RationalWiki:Saloon bar

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

edit

Dear Patrons! Your feedback is always appreciated.

• - Currently, there are 2 pages marked for deletion
• - and no pages are marked for demotion.

Vox Populi, Vox Dei

This will be our new maker of health policy. And this will be our director of "government efficiency". Chillpilled (talk) 10:02, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Does America give "political immunity" to people that go into politics? If so, then Twitter will never cease to exist and Musk will be able to do what he wants. Also, you're joking about those positions, right? Right?? Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 12:23, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

No, I'm not joking. See: 1, 2. Chillpilled (talk) 13:15, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Don't they need to be confirmed by the Senate? I know they'll have a tiny majority there but have all the remotely sane Republicans been purged now? KarmaPolice (talk) 13:21, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

They have anticipated that and intend to make RFK Jr. a "health czar", in charge of health policy but only de facto. Chillpilled (talk) 13:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I've heard that they're planning on forcing Congress into a recess to force these batshit cabinet appointments through. Carthage (talk) 21:47, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

That's the thing though: yes, a lot of these appointments will need confirmation. The Senate majority will be slim, and it will only take ~4 Republicans to object. This actually will be a good test of just how far Trump ass-kissing extends in the Republican party. I expect folks like Marco Rubio to be confirmed easily, but it seems like even many conservatives are pissed off about "Matt Gaetz for attorney general" or "WTF Fox News guy for secretary of defense". I mean, the carnie-show nominees aren't surprising to me at all given how much of an ungovernable circus the modern Republican party has become, but I am guessing more than 4 Senators care a little bit about actual governing, and might have some cover given that the more sane end of conservatism doesn't seem happy about some of these nominees either. We'll see.

Trump 1.0 was a shitstorm of chaos, but Trump's deepening brain rot seems to be strengthening this future shitstorm into a Category 5 wrecking ball. With the nominees so far (barring a few exceptions), it's making the presidential cabinet of Idiocracy look like Rhodes scholars in comparison. This is what America elected, folks. BobJohnson (talk) 22:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Is that more or less powerful than 'a supremo'? I mock because here in the UK announcing 'a czar' on anything 97% of the time equates to a powerful-sounding position with little/no actual power and is usually used to either 'kick upstairs' an now-inconvenient ally and/or to reward a crony. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:50, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

What I’m fairly certain we’ll see in the Trump 2.0 administration is the most massively, nakedly and unashamedly corrupt administration in US history. Even if it manages to bungle everything else, Trump will try to squeeze and grift every last cent he’ll be able to wring out of the US coffers. ScepticWombat (talk) 17:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Quiet you! If you speak too loudly, they'll hear you and see it as a competition to be even more venal than during the Gilded Age... KarmaPolice (talk) 22:05, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I do indeed think the next Trump administration will be more (and more openly) venal than the Guilded Age spoils system. Not because it’s a competition (yes, I did spot the irony, but bear with me), but because Trump seems to think that this is how everything does and should work: That the key reason anyone seeks any kind of power is to grab what they can and line their own pockets.

Unlike the Guilded Age politicians, Trump basically doesn’t even seem to realise that his venality might be honestly considered to be wrong and thus takes any criticism to be merely sanctimonious posturing, not least because he has seen remarkably few serious personal consequences during his lifetime of grift. ScepticWombat (talk) 05:25, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Are you a "germ theory aficionado"?

"HIV Denial in the COVID Era":

Kennedy even flirts with outright germ theory denial, discussing “terrain theory,” the idea that if one’s body is health enough, it cannot be damaged by microbes (referring to it as “miasma theory”). He explains: "Germ theory aficionados, in contrast, blame disease on microscopic pathogens. Their approach to health is to identify the culpable germ and tailor a poison to kill it. Miasmists complain that those patented poisons may themselves further weaken the immune system, or simply open damaged terrain to a competitive germ or cause chronic disease…When a starving African child succumbs to measles, the miasmist attributes the death to malnutrition; germ theory proponents (a.k.a. virologists) blame the virus."

Would seem to dovetail with his proposal to stop funding infectious disease research for ~8 years to focus on chronic conditions. (Wonder what the virologists are meant to do in the meantime.)

I think Trump will in fact hire Kennedy, but I don't expect him to stick around — competing egos. Chillpilled (talk) 04:53, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

without covid lockdowns and pandemics making health policy the no1 focus of national and global politics, there probably isnt going to much that would pull focus from trump or directly contradict or challenge whatever shite hes going staking presidential credentials on. hes not going to clash with kennedy over health policy the way he did with fauci because health policy probably lower importance to trump this time around. indeed, if there is a clash involving kennedy, it would probably involve officials of the type fauci was that and trump and kennedy can combine to undermine the expertise and trust in vital government organisations. probably.

trump certainly not going to push back against dogshit health advice unless hes promoting dogshit health advice from somewhere. egos, for sure, but not competing. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Without pandemics? Of course. It's a good thing no bird flu has hopped into pigs recently... or has it? Chillpilled (talk) 23:16, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

New germ guy dropped: meet your Defense Sectretary, Pete Hegseth. Good news, soldiers! "Germs are not a real thing". Chillpilled (talk) 00:54, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

It's American Royalty. I cannot imagine how gross dorks think Elon Musk made an artsy divorce baby for fun with GRIMES,

and still think of him as daddy, but American Royalty is weird and horrible. Remember when it was Beyonce and Jay Z? It's gross, but germs aren't the cause of illness, being poor is a legitimate selling point of all ills to American Royals. Eww, the poor. Torrent (talk) 09:50, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Hey guys, check out this cool quote from Mike Huckabee

“I think Israel has title deed to Judea and Samaria,” said Huckabee, using the Biblical terms for the West Bank. “There are certain words I refuse to use. There is no such thing as a West Bank. It’s Judea and Samaria. There’s no such thing as a settlement. They’re communities, they’re neighborhoods, they’re cities. There’s no such thing as an occupation.” (source)

Anyways, don't mind me, I'm only bringing this up because Huckabee is Trump's pick to be the new US ambassador to Israel, while Israel's finance minister is already talking about annexing more of the West Bank. Great job to all the people who stayed home during this election because of Gaza! Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 19:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

This reminds me of asking farmers if they were enjoying 'their Brexit bonuses' from loss of market access and Brussels money... KarmaPolice (talk) 19:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and many Muslim voters approved of this policy, voted for Jill Stein (!) or didn't vote.[1] The Biden last minute strategy on the war was clearly outplayed by Israel who clearly favored the felon/rapist. A more proactive view would have been: clean up the humanitarian crisis two weeks before the election or I'm sending all the earmarked military supplies for Israel to Ukraine instead before I leave office. Bongolian (talk) 20:41, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Basedgolian doesn't miss. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 21:05, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Gaza probably could not have singularly swung the 2024 election, unless it alone had a really outsized impact on liberal (especially youth) turnout in general. It clearly didn't hinge on Dearborn. Chillpilled (talk) 04:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I blame the majority voter for being stupid as much as you do, but it's still a reality. Who do you think voted for Trump? A keyed in politically minded econ major? It's not great, but IF you're asking a bloc why they are not politically savvy or informed, you are shouting that into a void. I get it, they will never get it, the economy is probably going to become the stock market, which is a really bad idea, but Republicans are the party of Lincoln, so wage slavery shouldn't have a color, religion, or anybody challenging it. Torrent (talk) 07:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Lest we forget Biden condoned and sponsored Israel's war crimes for the entire year up to the election and Harris undoubtedly would have continued to do so. Apparently Israel also has title deed to the US treasury and arsenal. I did not and will not vote for any of them. Accumulator (talk) 05:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

That's not anything I argue against. You are allowed to withhold your vote. In a lot of places, voting is like hammering the crosswalk button, the light will change whether you press it or not. Torrent (talk) 09:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Gavin Newsom

Looks like Gavin Newsom's star is going to be on the rise if there's still a functioning democracy in 2 to 4 years.[2]

“”As a Californian, Newsom is an evil psychopathic demon who feeds on the blood of Republicans. I despise everything about him and cannot wait for the day I get to vote for him as president. He may be a psycho but he's our psycho.

—Seagull on the dead bird site[3]

Bongolian (talk) 20:48, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think he’s a good idea. California shifted significantly right this year to due ongoing dissatisfaction with Democratic governance, and he has big “used car salesman” energy. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 21:36, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

He also feeds on the blood of the homeless. Carthage (talk) 22:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

For a comprehensive takedown, see this. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:10, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

"He's our son-of-a-bitch."[4] Bongolian (talk) 06:30, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Cutting against my laconic New England nature for a moment, I always appreciated the longer yet somehow more hilarious version from Lyndon Johnson about Hoover, "It's probably better to have him inside the tent pissing out, than outside the tent pissing in". The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:40, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

It is rather pathetic to see Democrats pimp out a guy who crushed a single-payer healthcare (after pledging to back it) and minimum-wage increase bill as "the guy to beat Trump" when a carbon-copy of that candidate just lost the fucking popular vote. He's as two-faced as Kamala, and just as much a representation of the corporate control of the Democratic Party that honestly needs to end. Carthage (talk) 21:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Immigration and "build the wall" is surprisingly popular across the US, in all likelihood it is the main issue that rocketed Trump to victory. You aren't going to win over moderates with one of the governors that's the face of amnesty. CorruptUser 20:30, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Immigration?

There's nothing "moderate" about xenophobia and bigotry, which is in large part the fault of racist fearmongering in the media. Immigrants aren't delivering fentanyl over the border (the people doing that are Americans), they aren't eating your pets, and they're working the jobs no one else will, often in slave-like conditions. Those "moderate" bigots were never going to vote for Harris anyway, no matter how far to the right the Dems pivoted. And you can bet your ass they pivoted to the right on immigration. Carthage (talk) 20:48, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

"Don't let anyone in" actually IS the centrist position; the "far right" position on immigration is actually "invade and conquer the heathens". CorruptUser 21:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

The far-right position on immigration is "immigrants are coming to white countries to demographically replace our people, and this is why we should ban immigration from non-white countries." The actually moderate position on immigration is "we should expand legal pathways for citizenship, eliminate the incentives that make undocumented immigrants more desirable workers than citizens and legal residents, and invest in the development of countries that we see the most immigration from so that immigration itself isn't necessary for the people living in those countries to have a prosperous life." A complete ban on immigration is not by any means a sensible, or feasible, position. Just because an opinion is popular doesn't mean it's sensible or correct, and we shouldn't contribute to the mainstreaming of xenophobia by labeling these opinions as "moderate." They're not, they're just bigoted. Carthage (talk) 21:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I should probably note that "ban immigration" is already a far-right position. "Invade and conquer the heathens" is simply further right. Carthage (talk) 23:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

So... what's the immigration policy of China? India? Brazil?

Historically speaking, nations very rarely let in foreigners en masse, and if they did it was as second class citizens at best. That any significant number of people are welcoming to migrants is a historical anomaly. CorruptUser 07:29, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

If the best you got is "well other countries don't have open immigration systems like the US" (and we don't have that. In fact, the Biden administration has deported far more people than Trump, which is a dubious honor to be sure. Deportations tear apart families, and most often the guys who end up getting deported are just guys who got busted for having a small amount of weed on them or for going a few miles over the speed limit. Bonus points for racial profiling.) then you've already lost. You've offered no real reasons for why immigration is such a bad thing. It built this country. Part of this country's founding mythology is that the US is a shining beacon on the hill, welcoming all comers. "Bring me your poor, tired, huddled masses." And before you say that immigrants commit more crime than native-born citizens, that's bullshit. Immigrants are also necessary to have a functioning economy, they do the jobs nobody else will, often under harsh, slave-like conditions. And they absolutely pay taxes. Fact of the matter is, anti-immigrant sentiment in this country is born out of harmful misinformation. And about China, it's not the US currently undergoing a severe demographic decline (not to the same extent, anyways, and we can thank immigration for that). That's China. Their demographic crisis would be very much mitigated if they started letting more immigrants in. Carthage (talk) 09:07, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

This is one of those things I simply don't get about the American 'left' as well as personally pisses me off.

If you're going to have an immigration policy which isn't utterly 'open doors, ask no questions' you are going to need an some kind of border service, to process applicants and to stop folks simply crossing the border undocumented. Outside of asylum cases [which the country is legally bound to process with a modicum of competence, compassion and speed] and those believed to be citizens the country has zero obligation to accept anyone - every country in the world is permitted by both law and convention to have immigration/visitor criteria, to control their borders and lastly, to deport those within the country believed to not be here legally. 'Guys getting deported for speeding' is in fact two differing situations;

a) Guy busted speeding was an undocumented visitor, thus the crime led to them being spotted, arrested and deported.

b) Guy busted speeding was a documented visitor, thus the crime led their residency/visitor status being revoked and then deported.

Hardliners would argue that both 'deserve' deportation, while a more generous person would accept that for b) the punishment is disproportionate. This is a discussion regarding the legal standards documented visitors are held to. To argue that a) doesn't lead to deportation is to basically argue that once you've cleared the border service, you're in forever, while '[country] needs immigration' is a different discussion to this one, which is what should the state do when undocumented visitors are discovered within the country.

I am not au fiat with the particulars of the American position, but through the prism of British experience [esp with the last Tory Govts] is to ask - what is the state of legal systems, such as guest worker programmes, talent visas, family residency rules, claiming asylum and then finally, the route to settled status/citizenship. This the the zone where we discuss the relative needs of the country's industry for foreign labour, the historical foundation for immigration [while the UK is traditionally an emigration point, we've also long been a immigration point too from the Irish to Hong Kongers] and how we integrate said folks into our societies. And in this, Corrupt is correct; as 'settler nations' America's historical 'open door, no questions' policy has been an historical anomaly globally, and if I remember right a policy which closed just after WW1 [and was never properly open in the first place, what with the de facto bans on nonwhite groups like the Chinese]. I would go further in this; that there is a wealth of information now of 'how not to do' immigration - and one of the key positions is [in my book] 'don't allow foreign groups to effectively colonise particular towns/cities to the point the natives feel utterly overwhelmed with no personal benefit'.

Now on the 'immigrants and crime' issue. Moving to another country is in many ways the firmest 'clean break' a person can do; a land where not only does 'nobody know your name' but the new authorities traditionally don't either. This is beneficial for many innocent reasons - for example, many Brits making the crossing liked the relative lack of a class system which 'pegged your position in life' they found in America. But you know who else likes clean slates? Career criminals. To quote Terry Pratchett's Night Watch; the best place to be a crook is the place nobody knows you are a crook. Plus, some of these folks will be on the run from the authorities 'back home' and shall also work to try to avoid getting attention so nobody puts two and two together; this was a problem with America back with the Mafia in the 1900s, so it's not new [or just American; here in the UK one of the major foreign/ethnic crime groups has been Albanian, and while some of the smuggled people were trafficked sex slaves and drug labourers some were also 'criminal importation' to expand their British businesses].

This is partly why the 'bring me your poor, tired, huddled masses' argument falls down. It's utterly tone-deaf to the above problem, because it denies it exists period. I'm willing to bet a fiver that it's no way as common as public perception thinks and there's an element of xenophobia/racism about it but it is an issue and it does concern a decent % of people. It's one of the reasons Trump [and earlier the Tories here] won; they promised 'to do something about this' and part of their pitch was 'the left have no policy, just let everyone in'. KarmaPolice (talk) 13:57, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I will note that your 'clean break' argument entirely relies on a disconnect of communication and coordination between authorities across the border. With proper communication/coordination I don't see how freely crossing the border to America could possibly be more of a 'clean break' than freely crossing state lines. Perhaps you are misplacing blame?

Also, you say that an "open borders" policy is a historical anomaly, but I'd love to see your sources for this. From what I read, it was actually really common among nations in the pre-WWI era. It wasn't just America. E.g. take a look at this article I found.

"[... ] to basically argue that once you've cleared the border service, you're in forever". The issue is of ethical nature. Sure, nations have legal frameworks and an existing convention to deport undocumented immigrants. The issue is that when these undocumented immigrants make a life for themselves inside the country we're forced to grapple with quite literally ruining their new life for themselves. I don't find that tenable, especially concerning families. Laws are tools that we use to facilitate the functioning of society in the ways that we want it to act. Do we really want a society that does this to people? Is there truly no better policy? What some see as unequal legal treatment, I see as an ethical practicality.

Finally, I'm not sure who you're arguing against. You seem to be making an argument just to tear it down? Who is "the left" here?

I suppose I can choose to be a stand-in, though. I'd argue that we (America in particular) should have as open borders as possible. Screening for criminals and providing documents is just about the only restriction I'd really argue for. I'm not very sympathetic to people who get concerned when their communities have high-levels of immigration, except for logistical issues irt housing and services. But to me those logistical issues are a failure of our society and not necessarily an intrinsic drawback of immigration. As for undocumented immigrants who make it past border control, I personally see no reason why they cannot simply go through processing while still being in the country. Deportation is insanely expensive, anyways, and takes about $11k per immigrant. It's horribly punitive and inefficient to have this process as it is.Sciraven (talk) 16:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

The issue here is that I'm not aware of anyone on the "electable left" in America that has truly advocated "open borders". People like Biden and Harris certainly didn't. I Googled to check how Newsom is "the face of amnesty"... and honestly, I'm not finding much. I mean, yes, he expanded health services to undocumented workers, but he's also killed several other bills related to undocumented workers. The face of amnesty? Okay...

So how is Newsom all of a sudden the face of amnesty? Two words: Republican propaganda. The Republicans are great at the moment at coming up with "simple solutions for simple minds", especially on Other type issues... and also painting simple demagogues where Democrat politicians are The Cause Of Everything. As an example, Donald Trump's wall is a fucking ridiculous solution to illegal immigration in practical terms... very expensive, and in some cases (like the border at Big Bend National Park) impossible and pointless. But, if you disengage your brain and "think" only with base anger, this dumbfuck solution might actually sound quite good. I already see that the "conservative" propaganda networks took Newsom's little things, like that health care for undocumented workers bill, and blew it out of proportion.

If the racist rubes had a brain, they'd figure out real quick that the politicians aren't the "face of amnesty"... it's the farmers, hotel and leisure industry, construction and others that employ undocumented labor... largely in an already illegal manner. Or, if not, using "workarounds" like the H-2B visa (which I suspect will become more prominent in the future, gives "biz" an "out"). Beginning with Arizona in the 2010s or so, there have been a few states that occasionally "crack down" on illegal immigration properly (namely, by holding employers accountable). Generally, the states have backed off real quick once they figure out that the illegal employing industries (which have a Republican lean, mind you) get hurt -- so even though laws remain "on the books", they are poorly enforced. Also, let's face it -- the prices of things like hotels and veggies are going to go up if illegal immigration was truly cracked down on. Do the rubes that complained about this year's inflation even know that?

By and large, I see the "issue" of illegal immigration in this country as a dog and pony show more than anything else. As long as employers are using them... it will happen. And as long as the rubes don't understand the full scope of illegal immigration... the Republicans will find it as a useful tool to get people mad. So it goes. BobJohnson (talk) 14:34, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, a lot of this is utterly confected and yes, a lot of this could be solved with a more 'defence in depth' situation than a literal 'wall' spanning every metre of the border [rule of thumb tells me you close one route another simply pops up elsewhere]. However, one thing I have learned from British experience is that what 'the left' [or more correctly, the centre] all so often fail to do is to what I call 'reasonable potted replies' to the right-wing BS. This is why, for example I've long felt that in the UK Labour should have said the line 'firm but fair' every time asylum came up as an issue ['we will always help those in genuine need, but we won't be a soft touch either'] to counter-jam the lies. I've seen Carthage's argument about criminal immigrants deployed and fall on it's arse in real-life; all the opponent has to do is find a single well-known exception to 'prove it is wrong'. My argument neuters this defence by accepting that the 'is a criminal' and 'is an immigrant' venn circles do have some overlap and it's perfectly reasonable to argue then, 'well we don't want those people, do we?'.

Perhaps I'm getting more cynical as I age, but it's got to the stage that instead of arguing 'this is a manufactroversy' to the eternally obtuse until you pass out is to simply trot out some glib soundbites and a bit of security theatre to 'assure' them 'we have heard you and are doing shit to sort it out' [all the while ideally sorting out the more knotty/nuanced issues behind the issue, which normally you don't get thanked for]. KarmaPolice (talk) 15:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I certainly agree with that unfortunately. The nuts and bolts wonk stuff, while more the reality of what is going on, is not for the masses that casually tune into politics (if they do at all). On immigration, I actually think that the more progressive end of the Democrats could hype up a "boogeyman" themselves if they wanted to emphasize the Big Business role. (People tend to not like Big Business, though everyone uses it.) Beyond that, I think that finding an acceptable "mass market" slogan/soundbite for the Democrat side is more challenging -- while currently most are not full open borders, they have more "little things" like Newsom's health bill, and nuance is hard to communicate with a sound bite (and easy to counter with simple fear). You might not need one -- good political communicators like Barack Obama didn't necessarily need them. But exceptionally skilled political communicators are rare.

One other caveat: I do think that many of the "racist rubes" actually change their tune quite a bit when it comes to labor with greater skillset. Immigrant doctors and engineers (or even plumbers, electricians, and welders!) seem to arouse far less ire among the masses. Again, however, nothing that I can think of a "mass market" slogan for. But it is something to shape policy over. Most immigration policies worldwide (the United States included) are *much* more friendly to those who have learned a trade. BobJohnson (talk) 16:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

'The builders and strivers will always be welcome to our [COUNTRY NAME]?' And yes, a decent % of the anti-immigration rhetoric is a map/territory issue; that when the centrist-capitalist ruling classes look at macro stats like unemployment rates and GDP growth while the anti-immigrants look at the micro, like the fact low-wage jobs have lost purchasing power and big businesses have used migrant labour to depress wages [which folks like Zinn noted in his People's History - that the Irish were used to break the settled Anglo worker, then they were broken by Italians, then they were broke by Poles etc...]

I think a part of the issue with 'immigration' is that a decent % of the 'reception areas' are in small towns which have suffered generational brain-drain [think of for example the agri colonies which are now strongly Hispanic in the Mid-West] and often have very set ideas on 'what things should look like' - that a ex-mining town doesn't really want say, tourism / educational facilities / artist colonies / retirement communities / tech hubs or solar farms - they just want the fucking mines back. This reminds me of my recent visit back to HomeSmallTown, a washed-up little place where what little economic energy felt now is from the recent migrants [in this case 'foreign to this town']. Cue whining about 'foreign shops' in the town centre etc. Even after pointing out those units had been empty before that and had been for years - they were adamant that there was a BadThing. Came to realise that they didn't want economic recovery, they desired a picture of 1980 to walk back into. Not sure how I could soundbite this away. KarmaPolice (talk) 16:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Corrupt wasn't arguing for a "sensible immigration policy," he was arguing to ban immigration entirely. He stated that was the centrist position. My response to that was "a sensible approach to immigration is to expand legal pathways, rather than restrict them as Trump is doing, go after the structures that incentivize big business to hire migrant labor in the first place (and there is a difference between undocumented labor and simple "migrant" labor), and invest in those countries we are seeing record numbers of immigrants from so that immigration doesn't seem like such an appealing economic pathway to people desiring prosperity." Plus, as I have stated previously, a lot of anti-immigrant sentiment in the States is based on bullshit fearmongering, it's literally an entire business model.

Also, no one in this thread seems to give a shit about the utterly disastrous effects deportation has on communities. It rips parents from children, children from parents, spouses from their significant others There is also the fact that anti-immigrant discourse (and thus, policy) in this country is thoroughly racialized (much more than the "and some of it may be caused by racist sentiment" liner implies). It won't be white people (and white immigrants) targeted by Trump's immigration crackdown. It'll be racial minorities, and you can bet your ass that there have been plenty of false positives. And I don't think we should be perpetuating the rhetoric about "Core Americans" here. It's a racist dogwhistle. Hell, if this country had any real "core population," it would be Native Americans, and they've also had white nativist rhetoric thrown their way (as seen here). To boot, Hispanic-Americans are also in no way "foreign" to the US. Some of them have been here (Tejanos and Californios, for instance) since before the Southwest (and Texas) were ever a part of this country or saw Anglo boots on their soil. In fact, there is a big cross-border economy/community down there. It turns out that communities don't vanish and the people in those communities stop interacting when a bunch of thugs with guns come in and draw an imaginary line on a map separating the people in those communities. Just look at the O'odham.

It's not out of a sense of "youthful naivety" that I, and others like me, object to xenophobic policies. It's because we know where xenophobic policy comes from, and the disastrous consequences it will have on marginalized populations, as I discussed above. Carthage (talk) 04:16, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

No, I'm merely pointing out that the vast majority of the world, throughout most of history, has had the immigration policy of "fuck off". Why bring it up at all? To disabuse you of the notion that somehow, the natural, default position is to be in favor of illegal immigration. In the US, the centrist policy is "legal immigrants can stay, but illegal ones can get fucked". I've stated my ideal immigration policy in the past, but I'll reiterate it again.

1) Expand student visas, 2) expand H1B, EXCEPT that it should be awarded based on employee pay and NOT a lottery, 3) eliminate the lottery visa, 4) expand/promote the military pathway, 5) rapid deportation of criminals, 6) make California's prop 187 national law, 7) expand the work visas, 8) overhaul/streamline/cheapen the legal immigration pathway, 9) go after any employer that hires illegal immigrants, 10) while "anchor babies" should absolutely be given citizenship, anyone who violated immigration law should be permanently ineligible for family reunification, and quite a few more. CorruptUser 06:48, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

1) There is no "natural, default position on immigration." All politics are localized, and so all political positions (including on immigration) are informed by local conditions. A historical trend to tell outsiders to "fuck off" does not in anyway mean that's somehow "more natural" than letting people in. Borders are a very artificial phenomenon, and integration and migration have been just as much the average historical trend as xenophobia and isolation.

2) You didn't state that the centrist position was "legal immigrants can stay, but illegal ones can get fucked." You stated the centrist position was "don't let anybody in." You're moving the goalposts. Hell, I was the one who stated that the moderate position is to ensure that there are viable legal pathways for people to immigrate, not ban it entirely like what you stated. Notice that nowhere in this thread did I argue for completely open borders. Stating that "anti-immigrant politics in this country is generated by racist fearmongering from people in power, and that completely banning immigration is a stupid position to take" is not equivalent to "I believe our borders should be totally open and we should do no screening of people coming in."

3) I, however, also seem to be the only one acknowledging the practical realities of the situation. Because immigration politics in the United States are so heavily racialized, there is going to be a racial component to who we screen, and how we enforce anti-immigration laws, and that marginalized communities are going to be negatively effected by these policies. The U.S. citizens being mistakenly picked up by ICE are not white guys. ICE isn't really going after white immigrants. It's going after people who look like Cesar Chavez, no matter how long people like Chavez have been in the country, or if they are here legally or not. And there are going to be attempts to restrict legal immigrants, so that people who were here legally are now here illegally. Carthage (talk) 07:06, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

From what I've seen of mainline American centrist opinion [like the 'Very Serious People' talking heads] I would guess Corrupt is correct in the "legal immigrants can stay, but illegal ones can get fucked" position [I'm going to assume the earlier 'immigrants can fuck off' was a mistake by omission rather than shifting the posts]. However, while they are also correct in pointing out that 'fuck off unless we explicitly say otherwise' immigration policies are roughly the norm around the world right now [give or take] but Carthage is also correct in pointing out that the American mythos of being 'a city on the hill, welcome to all comers' is in stark contrast to this. I still think the 'anchor baby' line is BS, though - or at best, a very tiny issue [it sounds very close to the British 'teen girl has baby to get a free council house' trope which right-wing shits still peddle despite the fact that a) I never met a teen mother who got knocked up for that purpose and b) housing shortages means that 'hasn't worked' for some time now].

That said, they didn't say there was anything 'natural' in this current position - I mean I pointed out before that before 1914, effectively the entire world was visa free. This state of affairs would have also been held as 'natural', I suspect, just like it was held as 'natural' that the Lower Classes shouldn't be educated because their station in life was to toil. I'm not ignoring the human factor in this either; it's just that again, that's a different conversation. Does deportations of undocumenteds hurt their families? I don't think anyone is saying it doesn't. But simply saying 'that will hurt others so we'll let you go with no penalty' isn't a viable position with the Big Public because they'll feel strongly that it makes a mockery of all those folks who did go through all hoops to get residency. What said penality actually is is another topic - though I'm going to guess that the majority of the Big Public won't be in for performative cruelty.

And yes, the very nature of having policies means you'll end up with false positives/negatives - that's ultimately unavoidable. From what I can tell, the USA has a similar issue to us in the UK in which we lack formal, national systems of an ID card which allows 'legal' residents to assert their position with ease [this is perhaps worse in the USA because less of you as a % of the population have passports] which results in individual officers being in the position to 'use their own judgement' aka to use both conscious and unconscious bias.

I'm aware that you personally didn't advocate 'totally open borders with zero checks', Carthage. The problem is 'you' [as in your position] have been quite well-painted as such by the right-wing shits of this world as advocating this. Yes, this is utterly unfair and incorrect; but it's part of the cost we have to pay; like having to constantly point out that no, just because you support trans rights it doesn't mean 'we think there's a thousand genders' and supporting a reasonable welfare state isn't that you believe in a continuous supply of 'gives' to lazy fuckers. What's more, often when 'we' [as in 'folks on the genuine left'] get 'ambush questions' we're unprepared to give a pithy, 'potted answers' to allow folks to get the gist of our position. Yes, a lot of nuance is lost by doing this but we both know that if we don't define ourselves our opponents will and it will invariably be a lot worse. KarmaPolice (talk) 14:11, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

there are 1000 genders and every time someone complains i personally double the amount TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 19:19, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

and I add one to the tally of 'You suck.' what a worry Torrent (talk) 09:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

@Torrent Who do you mean by 'You'? TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 18:16, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, one person, one tally in my book. If you're being sarcastic a little bit of context is needed.Torrent (talk) 08:50, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Ohhh. TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 18:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Infowars will now be at war with itself.

As noted by Cosmikdebris on the WIGO, The Onion bought Infowars. The sole advertiser during the relaunch will by the gun safety group "Everytown for Gun Safety". The Onion CEO stated regarding their successful auction bid:[5]

“”The Onion is proud to acquire Infowars, and we look forward to continuing its storied tradition of scaring the site’s users with lies until they fork over their cold, hard cash.

Bongolian (talk) 17:12, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

It will probably become more credible.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 20:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

"Here's why I decided to buy Infowars." Carthage (talk) 20:53, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

'Infinite growth forever' is the best 'yours truly' I've ever read. Torrent (talk) 06:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

The takeover by The Onion has been at least temporarily halted as of late yesterday by the bankruptcy judge over concerns about the bidding process.[6] Bongolian (talk) 19:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

No matter how it turns out, it's a hilarious moment, it should be enjoyed as irreverent. infowars sold as serious bought by satire, what an actual moment. Torrent (talk) 06:48, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I often hate wishing the downfall of people, always wanting redemption. But Alex Jones 100% deserves what is happening. SomeAutisticAce (talk) 15:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Silver lining?

Yes, we've had a crazy week, and things like "drill baby drill" are not good auguries - but I was wondering, what if Musk manages to convert the Reps to the cause of climate? Trump seems to be less critical of EVs these days, and maybe solar will follow (and they have generally not minded nuclear even in their anti-environment mindset).

Sure, maybe it's just me looking for something to be hopeful about, and maybe it is Musk who will get converted rather than the Reps. But if a bipartisan consensus is achieved, it would be golden... Meow^Purr 16:56, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

You have the situation completely reversed, given The Boer's recent comments on Fossil Fuels it's probable that he somehow gets even further pushed to the right on that issue specifically. A somebody. (talk) 17:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I think the most likely situation will be like the Third Reich; as in all the major players will be singing their own song which clashes with others and Trump will only be fucked to intervene and 'settle the dispute' when he personally gives a damn but let the 'kids' piss about when they don't. And while Hitler did have 'a plan' of sorts [conquer the world, exterminate whole peoples] which required some reasonable prior thought/planning Trump kinda doesn't apart from 'more money', 'more ego-stroking' and 'silence the hecklers'. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

My thought is "invest in popcorn" because ultimately there are a *lot* of competing hard-line opinions in Trumpism, and some of his cabinet picks are "out of left field" even for the GOP. A "silver lining" with the crazy Robert F. Kennedy Jr. pick, for instance, is that he's pro-choice (so he's unlikely to push a national mifepristone ban like the fundies want). RFK Jr also wants to take on ultra-processed foods, additives, and industrial food in general (a rather reasonable position in theory, though Kennedy Jr.'s unscientific bonkers approach won't be helpful and will lead him astray). None of these override his anti-vaccination / conspiracy theory stupidity, of course. Still, both are angles which conflict with "the Republican party norm"; I'm curious how this conflict will be resolved. BobJohnson (talk) 18:20, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I would disagree that conspiracism and the antivaxx movement conflict with the norms of the modern Republican party. It used to be that (as Innuendo Studios covers here) at most Republican politicians would throw a bone or two to the fringe right but not much else because they knew that the fringe right had nowhere else to go. Nowadays, the GOP has become the party of the fringe right, which is subsequently much less fringe as a result. Ten years ago the rhetoric around immigration coming from the GOP wasn't "Mexicans are criminals and rapists coming to spoil the blood of our country" but "border security is jobs security." Carthage (talk) 05:32, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, to be clear, I was talking about RFK Jr's pro-choice stance and anti-processed food stance not fitting in with current Republicans. The modern Republican party certainly fits in with the anti-vaccination movement and the conspiracy theory crowd these days.

Which is ironic, because on vaccines and conspiracies -- if we use the 1950s as a backdrop for the era "Make America Great Again" wants to take us back to -- those sort of idiots were essentially shoved to the side. Sure, you had crazy John Birch Society members babbling about water fluoridation and other supposed Commie plots, but they weren't anywhere near the wheels of power. In contrast, Jonas Salk (much to his chagrin) became elevated to the level of a folk hero when he developed the polio vaccine. The people in those "good old days" had living memory of some really nasty diseases. These days, many of these nasty diseases have been practically eliminated in the Western world (or, in the case of smallpox, *completely* eradicated world wide) thanks to vaccines. It gives cover to anti-vaxxers babbling idiotically about being anti-vaccine; they not only seem to have zero clue on the science, but they also seem to have zero clue on what life would have been like without them. BobJohnson (talk) 17:27, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

The Southern Strategy doomed the GOP to become the party of Trump, I would say. When you court the votes of bigots, eventually the bigots will demand that you put up or shut up. Carthage (talk) 08:32, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

There's also the spectre of the 'senile King'; where Trump is simultaneously present but not present, and as such decisions aren't being made and disputes aren't being sorted. There is also the question of competence; Trump is hiring from a talent-puddle and if any variant of Project 2025 is attempted it will a) shred the 'institutional memory' of the orgs [so will be semi-inoperable for at least a year] and then b) stuffing them with MAGA-hats [which is hardly a promise to competence when the main hiring criteria is 'loyalty to the Orange Idol']. It's quite possible we end up with a Federal Govt which is effectively in the 'old man yells at cloud' zone; because between the infighting, incompetence, passive-aggressive resistance, politely-aggressive resistance and fucked-up hobbyhorses not a huge amount of shit gets done. KarmaPolice (talk) 18:59, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

It's really difficult to see how all these mad egos with different axes to grind could work with each other. It's even more difficult to see how they will work with the Trump super ego.

On a slightly different point. Based on Trump's recent cabinet appointments I have a prediction for Treasury secretary. Sam Bankman-Fried - he would fit right in.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 21:15, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘silver linings include democrats winning senate races in swing states trump won (nevada, michigan, wisconsin, and especially in arizona) and rick scott losing the senate leader race [7] in a blow (or multiple blows) to maga. The G (talk) 23:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

They still won the senate. A somebody. (talk) 00:44, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah it's a silver lining, but I still think it's worth asking why Harris lost those states while Dems still won down-ballot races there (and no, it's not because Trumpism is suddenly super popular among demographics who would normally vote Democrat. While there has been some demographic bleed, a vast majority of Black voters (83%) for instance still voted Democrat in the 2024 election. Youth voters are also still more likely to vote Democrat, even with the gender gap accounted for. Even a majority of Latinos (albeit a slimmer one than usual) still voted for Harris, despite the clickbait headline there. As I have argued elsewhere, the 2024 electoral results weren't a vindication of Trumpism, it was a condemnation of the Democratic establishment.) Carthage (talk) 06:46, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't buy the 'Trump became super-popular with certian demographics' line. He only got 2.4m more votes nationally, while Harris got 7.6m less [than Biden] and Chase [Libertarian] got 1.2m less while the max electorate was something like 5m larger. I accept there's been a little bit of a shift [young males circling the 'Manosphere' shit, minorities hating 'abolish the police', working classes hating the underclass a la Vance, Hispanics responding to the 'communism' dogwhistle etc] but until I see explit stats that show otherwise my theory is going to be that most of the dial-shifting was Libertarians going to Trump and the biggest slide was folks simply declining to vote for Harris, staying home instead. Why? Occam's Razor suggests they stayed home because they saw zero appeal for Harris. A lot of those would have been 'low information voters' [experience tells me they're most often the ones to sit it out - 'high information voters' are normally too invested in it all to then sit it out] which suggests that one of the issues the Harris game failed in was to reach out to niche/micro inflencers [not the online shit, merely folks in local groups who have a bit of influence] who then persuade said low voters to turn out. KarmaPolice (talk) 12:49, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Nothing I’ve seen has changed my thesis from last week that Harris fucked herself by running a shitty right-focused campaign, and Democratic turnout bombed as a result. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 18:26, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Are you sure it was the campaign, and not that she's a shitty candidate?

Would you seriously consider voting for her in the 2028 primaries? CorruptUser 08:25, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

She won a grand total of zero states during the 2020 primaries. Carthage (talk) 08:30, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Because Harris was a reasonable, viable candidate. She had the paper qualifications and experience [think the only thing which would have helped here if she'd been a Governor], had an okay stage presence and communication skills, had no serious minuses [unlike say, Clinton did in '16] and judging from the Orange One's silence on the topic, had no real skeletons in her closet. What's more, she didn't make any major fuckups in the whole campaign [though admittedly a few minor ones], successfully avoided appearing like she was the one who knifed Biden to snag the position and followed the Third Way playbook provided.

The results spoke volumes. She lost perhaps six million Biden voters to apathy and failed to make any headway with either '24 'new voters' [some 4/5m] or '20 non-voters' [perhaps 60 million] [I'm aware this isn't technically correct but the general thrust is true]. Trump didn't grow hugely more popular [a narrative which we must all shoot down wherever it raises it's head; he managed to increase his votes by about 3%] but hell, Harris proved to be pretty unpopular.

Like I said before, if it appears the person did 'most of it right' and still failed, it leads to the suggestion the playbook provided was at fault. If Harris had any 'personal failings' as a candidate, it was her not oozing charm so she could coat turds with candyfloss and give it out to the proles and to have a complete lack of ethics to allow her to directly lie to their faces with a warm smile while handing out the turds. KarmaPolice (talk) 14:19, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

worth noting that many people who voted for trump also voted for aoc in her district. sure, this is borderline anecdotal, but it's almost certainly part of a wider pattern: this election was more of a referendum on (read: repudiation of) biden/harris (and possibly establishment d.c. democrats in general) than anything else in the same way the last election was a vote against trump. The G (talk) 08:34, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to see more numbers before making grand statements. The "mainstream media" pundits seems to be making this into The Reddest Wave Of All Time when... the Republicans gained, what, 3 Senate seats? And the House of Representatives seems to be heading to very close (maybe exactly) to the exact same numbers they got in 2022. All very narrow. In addition, Donald Trump won by (last count) under 3 million votes -- not that biggly. So, "red wave" my ass... it's increasingly clear that the pundit sector of media is a bunch of useless bullshit that can easily be replaced by AI without repercussions.

The real "trend of the day" for the presidential race is the Harris to null votes. It may have been a repudiation of Biden/Harris... maybe. With most analysis being done by the "vibes" crowd, I can't be certain of that... yet. Probably there's some of this, or maybe some contentious issues like the Middle East damping things "just enough". I'm going to wait for actual *data*, personally. BobJohnson (talk) 16:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

There is the risk that in some respects, said data shall never exist because the answers it provides are ones that neither the MAGAs, the unsinkable 'experts' nor Third Way Dems want to hear. But enough exists normally to make you think. Take, for example the pres election in Michigan;

2020: Trump 2.64m, Biden 2.80, Jorgensen 0.06, Hawkins 0.01 = Total, 5.51m, Population 9.96

2024: Trump 2.81m, Harris 2.73, Oliver 0.02, Stein 0.04 = Total 5.60m, Population 10.04

So... in '20 the pair got 5.44m, while in '24 they got 5.54m, so turnout was a little better for the Orange One. Let's re-jig the Thirds on the assumption 66% of Yellow went Red and similar Blue > Green.

Trump 2.77m, Harris 2.74m.

My theory is this - that in the case of Michigan, it was a combination of 'Harris apathy', Musk's 'get out the [MAGA] vote' and shifts in third party voting which flipped the state. But you can't have 'a landslide' on 80k voters in one state - my guestimate is that this is a relative voter shift of about 2%. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:15, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I actually do wonder if the Musk "futurism to fascism" pipeline is one part of that subtle shift. (Little seems to be said about that angle or the general Silicon Valley shift, a narrative complicated by the fact that it's certainly not all of IT types, even all of SV VCs.) Musk does have a wee bit of a cult of personality around him, and though some Muskheads definitely jumped off that train as Musk has increasingly become more bigoted and neoreactionary movement-adjacent, some have not. This ties with the rise of the "bitcoin bro" (Miami flipping Republican actually is *not* surprising considering just how deeply that town intertwined itself with crypto over the last few years. That + Cuban expats still hating commies is probably enough to explain the Republican-ess of that town this cycle). Part of the "puzzle", I guess. BobJohnson (talk) 17:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I believe it is. One of the very few differences electoral-offering wise between '20 and '24 is Trump's courting of the manosphere-finance-gym-techy-bro demographic; one which traditionally would have veered Libertarian or cynicism-induced nonvoting. Take as examples the Orange One's lean into crypto [bigging up the concept, not just as a grift], doing sit-downs with manosphere YT'ers, attending the Libertarian convention and so on, as well as the hiring of Vance, Musk, other Thiel creatures etc.] I've also heard vague talk that this is much more Junior's viewpoint, while the previous strong lean into Dominionism was Jared's - suggesting that his daughter and in-law has lost influence in his court [I obviously don't believe Orange One has any guiding ideology apart from 'fuck the rules', 'worship me' and now 'save my ancient arse'.] I think this was perhaps missed by pollsters because traditionally, they've not been active in either major party as a faction, and thus they got missed. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:53, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Can anyone identify where this image was taken? / location of place (bar or diner) in photo

https://i.ibb.co/sy7pxm9/Photo-bar.png Need help identifying location of this place. Is there any technology that can show place in the photo? Anti-eugenicist (talk)

Google image search (https://www.google.com/imghp?hl=en&ogbl) can sometimes work, but nothing relevant turned up when I searched. Identifying the artwork on the wall might help. From the bare light bulb, I would guess a café in Europe. I haven't seen these much in the US anymore. Bongolian (talk) 00:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC) The white neon sign on the right appears to say "Bay", indicating Anglophone. Bongolian (talk) 01:03, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Can the poster or the image thereon be identified (may help in dating the photo)? Anna Livia (talk) 18:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Appears to be a cover for a 1983 magazine? https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/185544203098 - there's a photo of the original photographic poster too. Namako (talk) 18:52, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I can't figure out the shops outside. The bar style seems to be common in Italian and Irish bars. If it was taken with a phone the original might have location metadata attached to it. Namako (talk) 19:38, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for help everyone. Anti-eugenicist (talk) 16:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Artifacts and trash

What's the difference between an artifact and trash? Is it aesthetics? Class? Function? We prop up big monuments like Hammurabi's legal code in museums, but that's not the kind of artifact archaeologists are most interested in (obvious generalization is obvious). It's what's in the middens, the junk ancient people threw away. We can learn a lot from piles of literal shit. Ancient peoples evidently didn't value the discarded bits of bone and shell they threw away once those bits of bone and shell had served their purpose, but archaeologists do. But the products, the lives of everyday people aren't really the ones that get memorialized. Not really, and while there are exceptions like Onfim's drawings, we remember Hammurabi much more than the poor schmucks who worked his fields. The poor bastards chosen for the substitute king ritual aren't remembered beyond their function as the substitute king. And what does this say about today's society, and how people in times distant from our own will relate to us? The technical answer to that question is "it's ultimately subjective, but to an archaeologist nothing is trash, as even literal piles of shit can reveal tons of valuable insights," but archaeologists are not wider society. What archaeologists value is not necessarily what wider society values, and archaeologists themselves are not separate from society. They are still people subject to bias. The scientific method does a lot to mitigate the effects of bias, but it ultimately cannot tell us what to value, and valuation is really how we distinguish between what counts as an artifact to be preserved and what counts as trash to be thrown away. Carthage (talk) 10:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

There was a Star Trek scene in which something like this was mentioned; the takeaway was that for a human, an antique, an ancient thing, is seen as a connection to the past, a memory of continuity. So we would retain things that a more utilitarian species might have thrown away long ago - and it turns out to be wise when "that old thing" suddenly becomes useful, like an antique used for historical comparison. (Not directly related to your points, but I took the words "Artifacts and trash" into my head and decided to pour out my thoughts.) Meow^Purr 13:47, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

And, with museums etc, it is often the 'ordinary little objects' which are the most collectable because nobody saw any reason to keep them (and often what is marketed in the usual places as 'collectable (hence the price) and will retain their value' are never worth what was paid for them (partially because most survive, tastes change, people were paying for the hype etc - eg some of the 'Coronation of Charles III gold coins - which differ little in size or weight from a coat of nail varnish).

There is also the saying 'One person's trash is another person's treasure' - and sometimes it is the specific association/because someone has made a collection of the items/the fact that the items have faded out of common usage that makes them interesting. (examples might be as trivial as carbon paper or floppy discs.) Anna Livia (talk) 17:04, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

The history of things sometimes gives them more or less value - and sometimes for not very logical reason reasons. An old guitar once played by Eric Clapton has a lot more value than an identical guitar previously owned by someone who is not famous. Houses previously owned by murders or serial killers have lower prices. In art, a forgery can be so good that only a highly trained expert can differentiate it from the real thing - artistically they are essentially identical, yet one is worth far more then the other.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 17:43, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I highly recommend reading Provenance by Ann Leckie. The book's storyline does an entire deep dive on everything already mentioned here and more. Impiricism (talk) 18:24, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Speaking of museums, there is a literal piece of shit on display at the Jorvik Viking Centre. Carthage (talk) 18:30, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes. That link failed by the way. But, we have images of a coprolite and a urolite on our bullshit page. Regurgitalites — ahem — also fall into this category! Bongolian (talk) 18:57, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Oh, thank you. It should be fixed now. Carthage (talk) 19:46, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘There really is no difference. When archaeologists discover an old shithouse, it's like winning the lottery. They've just found a way to tell what people's diets were and how they may have changed over time. There is even a sub-field of archaeology devoted to the study of trash, "Garbology". The term actually comes from the guy who regularly raided Bob Dylan's trash and reported on the contents. Archaeologist William Rathje pioneered the serious garbology field by excavating active landfills. Another example comes from Britain, which due to the Nazi naval blockade and sources of pulp from mainland Europe no longer being available, there was a great paper shortage during World War II. There were campaigns to collect unwanted paper across Britain for recycling. Did people donate their Shakespeare, their dictionary, or high-brow books? No, they tossed their dime-novels, probably once bought at newsstands — we're tossing the newspapers, why not toss the newsstand books too. Guess which books are hard to find and valuable now. Bongolian (talk) 18:50, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I question your latter example. If the UK had book shortages [true], why would Brits surrender readable books to be pulped for toilet paper? There was in fact repeated drives for folks to donate unwanted books; not for pulping, but for re-distribution to the Forces etc. What's more, books in reasonable condition still had reasonable resale value [more so due to war shortages] - so chances are unwanted books would have been sold off to a bookshop, even if it was only as kiloware. No, the issue was that cheap paperbacks a la Penguin were to some extent designed to be Ephemera - that the major reason they cost less than a coffee does today was due to cheap paper and slapdash binding which doesn't bode well for them lasting generations. Your Shakespeare, dictionaries, high-brow tomes etc were more likely to survive not because 'people didn't want to pulp them' so much, but the simple fact that they usually cost five/six Penguins and therefore, their build quality was much higher. So I think this is more a case of survivorship bias; that folks used their Penguins as firelighters not because they discounted their value as literature, but because they'd ceased to be functional as books [the cynic within me might also suggest that not many people were reading the Shakespeare which kept it in good condition!]. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:51, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

The Penguins are (slightly?) higher-class of books than what I'm talking about. The newsstand books from what I've seen tended to be a bit more 'racy' (appealing to prurient interests without being too explicit), probably not something the government would have wanted to distribute to soldiers. I don't know of anyone who has admitted to this behavior, so I'm basing it on deduction from what can be found today from that era. Also, the person who sent the book to pulping may not have been the person who purchased it, but someone else in the household. Bongolian (talk) 01:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

We didn't have those so much because there was formal censorship until at least the early 60s - Lady Chatterly's Lover, Gay News, Life of Brian all encountered legal issues and a lot of the books you're mentioning would have hit the moral guardians of the age or the timidness of the retailers even if they'd somehow managed to clear the censor [traditionally, a lot of British 'banned books' were printed in France/Netherlands and then sold via mail-order; Orwell once got raided for 'illegal literature' when he bought books via France and customs noticed]. And while early Penguins were perhaps better content-wise, they weren't when it came to literal construction quality. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I have to agree with KarmaPolice — and there’s a good reason there’s a word like “pulp literature”. I think we tend to forget just how cheap (often in all senses of the word) some physical books used to be. I have a couple of old pulp detective novels and they’re basically falling apart (and not from getting reread a lot or similar wear and tear). Or consider the hundreds of millions of Little Blue Books produced and sold between 1919 and 1978. Then again, the oldest book on my shelves is a decently bound encyclopaedia whose first volume was published in 1916 (and no, it’s not a reprint)… ScepticWombat (talk) 13:18, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

We forget, 'pulp novels' were as revolutionary to the book trade as 'fast fashion' was to the clothing industry - that before the likes of Penguins books were printed on glossy paper, often with separate picture inserts, in hardback and often cost a half-crown each. In the 1920s, you could get a decent restaurant lunch for two on that [so in modern purchasing power is hovering about £40-50]. Books were a luxury product; that's why the Victorians so often had each of their books bound in leather and safely kept behind glass to protect from dust, soot and mould [so there's a chance Wombat's 1916 encyclopaedia have an 'aftermarket binding']. The advent of the sixpence ['cup of coffee'] Penguins turned books into a commodity product; which means in many ways they're treated worse. Over the decades, I've leant them out and never seen them again, left them on trains, dropped them in water, got splashes of food/drink on them, read them until the spine broke and it started to shed it's innards [which happens quite quickly], allowed them to be jostled about in a rucksack with other items and at times store them inappropriately.

Those 30s/40s/50s Penguins and Pelicans I own are already well beyond their expected lifespan. Some have pages so yellow you need to read them in very good light, others are threatening to strip themselves. Almost all have lost their dust jackets [before I got them] and have varying levels of paper brittleness which means you have do be careful handling them. Even 60s/70s Penguins have fared worse than OUP/Longman paperpacks of the same vintage, suggesting they were produced to higher standards.

To tie this back to the main point [midden diving archaeology] is that you can tell quite a bit about the society 'doing the throwing away'. A modern variant of this would be if you worked in charity shop which took donations from the public. I did this with a bookshop and I learned quite a bit on what folks actually want/read vs what they actually buy. For example, the sheer volume of disowned, near-virgin cookbooks we got suggests very few folks actually use them, while the massive lack of Terry Pratchett books [esp for the size of print runs] suggests his readership is pretty high. As commercial second-hand bookshops don't really exist anymore, perhaps a charity bookshop is the only place you'd really get to see this. KarmaPolice (talk) 19:09, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Recent WIGO Post: Trump compiling list of military officers for court-martial

So... I read the NBC news headline then read the article, and I have a sick feeling that the unofficial goal of it all is to replace military leaders with Trump yes-men. Anyone else with the same feeling? Impiricism (talk) 21:07, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

"It can't possibly happen here." Guess what, it not only can happen here, it is happening here. God bless the USA /s. Carthage (talk) 21:20, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

You don't need that feeling. Trump only likes yes-men. He was butthurt when 'his generals' turned out to be loyal to something more than his wonderful face. Expect similar for judges, FBI investigators, Secret Service and so on.

If he gets this through, you're all fucked. Let's read the military oath [with my annotations in italics];

I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States [which is defined by a MAGA SCOTUS] against all enemies, foreign and domestic [defined by the Orange One]; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States [duh] and the orders of the officers appointed over me [appointed by the Orange One], according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice [defined by Congress].

The path past this is simple. Mass protests > invoke the Insurrection Act > order use of US troops on their own people. It's what I heard that the Orange One wanted during the BLM riots which the DoD denied him [to the point I spent that night online loudly calling for folks to not give Trump a reason to invoke that act]. Now, it's semi-popular to think 'oh it's just words' but examples from say, Nazi Germany and even the Revolutionary War tell us that oaths are powerful things and it will take a lot of pressure for it to buckle, esp for military folks where 'obey the chain 'o command' is literally, built in to the whole fucking system.

The only realistic hope is that the American officer corps is intelligent and well-read enough to know what happened to their German counterparts when they acquiesced in the dominance of National Socialism. KarmaPolice (talk) 22:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Not that America hasn't declined from its peak already, but I sense a very strong possibility that Trump may seriously cripple the American military machine this time around, furthering the decline. If Trump's direction for the military (which was absolutely clear before the election, mind you) is to infiltrate it, replace the leaders with yes men, and directing the military to spend infinite amount of time internally fighting domestic matters like "woke" and "DEI" and immigrants and all the other Fox News manufactroversy bullshit, there will be little time for alliances like NATO and multiple other world political matters. Mind you, many of the rubes would cheer this anyways (and there are good reason to argue against much of what the neoconservatism hawks have done for sure), but I don't think the jingoism spouting types have fully, er, *comprehended* what a loss of American military might really mean. Certainly autocrats trying to build their own world empires to overtake America, whether "ragtag, can't even take over a small country quickly, empire unlikely" (Vladimir Putin) or "nice try so far, shame about all those other previous poor policies now blocking growth" (Xi Jinping), I'm sure they are pleased that -- for all their problems -- Trump's likely to send America's armed forces into chaos *at minimum*, diminish its power further, and maybe open up some "opportunities". At any rate, I do hope that any country that does overly rely on America for military needs has gotten the "signal" that, while 2016 was a great time to argue for "diversification", the argument in 2024 is much stronger. BobJohnson (talk) 22:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I'll put is more glibly; you name me a military which was more effective after an politically-driven purge had happened to it. My ultimate fear is that if there's a 'neutered' American military which is much more focused on 'attacking the home front' there's a very good chance that Xi shall come to the conclusion 'the time for Taiwan is now 'and makes a move. I get the feeling that US military might is tied up perhaps too much into 'visible signs' like say, all those carrier groups which might be very vulnerable to say, wave after wave of old Chinese planes turned into kamikaze drones [which the Chinese have been stockpiling for at least a decade now...]. The more worrying is the level of right-populists on the rise in Europe; an America 2028 could very be facing a 'Chinese Axis' without European assistance save perhaps the UK. KarmaPolice (talk) 23:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Actually, that's exactly what's happening. Nothing "unofficial" about it. Carthage (talk) 09:14, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

A humble prediction.

To preface things, I'm not the best at making predictions, I thought Kamala Harris would win pretty handedly at least in the electoral college department, but I do have one prediction I'm almost completely certain about, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris will not be remembered well either by the general public or historians. Now I think this will happen for two main reasons. Reason number one, they failed to beat Trump, this is fairly obvious and when Trump fucks up majorly and everyone comes to regret their vote (hopefully) they will look back on the people who failed to prevent him from becoming president of the United States of America and look on with disgust. Reason number two: Palestine, this one is also fairly obvious, sending bomb after bomb after bomb to Israel with no strings attached while they actively commit genocide is not going to be remembered fondly, at least I hope it isn't going to be remembered fondly decades from now. And so that is why I believe Joe Biden and Kamala Harris will not be remembered well decades from now. A somebody. (talk) 00:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I think Biden will go through a phase of being remembered as an absolutely awful president, then opinion will be revised to "had some good points but was overall inadequate" when our current era is in the rearview mirror. A lot of comments will be made about the rough situation he inherited, and a lot will be made about his rigid marriage to "politics as usual" in unusual times. He's probably going to be another Taft, another Arthur-people have to be reminded he was a president. He's not going to be remembered too well but he won't make "worst president ever" lists. Harris, honestly, is going to be subject to a lot of hate in the next 4-8 years then be forgotten.-Flandres (talk) 01:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I kind of sense that Biden's a Jimmy Carter to some extent -- a middling president (who in the public eye was later redeemed by good works, but the Republican cult bots still like to shit on him) of whom the Republican propaganda machine is going to make out as the Worst President Of All Time!!, but really isn't. I agree that some of the commentary will be about how "sticking to the Third Way" may have hurt both Harris and Biden. There's certainly plenty of positives in the Biden presidency, though. Beats Dubya for sure.

Donald Trump stands a good chance of being *the* worst president in American history, with only a couple of Civil War presidents below him... maybe. However, Donald Trump also represents a significant portion of American society. I see the better history in the future exploring why this is so, rather than focusing on just the figureheads. BobJohnson (talk) 02:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

The third significant strategic error of Biden was accelerating arms and capabilities to Ukraine much sooner. There's another significant similarity between Carter and Biden is that both were subverted by foreign governments colluding with presidential candidates, a violation of the Logan Act (Reagan with Iran and trump with Putin) to 'fix the problem' (Iran's embassy hostages for Reagan, and 'peace talks' on Ukraine for trump). Bongolian (talk) 02:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

That [Flandres view] rather sounds like Orwell's opinion on Neville Chamberlain;'he was merely a stupid old man doing his best according to his very dim lights' - the 'stupidity' being his continuing belief in Third Way, while the 'dim lights' being not realising that ideology was dead [or at least no longer really functional]. I got the feeling from him that his mind was groping a bit towards the latter conclusion, but he never really got to it. The electorate itself has a bit of blame for this; I likened Biden's election in '20 being a desire for 'smooth jazz, Budweiser and baseball' levels of stability/predictability over Trump's 'metal, whiskey and MMA' [politically speaking] of the last four years [esp Covid]. I suspect he will most likely end up like another Carter; 'decent man, but fought against the tide and lost'. I think he'll get respect for effectively 'coming out of retirement' in '20 but then he loses it for not accepting he was simply too knackered for another term and allowing enough time for an open primary.

The view on Harris shall, I fear be solidly tied to Trump 2.0. I try to be a wet blanket on this kind of thing, but the 'steps from dictatorship' are much fewer than any time since... not sure, really. Much of the survival of [semi] democracy and freedom now relies on such factors as 'Trumpian incompetence', 'inner circle cross-purposes' and 'MAGA SCOTUS actually growing a concience' than anything actually legal, organisational or political now, and that's a worrying place to be in. If all this turns out to be hyperbole... I think she'll be forgiven and forgotten. If not... I think her memory shall be dammed. That she could have Stopped All Of This Before It Started [whatever This might be] but she fluffed it [but she's still young, a political comeback isn't impossible].

I get this the above is depressing. But I'm a fair student of history and if that's taught me anything it's that when a person of Trump's temperament gets power and is not presented with strong checks/balances they will have a tendency to try it as far as they think they can get away with. So if anything, this is a plea to keep faith, motivate others and prepare to fight all the fucking way down the line. KarmaPolice (talk) 02:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

There is a glimmer of hope that a small number of GOP Senators will show a spine occasionally. Some have expressed repulsion at trump's choice of Gaetz, and Speaker Johnson has now credibly covered up allegations of Gaetz's interstate sex trafficking.[8] Interstate sex trafficking is a Federal crime (Mann Act), so this is a much bigger deal than if he had kept his behavior confined to Florida. Enough GOP Senators might even demand confirmations if they think their power means anything. Bongolian (talk) 03:21, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Regarding Harris' loss, one explanation that seems to not have gotten much notice is the effect of the sophisticated false-flag/black-propaganda operation conducted by Musk,[9] which Timothy Snyder traces to Putin if only indirectly.[10]

Eh, I don't think Progress 2028 had much to do with it. TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 02:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Yet I lived through a decade of Tory MPs 'expressing repulsion' for various shit Tory Govts were doing but lining up to vote for them anyway. Again, and again and again. There comes a point you need to quit believing that there's this mythic 'sane Tory' [or 'reasonable Republican', in this case] actually fucking exists anymore who will for unknown reasons will ride in and save you/us all from the excesses of Trump. They won't.' The ones who would stand are now out of power [with perhaps a few notable exceptions; I'm not au fait with American politics to blithely announce 'none'] and a lot of those who hand-wring are often only bothered about tone and not fucking substance of MAGA, and most of them don't have the balls to stand against the MAGA-cult. I think the 'forces of resistance' should expect zero assistance from that quarter, and perhaps regard them all as an enemy unless proven otherwise.

So what, Musk lied. I almost dropped my monocle in my drink! I now expect these folks to do anything and say anything to win now. It's why they win; you tell fuckers what they want to hear even if it flatly contradicts what you told the last person or even the limits of actual physical reality. Democratic politics only reasonably works if all the major players abide by the rules [even if you play fast and sharp with them at times] but a lot of politics now is like playing Monopoly with someone who openly steals from the bank, cheats die rolls and threatens overturn the board if you deign to accuse them of cheating. KarmaPolice (talk) 03:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think Harris will be remembered at all, since she didn’t win and any blame for the loss is more likely to stick to Biden (for clinging on far too long) and you can already see the narrative shaping up around Harris “simply not having the time to win” due to becoming the top candidate too late in the process.

And no, I don’t think Harris will make any meaningful political comeback on the national stage. She’s not a particularly good campaigner (as we’ve seen both this time around and in her 2020 primary) and few are likely to back a “loser”.

Biden’s reputation will largely depend on exactly how awful and disastrous Trump’s second term will be. If Trump is awful but not catastrophic, Biden will likely end up in the “ineffective nonentity” category, but if Trump is worse than that, Biden is more likely to be put into the “late Weimar leader” category.

As for GOP Congress critters voting down even such abysmal candidates as Gaetz or JFK Jr., I don’t have high hopes. The bigger issue is whether Trump will be able to browbeat GOP Congress critters into taking a “fake recess” to allow him to make these appointments without consent at all. If they fold on this, the question will then be if the SCOTUS will accept this blatant skirting of constitutional processes. ScepticWombat (talk) 04:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

The surprising thing about Musk is that he once admitted he was wrong (in 2018) about a major fuckup he caused — attempting to totally automate a Tesla factory.[11] He even said "Humans are underrated."[12] The incident and tweet are probably long forgotten by himself and his minions by now, as he's gone back to his life of various facets of misanthropy: eliminating humans wherever he can, trying to automate everything with AI, and colonizing Mars with billionaires and bots. Bongolian (talk) 04:32, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Harris is an ex-VP, so it's not like she'll vanish into the ether entirely. And while I said 'a political comeback', I don't mean 're-run to be President'. What are you saying she must do; buy a farm in California to retire to, wave away journalists and never ever comment on the political developments, regardless to how shit they get? To never use what platform she has to 'continue the fight' as the lights go out, even as she will see the chilling effect creeping over America? To not breathe a word as she sees a full-blown cult of personality develop alongside mass political purges? If she genuinely believes her rhetoric about Trump being a serious danger to democracy itself - and I was her - I would throw myself after Jan into building up a pro-democracy political machine [a proper one with proper funds and paid workers] to help 'the fightback against MAGA' at all levels of politics.

And to answer Wombat's questions; yes, I think the MAGA Congresscritters will accept that and the MAGA SCOTUS will rule this as fine. Which is why if I was a talking head interviewing the former 'hand-wringers' about the shittiness of the situation, my retort to their repulsion would be 'so what are you gonna do about it?' ad nauseam until they either a) nail themselves into openly opposing it or b) me simply saying 'okay, so nothing really' to their waffle. KarmaPolice (talk) 12:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I’m not quite sure that the Senate will knuckle under, if they can avoid doing so by choosing a different way of grovelling to Trump. If they end up doing so, I’m not quite sure what the SCOTUS will do, either, because if there’s one thing the whacko majority in SCOTUS can agree on (and get the minority to support to some extent) it’s to ensure the power and some degree of status of the SCOTUS itself.

As for Harris, my point was that she’ll become a relative political nonentity along the line of other failed presidential bids (including those of a lot of ex-Veeps). Who really speaks of Dukakis today (outside of the history of POTUS campaigning, of course), though he was once hailed as a new breed of “Atari Democrat”. Sure, Al Gore carved out a niche for himself, but it wasn’t in electoral politics.

This doesn’t mean that Harris will just retire, because there are plenty of sinecures and the like for has-been national politicians (academia, think tanks, punditry, the speaking circuit etc.), though I doubt she will, say, re enter the senior ranks of California politics.

Furthermore, Harris doesn’t even seem to have a clear political project or some key policy that she champions. Gore had already demonstrated his interest in climate change and policy while he was an “active politician”, but I have a hard time pinpointing some kind of similar “cause” that Harris might champion. ScepticWombat (talk) 14:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

With the Senate, you tell me the ultimate difference between a Senate which arselickingly sends through bills with peans of praise stapled to them or one which comprises of them whining and hand-wringing but then passing the bills anyway? Functionally none. They're 'white moderates', people who sooth their souls with nice-sounding words which ultimately mean sod all - at best, they hold off the 'insult' but assist in the 'injury'. But Third Way types hold off on saying this because they think 'they may eventually come to us' so be nice. Fat lot it's done for them so far.

With Harris, I think we're agreeing to agree here; my point was that she could do my suggestion if she really wanted, but you're quite correct in that she kinda showed nil 'cause interest' while VP [don't know about her Senate record] and she'd also have to believe in 'grassroots machine politics' which I do [don't think she does]. Another option is for her to lick her wounds and be determined to make a 'comeback' formally later - after all, this was how another VP turned failed P-candidate did in the last century [no prize for who this was...] but again, hits the motivation bit. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:29, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I’m not saying that whether the Senate knuckles under and goes into a “Trumpcess” or finds some other way of pandering to Trump makes a difference right now, and I definitely see the GOP senators actually blocking any of the unqualified, venal, toadying whackos that Trump wants in his cabinet.

Where I think the concrete appointment process might make some difference is in how much Trump manages to openly break the constitutional order. If he manages to get his nominations through a “senate Trumpcess” and the SCOTUS backs him up (which, sadly, is a very real possibility), the GOP will have established a precedent for their future presidents to use. It’s always easier to follow such a precedent than to break new ground — unless you’re a “no limits” narcissistic wrecking ball like Trump. ScepticWombat (talk) 20:21, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't believe they will - I hope they will, but hope makes nothing. Assuming Trump doesn't resort to some shit-pulling to sneak them past, those 'nail Senators' [who at best might be 2-3] will come under massive pressure from all fronts to 'allow to be nailed down'. And judging from the sickness rating of American politics right now, this very well shall include real threats of physical violence against them which will then be minimised by their 'Republican colleagues' as nothing more than 'banter' or some shit. The whole party now has been submerged by Orange Führerprinzip and it's not likely they'd develop a backbone after his 'amazing, huge' election victory which has scared the professional career politico into silent obedience - I mean, they have basically walked down the MAGA path until this point, the folks who refused to have been purged.

Again, I'm speaking of British experience, where I saw a somewhat similar metamorphosis happen to the British Conservatives over fourteen years. Yes, we had Tory 'nails' but as each iteration of Tory Govt arose they became less and less [retired, purged, defected] and the internal Overton Window also shrunk to the point the Party only got rid of the shitshows which was Johnson and then Truss because of widespread Big Public anger and revulsion against 'all of it', not that they'd had actual criticisms of actions, policies or style [people forget that Sunak supported 'Trussanomics', only he felt she'd gone 'a bit too fast and hard']. Alas, I suspect similar will have happened to your Republican Party - that the careerists and remaining closet 'moderates' will only put the boot in when the Orange One is visibly crumbling - like those 'anti-Nazi' generals only pulled their finger out to do Hitler in when it was obvious the war had been lost.

As for 'making precedent'... that's the most worrying aspect of all this. Trump wants this because he's an old-school shit boss with an ego the size of the Pentagon and inability to listen to honest advisors - but it's going to have crossed his mind at least once that he very well might be building the gallows which say, President Whitmer strings him up on in 2029 [because I could see Trump 2.0 being so shit the public seriously turns against MAGA]. Therefore, we need to assume that not only do they [I think it will be a Vance / Trump Jr ticket] intend to win in 28, but they also plan to use every day to make sure they win. KarmaPolice (talk) 16:54, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘The latest bad sign is MAGA showing they prefer a coup to winning an election, ignoring all the transition rules (which theoretically work for the incoming administration's favor under normal times), meaning among other things ignoring all security clearances. Mike Davis, president of the Article III Project said, "He should not trust the politicized and weaponized intelligence and law enforcement agencies that hobbled his presidency the first time. It’s a hostile takeover on behalf of the American people.[13] Bongolian (talk) 03:01, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Trump is definitely trying to ensure that parody is well and truly dead: Now he has announced that he’s putting a wrestling boss in charge of education and a quack in charge of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to go along with his anti-vaxxer in charge of health and the alleged criminal as AG. ScepticWombat (talk) 12:34, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Linda McMahon actually was in Trump term 1 as Small Business Administrator the first time around. Her lone education resume credit (aside from a degree in education) is that she previously was on the Connecticut Board of Education, appointed by Jodi Rell, from 2009-2010. Why did Rell appointed McMahon back then? Search me; degree aside, she certainly hardly seems qualified for an education board job due to no experience. I can only find a rather generic press releases emphasizing her understanding of "the skills and education needed to succeed in businsess" on The Google. Er, okay.

I do know that Republicans have *always* tended to have some "celebrity naval-gazing" in their politics even before the Trumpism days, where how famous you were mattered more than competence. It just seems to have gone into hyperdrive under Trumpism. I guess the silver lining is that I imagine McMahan will be better than Betsy DeVos though; it's another sign that maybe Trump is leaning less on the Dominionism side of his coalition.

Note that there are multiple sex scandals going on right now with the WWE. There's the Vince McMahon sex trafficking scandal which is ongoing. There's an ongoing recent re-opening of an old 1990s scandal where a longtime ring announcer named Melvin Phillips (and other wrestlers) would target "ring boys" for hire and then later sexually assault them. This is, what, the third Donald Trump nominee (the other two being Matt Gaetz and Pete Hegseth) who have some form of sex assault / trafficking scandal swirling in the background, right? (Not counting, of course, the Orange Cheeto's conviction of a sex crime as well.) Meanwhile all those QAnon idiots who worship Donald Trump are probably still blaming Democrats for whatever sex crime malaise pops in their heads. Gotta love propaganda... BobJohnson (talk) 15:17, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I think Trump has quietly pushed the Fundies off his boat - or more correctly, relegated them to working in the galley and engine-room, not on the bridge. I have zero proof of this, but I think he didn't hugely like the fact they were not 100% loyal to him as a person [they were loyal to Dominionism] and as such he didn't feel he 'could trust them'. I think the 'Pence treachery' bit deep into his massive, soft ego - he'd hired him and he's not fucking done what he'd been told to! - and as a result that whole wing is on the 'won't get fooled again' list [though it's also possible that he felt he needed to ally with them to shore up his voting-blocs in '16 but by '22 felt fairly sure he'd managed to usurp that faction's base for himself, and thus didn't need their leaders anymore].

Now, I think Trump is 'hiring' on three criteria only; one is 'unwavering loyalty' to himself personally. Two, people who will never outshine his greatness. Three, people who will not be a threat to him. Now, who do I pick for my team? A bunch of people who due to personal, legal and/or viewpoint 'minuses' would never get even a sniff of power if I'd not given them it, who shall do whatever I order them to and shall never steal my limelight or generate any comparisons which make me look bad in any way. Lastly, I think Trump is hiring 'people I get' and as such, we are seeing a hit parade of people who are at least semi-Trumps psychologically and man, it's ugly.

It's also why I think Musk will be gone by this time next year. I think he is the only person in the circle now who is 'an ally' than 'a hire' and this is not going to last long because the Orange One is supremely narcissistic being colliding with another narcissistic being who doesn't need Trump. KarmaPolice (talk) 17:31, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

My Idea for the Children at Thanksgiving

I know a lot of my family are picky and won't try stuff, so at least for the kids' table this year I am going to try 'Thank you' around the world. It's still going to be standard Thanksgiving fare, but to get them to eat what aren't nuggets and applesauce, my idea is to have everyone say 'Bon Appetite' or 'Itadakimasu' or 'Jal MeokessUumnida' or 'Guten Apetit' And take a bite of something. It's not going to be culturally relevant to food, but it will be something the younger kids can't resist. If the older kids are saying words and eating foods, there are no picky eaters. The little ones refuse to be left out.

Entirely, my plan is to fill note cards with natural language (and characters when it applies), American English versions, and English pronounciations. Last Thanksgiving these kids took a bite of mashed potatoes and then excused themselves, I want them to try the foods. Kshingm yong and a bite of turkey from the kids would be a lot more fun for the adults as well. Torrent (talk) 12:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

GradeAUnderA is a Trump supporter now

So apparently after making a Harris roast video before the 2024 election, Grade decided to wait 2 weeks to upload his Trump "roast" video which turned out to just be a Trump dicksucking video Sympathy5010 (talk) 14:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

"GradeAUnderA". Who? Impiricism (talk) 14:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

A YouTuber ranter notable enough for Wikitubia but of little importance outside that scene. First impression: seems to be a bit of a drama llama. (Also a British-born and residing Indian, why the fuck he care about American politics?) BobJohnson (talk) 14:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I think the answer to that is obvious: what happens in America affects the rest of the world. Carthage (talk) 15:02, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Wow. Someone I have never about and certainly don't care about supports some idiot. You learn something every day!Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 08:32, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think this is his news. I remember him making a video explaining his preference for Trump over Hillary back in 2016. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 09:31, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

The atmosphere and the Flood

I have seen a post at r/exchristian, in Reddit, wondering if Noah wouldn't have suffered altitude sickness as water levels rising above the Everest would have put the Ark in the Death zone, where humans can't live without oxygen supply.

Since Reddit is working erratically today, I'm unable to see the responses but even if we know besides it having not happened (and being physically impossible) I wonder if that's what would happen or if the atmosphere would have expanded. Just as a curiosity. Panzerfaust (talk) 23:14, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

My guess is that - if the oxygen wasn't dissolved into the water - that it would be compressed and that might keep the level around the 20% necessary for human breathing. The real problem would be the atmospheric pressure rising and the body not being able to adjust to it. Vital Forces (talk) 00:10, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

The Genesis Noah flood essentially belongs to a collection multiple rather similar ancient flood myths in the Mesopotamian area, as I understand it. I generally find it silly to rely on any of that Bible narrative (you're talking the same Bible book that regularly has people living to nearly 1000 years old), but if one must, one has to remember that the "world" of these storytellers was the region between the Tigris and Euphrates river. The mountain which Noah eventually comes to rest on is the mountains of Ararat region. (Genesis 8:4) Mount Ararat, the highest mountain of this range, is only ~3900m. Mount Judi, the "traditional" mountain Noah landed on, is only ~2000m. So "15 cubits" (from Genesis 7:20, whatever the heck a cubit is) plus this most likely isn't near enough to get one in the "death zone". So far, I'm having difficulty finding what ancient civilization knew of "Mount Everest" (which most certainly was not known as "Mount Everest" then) around ~1000-3000BC; all I can say is that I'm pretty sure that Mesopotamians would have known little, if *anything*, about it... and vice versa.

I think the "Occam's razor" of why there are so many flood stories in that region is that there must've been a pretty big river basin flood at some point (of seemingly unknown conclusive origin, though there are many hypothesis) that spooked enough people to inspire legends and mythmaking. Not thousands of meters (which would be impossible)... but enough meters to inundate everything and wreck serious havoc. Just reading up on this basin, floods are a fairly regular occurrence in this river basin (even today). A really nasty flood there at some point certainly is not out of the scope of reality. I see the Biblical retelling of this myth as a wildly exaggerated telling of such (with a crap-ton of inconsistencies in a mere three chapters). No need to really go further than that IMHO -- the evidence for a "global flood" of any sort is, as I understand it, nilch. BobJohnson (talk) 00:19, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy of Wikipedia: "the cubit is an ancient unit of length based on the distance from the elbow to the tip of the middle finger."

There are actually a lot of flood stories around the world. Some of these stories have been conclusively dated to the end of the last ice age. In some cases, the details of landscapes described in these stories eerily match landscapes now underwater ([14]).

As for the Mesopotamian flood story... well, we don't really know where the Sumerians came from. They spoke a language isolate in a region predominantly populated (even then) with speakers of Semitic languages. It's possible that the Sumerians came from a land that's now underwater. To a bunch of refugees fleeing sea level rise, the inundation of the Persian Gulf (where it's been hypothesized the Sumerians came from, specifically from what is now modern day Bahrain) must've seemed apocalyptic. Carthage (talk) 00:43, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Goddidit. Either He in his infinite wisdom changed Noah and Co's lungs so the death zone didn't happen, He removed the death zone or it's something He put in later just out of perhaps spite. There's no damn point theorising 'how' because there's no real space for actual facts in organised religion. Did you know that all those fossils were simply put there to test our faith in THE LORD, for example? KarmaPolice (talk) 00:55, 21 November 2024 (UTC)