talk) 19:00, 16 June 2021 (UTC) Link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4sLAQvEH-M FartyMcFart (talk) 19:01, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

You could put a link here: Lenski affair#External links. — Unsigned, by: Bongolian / talk / contribs

GOP has created a Russian Talking Point[edit]

Resident crazy person Rep. Paul Gosar,[5] Rep> Louie Gohmert[6] and others have been downplaying the severity of the 2021 U.S. Capitol riot. Additionally they have claimed that the 400 individuals charged are being persecuted and Ashli Babbitt, a raving Q-Lunatic was executed. Now that idea has been used to equivocate worse behavior by authoritarians Lukashenko and Putin, in separate statements from Sergey Lavrov[7] and Putin himself[8] twice.[9] Pretty great that Russian propaganda and Conservative opinions are a flat circle. RipCityLiberal (talk) 20:15, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Putin's been loving the sheeple on the populist right for a fairly long time for playful manipulative propaganda reasons, and the sheeple have been loving them back (because the trolls provide them the simple message of hating "others" that they've been looking for, of course). Which is why RT is fundamentally not terribly different from OANN or Infowars in the United States these days. Many other European right-wing populists have bromances with Putin as well, for similar reasons. It's also one area you will see noticeable conflict in more mainstream conservative media, as neocon/Reagan era conservatives aren't exactly fond of the ol' USSR. The bromance with Putin is one of the few parts of the Trump cult Fox News will sometimes frown at for instance. Russia's troll army is not above tickling the naive left movements in Europe and the US, but my sense is that they find the populist right easier marks. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 12:50, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

(I am not a proponent of "sacred" geometry) Sacred Geometry Debunk[edit]

What are yer thoughts about this bullshit: This Got a debunk? — Unsigned, by: NiciesMan / talk / contribs 16 June 2021 23:49

Who do you expect to watch the whole 2 hours of this? I skipped a few minutes in and watched a few minutes, and the guy is going on and on about how the same numbers crop up in measurements of space and time, and if you treat them as concatenations of digits, the digits add up to multiples of 9! None of this is surprising, though, and none of it requires appeal to any form of sacredness to explain. Unsurprisingly, if you compare numbers obtained by multiplying variations on 12 and 60, you'll tend to get similar-looking numbers. As for these things always adding up to 9, this is a property of multiples of 9. Take literally any whole number multiple of 9. Add up the values of the digits. The number you get will be a multiple of 9. For instance, from pressing random keys on my keyboard, 9 * 1457931 = 13121379. 1 + 3 + 1 + 2 + 1 + 3 + 7 + 9 = 27 = 3 * 9. Now, 60 is already a multiple of 3, so you just need another factor that is a multiple of 3 to get a product whose digits sum to a multiple of 9 (for instance, 12). But why do 12s and 60s come up so much? Well, 12 happens to be a pretty nice number: it has lots of factors, more than any smaller positive number. A base 60 number system was used by ancient Sumer and ancient Babylon, and this feature has persisted in areas of inquiry of interest to ancient peoples. 60, as it happens, also has more factors than any smaller positive number. It's worth noting that some of the tricks used already in the first five minutes depend on the use of a base-10 number system. In short, it is not worth watching the whole video to debunk it, because it is already apparent within the first few minutes that what is being observed is that people tend to reuse the same numbers over and over again (imagine how inconvenient it would be to switch between base-10, base-16, base-12, base-8, base-2, etc., when you can just orient all your artificial systems to base-10 and always have nice numbers), and that small numbers, as it happens, factor into a lot of big numbers. None of this is particularly exciting, certainly none of it requires appeal to any sacredness or mysterious properties of the numbers involved. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 talk 03:25, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

What about the bullshit related to the diameter of the earth and the pyramids? ----~~NiciesMan

Sometimes, once a particular tradition of unit-measurements has been invented it is convenient to adopt it generally and there is nothing sacred about it - and consider the complexity of pre-metric systems generally (if wire costs (UK pre-1971) 2d per inch, how much does '2 furlongs, 3 chains and 2 rods' cost?) Anna Livia (talk) 11:23, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
I can't find a reliable source for his tropics-diameter claim. As for the pyramids, note that he chooses just one, and ignores the others. Note his crankery about the Sphinx, a claim not endorsed by actual historians, but supported by believers in Atlantis. Note his constant rounding of everything as it is convenient. A sphere with the same surface area of the Earth would be closer to 7917 miles in diameter, which is not an insignificant difference from 7920 given that he's accounting for the difference between the equatorial and polar diameter. His 43,200 number is unsurprising, given that it is equal to 60 * 60 * 12. Note that all of these mysterious totally-not-coincidences require you to use particular systems of measurement. If you a different system of measurement (meters, radians, etc), it all falls apart. You know what's really easy, if you bother to take the time? Finding a relationship between two things that involves the number 43,200, when you allow yourself the choice of any objects to "investigate", any system of measurement, rounding as you please, any number or variety of intermediary transformations, etc. I could go into more detail, dig a little deeper, debunk more harshly, but what for? I am not interested in spending as much time responding to this guy's nonsense, as he spent creating it. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 talk 23:00, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

SC and Arizona death row[edit]

In Arizona and South Carolina, they're instating gas chambers as execution methods. It's absolutely horrific and disgusting. In SC, the method is completely untested, and in AZ, they're planning to use actual Zyklon B. None of this is right, despite claims that it's "more humane" than firing squad. You know what's more humane? Not killing people. This shouldn't even be allowed to happen. Jake Holmesyell at me 23:26, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Why is it being "untested in SC" an issue? Would the system perform differently there than somewhere else? Personally I'm not against the death penalty per se - but I think it needs a much better justice system and a "no doubt at all" burden of proof under such a better system (as opposed to beyond all reasonable doubt). Zyklon B - so what? So it got used by those who shall not be mentioned to kill millions of those who shall not be forgotten - that's not particularly important in context IMO. I get that you don't want the death penalty but that the nazi's used it is irrelevant as to whether it is useful as a killer. Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 03:37, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
AZ was using HCN gas (the active ingredient in Zyklon B) as recently as 1999. The comparison is perhaps a useful rhetorical point, but would it be better if they wanted to use some other gas? Well, perhaps it would be more humane (simple asphyxiants can kill you before you even realize you are dying; I'm not sure about HCN), but that would not seem to interest you anyway. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 talk 12:46, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
The problem is that the some governments has decided that executing their own citizens under some circumstances it a good idea. Arguing about the best way of doing this kinda misses the point.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 13:59, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
You think that is a problem. Others do not. And if arguing about the method misses the point why is the method part of the argument against it? Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 21:17, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
The argument the anti-execution crowd often makes is that there is absolutely no humane way to kill someone. Even "humane" methods fail to remove the absolute worst part of dying; the whole fear around it. If someone were to offer you the choice between being hung until dead or just being hit with an instant-death ray, the second option is an improvement but not exactly enough of one that you'd be thrilled that someone was offering it to you at all. Executions are a form of psychological torture, no exceptions. That said, I am not against executions existing, but as I mentioned, they should require something similar to a parole board. Corinth (talk) 21:29, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Personally, I'm against executions barring the most extreme circumstances. I think it should work similar to parole. To get paroled early, the convict needs to have shown they are remorseful for their actions. Perhaps inmates should only remain on death row if they have not shown remorse for their actions, though with some mechanism for people to maintain innocence. E.g., if a convict has been bragging about the murder to other inmates, that demonstrates lack of remorse, execution can proceed. The convict maintains innocence, but does not demonstrate any sympathy for the victim's family, execution can proceed. The convict demonstrates remorse and empathy, the execution gets delayed and perhaps eventually the sentence gets permanently knocked down to life without parole. Corinth (talk) 14:58, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Agree with Bob here -- the point I was getting at by saying noting that it's untested is that they have no idea how effective the gas they're using will be in execution, and what it will actually feel like. An article I read likened it to human experimentation, which it sort of is. Also, I find the Zyklon B detail to be pretty significant in context, mostly because despite the fact that we as a society have deemed the Holocaust to be a horrific tragedy that should not be repeated, we ourselves are resorting to similar methods and allowing it to happen. When Zyklon B was used in German camps, it was a crime against humanity, yet using it against American prisoners is A-OK now. Jake Holmesyell at me 15:05, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
The difference being that death row inmates were convicted of having committed the murder of another human being, whereas the people in the gas chambers were convicted of the crime of existing. "Why" matters more than "what" when it comes to ethics. Corinth (talk) 16:42, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
That is true, but I don't really feel like you can defend the ethics of killing, no matter who it is. If taking a human life is a punishable offense, why do we give other people the right to do the same thing? Jake Holmesyell at me 17:49, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Taking property, kidnapping and imprisonment are also punishable offenses, but it's also something the government does. We give government the ability to do these things. Why? Because we want to, that's the only Why we really need, because ultimately, Right and Wrong are whatever we want them to be.
Optimistic Nihilist here. Life has no inherent meaning, but that doesn't mean life is without any meaning, because we have the ability to give whatever meaning we want to life. Same with Morals and Ethical Nihilism; I don't believe actions are inherently Moral or Immoral, but Bad things are Bad because we decide they are. Corinth (talk) 18:32, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Indeed it boggles my mind that people can find a crime so abhorrent that it requires a penalty...which is as abhorrent as the crime itself (murdering a murderer). Capital punishment is murder. Murdering someone because they murdered someone makes little sense to me. It's about as logical as the state gauging out someone's eye because they damanged someone else's eye during a bar fight. Or the state having a citizen rape someone who committed a rape. While those punishments seem ridiculously absurd for most people, the state murdering a citizen doesn't. This is reflective of a countries approach to justice and the penal system. Those which look to rehabilitation and crime prevention seem to have much healthier societies, less recidivism and a much much lower prison population. Those which see justice as some sort of tribal retaliation, just desert, pay back, suffering the pain you inflicted taking satisfaction in the bastard rotting in a living-hell seem to have enormous prison populations, high levels of violence, and enormous policing and prison cost and a less healthy society. Blood lust for the death penalty seem to go hand in hand with the ideology of a merciless tribalistic retributive tough on crime justice system. Ironically, support for the death penalty in the West is highest in the United States. The country where in some states there is enormous levels of paranoia that the government wants to take your guns away, control your life and limit your liberties and attack your freedoms. And yet they seem to fully support the government being able to murder you...to take away your very right to life. It's puzzling. ShabiDOO 18:51, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
I also view prisons themselves as abhorrent. "Kidnapping" someone for years, to me, is more depraved an act than stealing a car. Yet, we imprison car thieves, and I believe this is necessary.
As I've said, I don't oppose the death penalty existing, I oppose its overuse. Corinth (talk) 20:48, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Prisons *are* abhorrent and in the United States we’re certainly engaged in their overuse, but I draw a qualitative line between it and the death penalty, the former is a necessary evil while the latter is not. There’s no possibility of redress if it turns out an innocent man was railroaded and murdered by the state, and it should therefore be reserved as Aloysius the Gaul said for cases “beyond all doubt,” not just “reasonable doubt.” This is also an impossible standard: we’ve all seen cases beyond reasonable doubt, but it’s an inherently subjective judgement and often changes over time, therefore there's always some doubt. If someone fails a polygraph and society later deems polygraphs inadmissible or a witness didn’t see what they claimed (or believed) they saw, or an aggressive and career-minded DA with a 90% conviction rate caves to pressure from a mayor up for reelection and has a confession beaten out of an unpopular suspect by a bigoted police force, we can certainly have doubt about the suspect’s guilt, especially as these facts percolate to the surface over time and long after the trial and sentencing. And we’re entering an era of deep-faked video: we’ll need expert witnesses to testify to the authenticity of incriminating footage soon enough. I’d rather nine guilty men spend the remainder of their lives in prison on the state dime than one innocent be wrongfully executed: it’s wrong, and it squanders the state’s legitimacy besides. Artificius (talk) 17:32, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Fun with side effects[edit]

Went to the primary care doc today and my weight was brought up due to being overweight for years. I started to gain weight from initially starting on Seroquel. The diagnosis at the time when I started was Paranoid Schizophrenia. Then my mental health symptoms got worse requiring me to have my medicine switched to include an antidepressant. Then weight gain got worse. When I was diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder, my meds were changed again several times. All my medicine has the side effect of rapid weight gain.

I started to change my diet much more but weight loss will likely be much slower. --Boterham (talk) 02:20, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Well that sucks, yeah antipsychotics sure could be better as meds. I was on 300mg Seroquel XR for 3 years for bipolar 2 and BPD and got lucky in only gaining a few pounds, but the sedation was so intense I basically slept those years away, and the occasional akathisia was truly awful. May your diet modifications help. Managing them quetiapine sugar cravings is a task in itself! Effervescent Bubble (talk) 01:02, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Does RW support Anarchy[edit]

I'm curious as to whether RW supports Anarchy in addition to other leftists ideologies or is supposed to be entirely apolitical? Thanks. Harry Potter (talk) 11:47, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Anarchism. RationalWiki, the website, is critical of Anarchism. Individual editers may be proponents of it, however. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 11:52, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
The wiki has no official political stance either right or left. Our mission is:
  1. Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement;
  2. Documenting the full range of crank ideas;
  3. Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism;
  4. Analysis and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media.
Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 12:19, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
I find proponents of anarchism unable to come up with answers to how they would effectively deal with difficult problems such as how the state would protect children from child abuse (and remove children from abusive or neglectful parents) or manage something like citizens who have been unjustly incarcerated in other countries. Answers tend to be evasive, conflict with their own general principles or are extremely vague like "the community would handle it". I cannot embrace any ideaology whose answer to difficult questions are: It will just work out. I don't expect a 5000 page policy document but some explanation of the mechanism behind how things are decided and enforced in practice are necessary. I find these answers impossible to find. I don't think most mbers here take anarchy very seriously. ShabiDOO 12:24, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
@Shabidoo Anarchism. The ideology is anarchism, with the desired end state being called anarchy. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 12:39, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
The anarchism article wasn't very critical of anarchism until a few months ago :P. Our more hardcore anarchists have been beaten with a rubber hose moved on. Corinth (talk) 12:56, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
More than likely they're too drunk these days to log on. Oh the drama from those days, I do miss the drama and the egos and.. Oh wait, no I don't miss the egos and whatever. It's so much more peaceful now. Cardinal Chang (talk) 21:34, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
The wikiverse-in-general has to be considered as well as RW-in-particular (and all other 'themed' wikis) - from each according to their skills and interests, to each according to their questions (whether sensible or otherwise). Anna Livia (talk) 14:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
RW does not support any particular political ideology. We have had contributors from a wide range of political ideologies. If there is any political ideology that RW encapsulates, it is anti-authoritarianism and anti-fundamentalism. See RationalWiki. Bongolian (talk) 19:34, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
But are we fundamentalist in our approach to anti-fundamentalism? Paradox of tolerance. Corinth (talk) 19:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Isn't that a false paradox though? I can be liberal in thought and deeds, but will gladly punch a fascist in the mouth. There should never be a tolerance of intolerance. The notion is deliberately divisive and is brought up to deflect from the initial group that is reprehensibly intolerant. Cardinal Chang (talk) 21:44, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
There is a case for allowing expressions of intolerance to be in the open, because at least they can be seen and interacted with appropriately. Anna Livia (talk) 15:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
In some cases, I grant you, but come on. Two groups protesting, one side wants to outlaw and kill gays/women/blacks/browns/and thing that they do not identify, and the other group opposes it, but must do so in a 'tolerant and civil manner'. Where do you suppose tolerating the intolerance of others fits in there? In Europe we outlaw it. Hate speech is abhorrent. giving it a platform like you see regularly in the USA, has allowed it to grow and fester and destroy discourse in public platforms. Granted those same abhorrent ideologies are growing in Europe, see that fucking headcase Viktor Orban, or Marine Le Pen, or any other purulent "free speech" hate monger gaining power and strength in recent times (a big fuck you to Jim Dowson, might I add.) These individuals to not want to engage or join a peaceful discourse they want to destroy, dehumanise and kill anything the see as different to them or threatening to their mythic history. (we seem to gotten off topic here, sorry.) Cardinal Chang (talk) 16:55, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
A fair bit of fundamentalists tend to be intolerant. So, no, it's not a big derailment. Incidentally, ironically, tolerance tends to be a pretty strong pillar in most of the core text of the religions that these fundies are warping. So, I don't think it's a terribly "fundamentalist" to point out to the fundamentalists that they are not as "literalist" as they think, nor is it fundamentalist to remind them that things like spewing hatred of xxx in online comment forums kinda are violating the various versions of the Golden Rule many religions have a wee bit, eh? It's not dogmatic, it's just recognizing they are violating their own dogma. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 17:25, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Didn't mean to get us down this road, but since we are here...
No leader has ever restricted the ability of others to do what the leader wanted them to; Rights are about what you don't want people to do. That's what's so thorny about hate speech laws. Sure, we'd love for assholes to shut up, but if they can't say nasty things we might not really have free speech at all. Corinth (talk) 17:55, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
That is the radical American approach to free speech. And it is pretty uniquely American in the free world. I am not aware of any other country that doesn't curb speech nor where a majority of the population finds that controversial (including France where liberty is part of their national history and identity). I should say whatever shit I want or I don't have free speech. That is a ridiculous sentiment. Americans are prohibited from saying all sorts of things (or at least will pay a legal/civil price for it) of which none of it is controversial. There are libel laws, copyright laws, laws against saying things that incite crimes, cause a disturbance, reveal classified information, go against national security, use insulting language in contempt of court (this is not an exhaustive list). Especially the stuff about inciting crimes...right? Hate narratives is a brain virus. It serves no purpose except to hurt and maintain inequality. These words can fester and make life intolerable for marginalised people, undeniably leads to violence, discrimination and inequality. Each country has to decide for themselves what the limit is. For some countries you have to say something truly dehumanising and offensive to get fined (or possibly imprisoned) in others the bar is set low and randomly calling a stranger "a stupid fucking fat faggot" is intolerable, serves no purpose except to inflict verbal violence and dehumanise someone and is comparable to physically assaulting someone (that can certainly be the subjective experience for the victim). So while for many Americans numerous constraints against free speech seem like no-braininess, even vicious harmful hate speech which perpetuates inequality and even leads to violence...is simply something that should be allowed because otherwise it simply constricts free speech (which isn't totally free anyways) beyond a magical line that somehow de-legitimises free speech at all. I'm not sure why but each country to their own. I find it hard to understand why people think it's reasonable to draw the line after libel but before vicious hate speech. I would say dehumanising a person because of their race is just as bad as potentially ruining someone's reputation. And the argument that prohibiting hate speech will somehow lead to governments censoring everything is ridiculous. There have been some form of hate speech laws for decades now in some countries and the government isn't stomping all over all the rest of their citizens rights, limiting political dissent or coming up with vocabulary lists. In fact in Spain, even after introducing hate speech laws they are in the process of removing other laws which limit speech (which would demonstrate the opposite of the arguments that controlling some speech creates a slippery slope). ShabiDOO 18:38, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Honestly I find that line of thinking to be absurd. It fails to account for the realities of defamation, misinformation, indirect incitement, and actual criminal conspiracy. I can't just run around threatening to hurt people, and bigots can't just run around shouting slurs. It's that simple. Would an idealized land of free speech be nice? Sure I guess. But so too would be a world without the need to enforce laws (anarchism), or a world without crime, or a world of complete social cooperation (communism). However, such pure idealism isn't possible due to the practical realities of society. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:42, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I don't disagree with you, but there are no simple answers. I just feel it's too dangerous to let the government decide what is and is not Hate Speech without a clearly defined process. Take any hate speech statement, and replace the targeted group with "Scientologists". "Scientologists control the media!" "Scientologists are terrorists!" Perhaps take a "true" statement about Scientologists, then replace "Scientologist" with "Homosexual", or perhaps "Muslim" or "Jew". Should the legality change in any of these cases, and why? Corinth (talk) 19:32, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

transparency and accountability are always needed in government, even though many don't really care (Again the USA.) and since Shabi wrote,"including France where liberty is part of their national history and identity" (I'm not picking on you or having a go.In fact I agree with what you wrote.) it's easy to forget that the very same can be said about that great land of freedom and liberty, The US of A. Those ideals of freedom and liberty only apply, or applied to white men. to quote Jason Stanely's 'How Fascism Works' In ..(his).. famous speech, entitled “What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?,” Douglass calls out the hypocrisy of a country that practices human slavery while celebrating the ideal of liberty. Americans in the nineteenth century, including those who lived in the South, regarded their land as a beacon of liberty. How is this possible, Douglass asked, when it was built by the labor of enslaved Africans and a native population whose land rights and often rights to life were thoroughly ignored? So, how do you proscribe hate speech? Do you prohibit incitement? Do you target meaning? I'm sure it is something that can fill tomes of academia text and debates, but unlike debating the hideousness of Nietzsche's core philosophies, (something which Robert Newman does with such beauty in his Half-Full Philosophy Hour https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000n5yz/episodes/guide) these people don't care about civil discourse. These people want to dehumanise anything that is different from them and essentially kill it, be that someone with differnt skin, faith, culture, sexual orientation, different gender expression etc, they see these people as less than human and therefore not worthy of any civility or even life. And you've seen this rhetoric in the States, that utter scumbag driving his car into a crowd ffs. Cardinal Chang (talk) 20:56, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
At the University of Wisconsin, someone actually tried to get an English professor sanctioned for hate speech for... wait for it... going over how Geoffrey Chaucer used the word niggardly. For people (generic, not directed at anyone) who claim to dislike the prison-industrial complex, hate speech laws are a fine way to create a lot more police interactions that have at least some potential to evolve into use of deadly force, all because someone's feelz got hurt super bad. And of course, no one ever seems to remember how it'll affect those of us who can't keep up with the latest fads on Things That Grievously Hurt Peoples' Feelz, It's a hard enough time remembering to say a proper goodbye at family gatherings (I know it sounds ridiculous, but perhaps the Irish in me is just extra strong!), there's no way I'm keeping track of the latest turnings of the euphemism treadmill (and it applies to me, I'm afflicted with a form of The Big A and have no desire to fuck with the name Asperger's syndrome). Seriously, a bunch of people unironically pulled the race card out over Steve Martin for King Tut because it was somehow hateful towards... well someone, apparently, it's not really clear who. I want no part of hugging the tar baby that is "hate speech laws". The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:08, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
That example of misunderstanding a word and wanting to sanction is nothing new (mob attacks and property damage over the job title https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/aug/30/childprotection.society ). But since we are talking American Universities, isn't there currently outcry amongst the supposed 'free-speech' brigade over the teaching of Critical Race Theory? Of course it's disingenuous to condemn 'Critical Race Theory' and to avoid it's subject, Racism. (see the wonderful The Nib https://thenib.com/thinking-critically/) Quite similar to the obfuscation with that idiotic term Jordan Peterson and his ilk have trotted out, Cultural Marxism. Sounds scary, especially to those unwilling to find out what it means, but in every argument Peterson and his ilk have made about the evils of 'cultural marxism' do yourself a favour and simply replace it with equality. The true meaning of his outrage, and in fact the quite fascistic stance of his ideology is apparent. And he would indeed deserve a punch in the mouth. (not in the slightest bit sorry about that.) But in this context, from misunderstanding of the word niggardly, to job title and the 'evils' of critical race theory and vacuous threat of Cultural Marxism, these examples are not hate speech. They are misunderstandings of words either deliberate or through poor education and/or reasoning. And that would include Steve Martin, but since I haven't seen it I can't comment. But the ECRI does have an outline here https://www.coe.int/en/web/european-commission-against-racism-and-intolerance/hate-speech-and-violence Cardinal Chang (talk) 08:55, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, I also oppose any of the silly bans on CRT; I don't happen to agree with all of it, but that's no reason to ban it. Thankfully the laws purporting to ban it are so ridiculously overbroad they don't stand a chance of holding up in court. Especially if you don't agree with it, the very real issues it raises force you to come up with something better, and that's exactly how people should approach arguments. Also, the iconic Steve Martin video is here, I don't think it's possible to keep a straight face while watching it. While it was mostly college kids who bitched about the saxophone player imitating blackface (no, seriously, I really wish I was making this up), as we've seen college kids end up becoming members of the workforce who bring this idiocy with them. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:25, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
That King Tut skit is very funny. Seems those you claim are outraged over it are missing the point entirely. Musically it reminds me of Frank Zappa, who if memory calls was on SNL around the same time and was never asked back again. But that would be more over personality clashes. Frank was rather anti drug, and SNL by this period was heading into or was deeply riddled with cocaine especially in the writers room. Cardinal Chang (talk) 20:39, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Does breakfast jumpstart your metabolism[edit]

I’ve seen a few articles saying it does and some saying it doesn’t. What’s the truth?Machina (talk) 14:31, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Your blood sugar is low in the morning, eating breakfast raises it. When you have higher blood sugar, you have more energy and your body uses more energy. Corinth (talk) 17:20, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
You ain't eaten in 8 hours or so, your body has been busy doing it's night time sleepy thing. You need sustenance. Have some toast, bitta fruit and a coffee (it'll be the jump start your bowel needs. and the only "jump start" that is needed)Cardinal Chang (talk) 21:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Learning the difference between skepticism and conspiracy/paranoid thinking[edit]

Dont know if this has been discussed already but i like to know the difference between applying proper skepticism and if there is ever point where it becomes paranoid thinking. At times I find that i tend to always “look for flaws” or sometimes questioning “what if” when im thinking to myself. There are also times where i may come across news stories, hear claims from people in casual conversation, or when im researching something online and sometimes internally question the validity of what im hearing or reading. Just want to know at what point does skepticism becomes paranoid thinking (if any) and how would i apply the difference when receiving and collecting information in the future.(Yes i have read both RW on skepticism and paranoia)SensaurC-137 (talk) 00:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Skepticism involves tailoring one's beliefs, and one's confidence in those beliefs, to the available evidence. One doubts claims in the light of evidence, and of background knowledge. Paranoia involves doubt of a dogmatic character, characteristically granting improbable explanations outsized influence over one's thought. "Sure, all evidence suggests that 2 + 2 = 4, but surely it is possible that I've miscalculated every time. Perhaps I am even being made to mess up, by a cabal of lizardmen! Why, it seems just as likely that I would get 4 if there were some powerful cabal of influential lizardmen deceiving me, as if it were the true answer! Maybe it is even the work of Satan himself!" What separates this doubt from skeptical doubt? Well, it fails to account for the full range of evidence, and it fails to evaluate the prior probabilities of the various hypotheses involved. It is irrational to lose all confidence in the truth of something, because it is possible to imagine some improbable scenario in which it is false. Obviously, I am making use of the most extreme example as an illustration; one does not need to be so extreme to become irrational. "So, what is a reasonable level of doubt?" Well, there is no concise answer. If you find yourself doubting strong scientific consensus, you have almost certainly gone beyond skepticism (which is, at root, an empirical enterprise). In practice, knowing the difference is something of an intuitive exercise, and there are really other, subtler issues that are more likely to plague you in your efforts to be reasonable. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 talk 01:39, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Here is perhaps an illustrative example of what distinguishes dogmatic doubt from skeptical doubt. My initial hypothesis is that Dave is in this room with me. Having formed this hypothesis, I take a look around the room, and produce this evidence: I do not see Dave in this room. A rational person, in this situation, would revise their hypothesis, deciding that Dave is probably not in this room with me. The paranoiac, on the other hand, is unlikely to make this inference. They might consider such alternative hypotheses as (in order of increasing absurdity): Dave is hidden behind some object in the room, my senses have deceived me, and I did not see Dave even though he was in plain sight, or Dave is in the room, but he has turned himself invisible. All three of these hypotheses are supported by the evidence. But if they are supported by the evidence, what makes them (especially the latter two) irrational?
My preferred approach to explain this is to put things in terms of possible worlds. Initially, before looking around the room, I compare the set of all possible worlds, and I determine that the set of possible worlds in which Dave is in the room is larger than the set of possible worlds in which Dave is not in the room, which is what motivates my initial hypothesis. After I look around the room, the evidence I gain eliminates some of the possible worlds I started with. Namely, any world in which I see Dave in this room has become impossible. Under certain, reasonable assumptions (most notably, that my senses are reliable sources of information), the set of worlds where I see Dave in the room contains more worlds where Dave is in the room than where he is not. Consequently, the set of possible worlds in which Dave is in the room shrinks more than the set of possible worlds in which Dave isn't in the room. If the difference is big enough (and it should be, if my senses are reliable), then after accounting for the evidence, there are more possible worlds left in which Dave isn't in the room than in which he is, and the reasonable conclusion is that Dave is not in the room.
Here is the subtle point. If Dave were invisible, then I wouldn't see him even if he were in the room. Consequently, my evidence eliminates none of the possible worlds in which Dave is in the room and is invisible. Since I have the same number of possible worlds with an invisible Dave, but fewer total possible worlds, the share of worlds with invisible Dave has increased as a proportion of all possible worlds (in other words, it has become more likely). What makes this an unreasonable conclusion is that Dave has to be in the room to be invisible and in the room. The increased probability of in the room and invisible cannot make up for the overall lost probability of in the room at all. No matter what, my failure to see Dave in the room should make me less confident that Dave is in the room. If the room has a lot of sight-obstructing stuff, the evidence might be weak enough that I still think he is more likely there than not, but the evidence should still push me in the same direction.
The takeaway from this is that a piece of evidence can be both evidence against a hypothesis H and for a hypothesis G that entails H (in my example, against the hypothesis that Dave is in the room and for the hypothesis that Dave is in the room and is invisible). Paranoia tends to involve taking the increased probability of G as reason not to give up one's confidence in H (or even to become more confident in H: consider "the lack of evidence is evidence of the coverup" type thinking): this is a fallacy. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 talk 02:56, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Nothing to really add to that response but you (Sensaur) might want to read confirmation bias as well. You should ask yourself if you are challenging certain statements because they challenge your beliefs or because you really want more information. (Though it's entirely possible that you are already familiar with this idea.)
You might also want to read Pseudoskepticism which talks about skepticism when it is incorrectly used.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 13:25, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Both responses are appreciated. I always try to stay aware of my own confirmation biases though like most people I can be susceptible to emotional pleas at times. It mainly when weeding out and determining what bad or misinformation is where i guess i have trouble at. conspiracy theories and woo can have half-truths that i could be swayed by in any given circumstance. Simply put, i don’t like being misleadSensaurC-137 (talk) 14:45, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
I honestly think that there may sometimes be a demarcation problem in conspiracy theories in the same way that it can exist between science and pseudoscience. Clearly there are many real conspiracies in the world and clearly there are many conspiracy theories. In most cases it is pretty clear if it real or not. The world is not flat, Covid is not caused by 5G and there is no secret group of pedophile hunters led by Donald Trump. On the other hand there have been real conspiracies to commit fraud, commit terrorist acts and undermine governments. Typically the questions are: how many people need to be involved and what is being gained? If the alleged conspiracy requires hundreds of thousands of people and it's not clear who gains what - then it's going to be in "conspiracy theory" repertory.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Trump definitely isn't leading the hunt for pedophile world leaders, but there definitely are quite a few pedophiles and other sexual predators in powerful positions that have been hushing everything up. We only found out recently that Bill Gates was forced out of MicroSoft for sexual misconduct, if there was no divorce that secret would've been taken to the grave. Bill Clinton was accused of misconduct by numerous women before Lewinsky, one of whom alleged rape, so Clinton being tied to Epstein doesn't exactly instill confidence. Prince Andrew is a twat, and I think the royal family has been covering up some of his activities. The only truly ridiculous thing about the "pedophile ring" theory is the idea that Trump would be the one to take them down, because what, as an experienced predator himself he knows all their tricks? Corinth (talk) 18:29, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
I agree that pedophiles exist and that some of them will be powerful. But as I said: "there is no secret group of pedophile hunters led by Donald Trump" . It's utter conspiracy nuttiness put about by Qanon.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:44, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
So... we agree on everything? Corinth (talk) 19:54, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Apparently. I honestly wasn't sure what your point was.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:52, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
To be fair, that was one of his campaign arguments, albeit applied to a different subject. Wouldn’t be surprised to hear his supporters use the same logic here. Artificius (talk) 03:35, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
My point is, that while the QAnon weirdos are twisted, there are kernels of truth in their whole "Satan-worshipping baby-rapers are running everything" brain-tumor lunacy. In other news, I'm finally comfortable with "brain-tumor" being my go-to insult for people now that "retarded" is a no-no word. Corinth (talk) 23:36, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
The biggest kernel here is how much QAnon itself was run by "Satan-worshipping baby-rapers" -- well, maybe not quite that far, but the yahoos that ran 8chan (home of the "official Q drops") had a pretty solid reputation for allowing questionable child-exploitation-oriented material on their site. Other than that, the rich and famous are people, not some cartoon-ish stereotype, and it's not surprising that a few of them have various issues, just like everyone else. That really isn't the underlying issue anyways with the QAnon crowd, at any rate. It's basically a bunch of probably-not-the-best-and-brightest people fearful of change, getting involved in a quasi-cult-like online movement dedicated to letting them know that People Different Than You Are Evil For Some Reason, and spewing shit at perceived enemies accordingly. (And I do mean shitty ideas. Whoever first trolled QAnon with that fuckin' HST Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas adrenochrome-meets-the-blood libel nonsense deserves some kind of "nice trollin', man, but you're not helping" kind of award...) PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 00:01, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
The problem is that the rich and famous get away with stuff for so long that "I might suffer consequences" is not a deterrent for them. If a rich person has a dark desire, society isn't what will stop them. The rich and poor are very similar when it comes to crime, drugs and sex, because they either lose nothing or have nothing to lose. It's the various working and middle classes that are obsessed with obeying laws and not getting into trouble. Corinth (talk) 04:56, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
So your point is rich people have it easier under all circumstances? It's certainly true, but not very profound.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:27, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
The famous rich actually might have more problems than the mere middle class in some respects due to constantly being in the media spotlight. Leaving "dark desires" aside, let's just take some kinks and recreational chemistry. Jerry Falwell Jr. for instance clearly liked to party and also engage in cuckold fetish type stuff. Elon Musk made headlines merely for smoking pot on Joe Rogan's podcast. Whether it matters or not depends on what media rep you've staked. I don't think too many people gave a shit about Musk smoking pot, because no one who is not a moral nanny cares about pot anymore, and it fits with Musk's rep. On the other hand, booze n' cuckolding did not exactly fit with Falwell Jr.'s image as president of Liberty University, and it hurt him bad.
None of this applies, of course, to the less famous rich. But who's fault is that? In my experience, in America, certain "middle classes that are obsessed with obeying laws and not getting into trouble" tend to over-obsess on making sure that the poor and minorities don't get too uppity and downplay those "in kind" that get in trouble, for tribal reasons alone. They'll happily ignore their Matt Gaetz / Roy Moore types with true "dark desires" and focus on making sure those "welfare recipients" are "drug tested" because reasons. QAnon is frankly a mess in part because of this sort of viewpoint, a whole lot of ignorance on how the world works. Sure, I could direct the Qs to actual, legitimate conspiracies that affected the world, such as the Libor scandalWikipedia. Would that affect their stupid, angry babbles? Most likely not. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 17:44, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Raisi is now the President of Iran[edit]

Shit is about to go down. Monet talk 07:48, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

How? Does the president of Iran suddenly have actual power? Funny how the west only cares who the president of Iran is if he's somebody likely to say stupid crap, like Ahmadinejad. Did anybody ever see much of anything written about the president of Iran for the last 8 years? It's almost like... Like the west knows the Iranian president isn't important, but likes spicy soundbites for propaganda purpose, and so ignores him if he's somewhat moderate... Dendlai (talk) 11:46, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
The president of Iran actually has quite a bit of power. Not as much as the Ayatollah, but still. Also, Fuck... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 11:59, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
A fundamentalist religious conservative as president of a theocratic state? I see no cause for concern. As these types of comments are often taken literally I should mention that this is nor my real opinion. Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 12:53, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
This is the status quo. To paraphrase a disaffected Iranian non-voter, when a country has a supreme leader there is no point in voting. Raisi's actual powers are overstated because most of them can be overruled by the Ayatollah. Bongolian (talk) 18:07, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Not really status quo, Rouhani was much more moderate. With Raisi, the conflict with USA/Israel will escalate. But surprisingly, there are many muslim countries who are backing the US (Saudi Arabia, UAE, Indonesia, Egypt), probably because of their hatred of Shia muslims. Monet talk 08:24, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Vindication. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:42, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Growing support for Palestine among the general population, several countries and the Democratic Party- How will this affect Geopolitics?[edit]

For those who known me on the wiki for a while, you know that I support a free and independent Palestine. Anyways with newer generations pushing for governments to actively work for a two-state solution, how will governments respond? Thanks to Trump, the bigotry of the Republican Party and evangelicals support for Israel is starting to falter. Support for Palestine has noticeably grown in the Democratic Party and it is putting pressure on Biden relating to his current Israeli policy.

As a realist, I know that a two-state solution won't happen anytime soon. I cannot say how likely a confederation similar to Bosnia and Herzegovina would work out (one country that acts as two countries). --Boterham (talk) 23:58, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I know very little about the politics of Palestine. Israel seems to really dislike the Gaza strip. What interest do they have in keeping Palestine part of Israel? Is there like a big port or something? MirrorIrorriM (talk) 01:56, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Eh, it's only a slight change over the past few years. Corinth (talk) 02:24, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
All I want is the luxury of being able not to care about Israel or Palestine, because I do not actually care about Israel or Palestine. Unfortunately, in the USA, this is a luxury denied me. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 02:35, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Only growing support for palestine within israel would have significant effect AMassiveGay (talk) 06:14, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

There are three realistic solutions for the conflict:

One democratic state (Isratin) Likely, a civil war would break out.

One State (Israel) Palestinians either stay as equal citizens or they get deported to Jordan/Egypt.

Two/three-state solution (the most realistic one) Israel and Palestine (West Bank and Gaza): West Bank would be secular while Gaza has Sharia

The one-state (Palestine) is unrealistic, Israel would rather exterminate Palestine than allowing itself to be destroyed. Monet talk 08:17, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

the two state solution is dead and has been dead for awhile. it will take a hell of a lot of effort to revive. AMassiveGay (talk) 08:28, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it is difficult, but it is the most realistic one, the others would likely result in a civil war. Monet talk 08:57, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

not really though, thats arse. it would not look too much different than it does now. just reduce 'palestine' to even more of rump state than it is now, then officially annex the west bank. note that 'solution' is not the same as a 'good or just outcome'AMassiveGay (talk) 09:05, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Agreed, Israel (and other middle eastern countries) should leave West Bank/Gaza. Monet talk 15:40, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
What about Israel disengage from the West Bank in exchange for an agreement which allows them to invade, and occupy the Gaza Strip in exchange, or failing that in exchange for Palestine agreeing to withdraw its claims to the Gaza Strip and allow Israel to hands the Gaza Strip back to Egypt (which occupied Gaza before the 1967 war)? Or what Israel returns the West Bank to Jordan and the Gaza Strip to Egypt in exchange for peace? Also how would it be decided that Palestinians stay as equal citizens or get deported in the event that the West Bank and Gaza Strip are absorbed into Israel proper? I doubt that Israel would absorb Gaza unilaterally, it makes no sense in my opinion. Harry Potter (talk) 22:35, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Rudy Giuliani[edit]

Watching Fear City on netflix - a doco about the fbi taking down thew mafia i n 1980s new york. its funny to see giuliani and not see a clown. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:09, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm from the part of Connecticut that's closer to New York than the rest of New England; I'm of the age where my first memory of Giuliani was explicitly rooting for the Yankees in the Subway Series (being a Yankee fan I supported that!), and my second was 9/11. For anyone who knew him at all before or after it's hard to imagine him any other way, but for someone like me it's difficult to process just how he went from my first memories to... whatever he's doing now. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:22, 20 June 2021 (UTC)