RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive345

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 28 February 2020. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <171>, <172>, <173>, <174>, <175>, <176>, <177>, <178>, <179>, <180>, <181>, <182>, <183>, <184>, <185>, <186>, <187>, <188>, <189>, <190>, <191>, <192>, <193>, <194>, <195>, <196>, <197>, <198>, <199>, <200>, <201>, <202>, <203>, <204>, <205>, <206>, <207>, <208>, <209>, <210>, <211>, <212>, <213>, <214>, <215>, <216>, <217>, <218>, <219>, <220>, <221>, <222>, <223>, <224>, <224½>, <225>, <226>, <227>, <228>, <229>, <230>, <231>, <232>, <233>, <234>, <235>, <236>, <237>, <238>, <239>, <240>, <241>, <242>, <243>, <244>, <245>, <246>, <247>, <248>, <249>, <250>, <251>, <252>, <253>, <254>, <255>, <256>, <257>, <258>, <259>, <260>, <261>, <262>, <263>, <264>, <265>, <266>, <267>, <268>, <269>, <270>, <271>, <272>, <273>, <274>, <275>, <276>, <277>, <278>, <279>, <280>, <281>, <282>, <283>, <284>, <285>, <286>, <287>, <288>, <289>, <290>, <291>, <292>, <293>, <294>, <295>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, <317>, <318>, <319>, <320>, <321>, <322>, <323>, <324>, <325>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, <340>, <341>, <342>, <343>, <344>, <346>, <347>, <348>, <349>, <350>, <351>, <352>, <353>, <354>, <355>, <356>, <357>, <358>, <359>, <360>, <361>, <362>, <363>, <364>, <365>, <366>, <367>, <368>, <369>, <370>, <371>, <372>, <373>, <374>, <375>, <376>, <377>, <378>, <379>, <380>, <381>, <382>, <383>, <384>, <385>, <386>, <387>, <388>, <389>, <390>, <391>, <392>, <393>, <394>, <395>, <396>, <397>, <398>, <399>, <400>, <401>, <402>, <403>, <404>, <405>, <406>, <407>, <408>, <409>, <410>, <411>, <412>, <413>, <414>, (new)(back)

Rudolf Carnap[edit]

Is anyone here familiar with Rudolf Carnap’s work? If so, what are your opinions of his work? I’m aware that this is a very broad question, but I believe that it is appropriate for the Saloon Bar as much of his work; in my opinion, is in the same spirit as RationalWiki. I have a keen interest In his work; particularly his post-syntax period, as a result I am curious to find out about your opinions on his work. Uriel Blackwood (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Shitty online comics represent the limits of my knowledge on the subject ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:11, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Limits? What Limits? I never knew that Carnap was a hot-dog consoeur.Uriel Blackwood (talk) 22:38, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Is culture a bad thing?[edit]

https://lfb.org/culture-not-friend-3-magic-life-lessons-terence-mckenna/ It’s mostly referring to the first point on this link but the rest do offer some food for thought. I’m not entirely sure how right his claim is, especially since hippie culture is essentially rooted in the values he is preaching. All I can say is that I don’t really know if culture is bad and point number 3 is......well the most dubious. I don’t really assign much stock in psychedelics apart from some studies that show they help with ptsd and depression. But I don’t buy into the altered consciousness stuff.Machina (talk) 00:09, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

That's a lot of unsubstantiated negative opinions about a very vague word which the author fails to define appropriately for the purposes of their article... I don't want to agree or disagree until I figure out what exactly is meant by all this bad writing I just read. And to answer the question in the title. Culture is not a bad thing in itself. There are bad cultures and there are wholesome cultures. It all depends. (talk) 00:50, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I think the link mentioned modern western culture. I haven’t read any of his books or seen much stuff by him. But he seemed to be a product of his time and experiences so it’s about what I expected from such an era.Machina (talk) 04:48, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Looks to me like a sloppily-written article mostly about sloppily-worded quotes from a guy who really liked psychedelics. It's conceivable that there's some cohesive thought at the bottom of this, but the prospects look dim from a brief overview of the guy. Consider this quote about psychedelics from the article: These compounds, he says, “can be threatening to existing hierarchical structures.” And possibly for that reason, he says, “We ended up demonizing these compounds. Can you think of another area of science regarded as so dangerous and taboo that all research gets shut down for decades? It’s unprecedented in modern science." He apparently hasn't looked into the matter enough to encounter eugenics, which isn't exactly a secret. Shouldn't be surprising that his understanding of what culture is and how it works is loose at best. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 12:11, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, Terence McKenna actually is enough of a woo-meister to merit an article here, to be honest... on this Wiki he gets a justified notation for his role in the 2012 Mayan-inspired end of times shit, but other aspects could be expanded. This whole culture article is basically an updated version of Timothy Leary's famous "turn on, tune in, drop out"Wikipedia phrase from what I see, indicating a fear and paranoia of some "official culture" that he thinks exists and is nefarious, but doesn't really exist as a collective (Christ in these Internet days just count the number of Reddit groups alone) and isn't uniformly as nefarious as he thinks. And he's not smart enough to figure out how psychedelics really work, unable to separate the fine imagery, hallucinations, and "we are all one with the universe" feeling some get with them, from the dry mechanism of how they work (psychedelics fuck with neurotransmitters, man!). Everyone likes to think of themselves as a rebel, I guess. (I'm fine with the part of the message where one keeps an open mind about everything, though...) Soundwave106 (talk) 13:41, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

So this article starts with a quote. “Nature loves courage,” Terence McKenna once proclaimed. “You make the commitment and nature will respond to that commitment by removing impossible obstacles.”. If we start with such an obvious example of ill defined, magical thinking then I am disinclined to read the rest.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:05, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

If I had to guess it would be just any system of thought that tells you the way that things are and that this is X and Y and this is normal, etc. I'm just using that because later on he mentions how culture suppresses our full self expression. Granted it's very loose and the link does mention that it's in reference to modern western consumer culture, but it might be the more broad term. I'm still super doubtful about his claims on psychedelics. Some people on the forum I linked say their lives were better after the fact but that might be more to do with the chemical effects of the drugs rather than any alleged insights. Like anti depressants.Machina (talk) 05:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

The Dems are done. Get ready for four more years[edit]

I'm not even sure I'll vote in the primaries. It's not like any of these people can get to 270 anyways, so there's hardly any point. The good guys lost this one. When Trump wins in November, remember I said it would happen. I'm gonna vote blue in the general, but it'll hardly make a difference. I bet the Dems lose the House too. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 13:40, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

That's seriously dumb. There hasn't been a national head-to-head poll yet where Bernie hasn't significantly outperformed Trump. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:06, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Bernie would lose too. The moderates would be alienated by him, and many of the people who claim to support him probably won't vote. The GOP is seeing record turnouts for their empty primary contest, and the Democrats are struggling to hit 2016 numbers. Plus Trump will launch all kinds of attack ads calling him everything short of Stalin. The GOP will be energized to vote against any Democrat, and the Democrats won't be able to unite behind literally any of these candidates. The election is lost. Prepare for what comes next. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 14:21, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
All indications I see is that turnout is expected to be high for both the urban blues and the token Republican primary. 2018 was also a high turnout year on both sides and ended up being a "blue wave". The only negative indicator I've seen so far is the Democratic Iowa caucuses, and caucuses in my opinion are too anachronistic in this fast-moving Internet age to mean too much. Trump is at a high water mark in polling... which is 51% disapproval, still. Because people are complicated, how people vote after their primary choice is defeated is a complicated equation. The only guarantee IMHO is the no-shit-Sherlock prediction that this will be a bitterly divisive campaign, frankly. Soundwave106 (talk) 15:19, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Expect someone else to be put into the "Leftists who turned right with age" category. When someone claims that the election is essentially lost, they begin to move away from their preferred party, and become a neo/paleoconservative. It's all too familiar to me.Jeh2ow Damn son! 14:37, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
You really like to randomly accuse me of being a conservative, huh? Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 14:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
@DuceMoosolini I'm not saying that you will end up conservative, it's just a prediction.Jeh2ow Damn son! 15:45, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Look, doing what you want would cause the democratic party to lose, just like it did in 2016. There's no guarantees, but having two right wing parties just gives credence to the one that doesn't pretend it's good. I know you wanted Warren to win, but she gave away all chance of that happening when she sold out progressive policies to "move to the center" around December. That just positions you as too radical to the centrists and too spineless for people who actually want anything. That's been the failing strategy of the party for decades now, and it consistently looses, unless you can find an ultra-charismatic figure like Obama to really sell it. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:55, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
If you don't vote for the Dem opponent of Trump, whoever that is, then you support Trump.Aloysius the Gaul 19:49, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
With the caveat that if you vote for bloomberg, you vote for trump, but worse. There are also plenty of other primary outcomes where voting third party is preferable and people whining "But you're effectively voting for trump" did it to themselves, such as if a brokered convention goes against the popular vote. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:10, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Ehhh, Bloomberg is making me feel super uncomfortable. This guy thinks he can just buy his way to election, but he comes off as an out of touch monster that would benefit styming policy. I trust him even less than Biden and I dislike Biden. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 20:11, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Bloomberg was born working class, so that makes him a class traitor as well as an oligarch. Oxyaena Harass 20:30, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
All hail! Marxist-Lennonist discusssion group, local 202. Bongolian (talk) 20:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
You ought to get banned for having an image that misuses cyrillic. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 21:03, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Dll Ndil!
I don't understand this mentality. People want change, but the guy capable of change is "unelectable", so let's put someone who isn't going to change anything on the ballot. I fail to see how this will win you any votes. On the other side Trump won by not caring about moderates at all and going all in promising the changes they wanted. Forget the moderates, they won't vote anyway, they, by definition, are happy with the status quo. 2804:431:C7F3:8416:B5B4:2126:E539:FFFC (talk) 20:39, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
From my position looking at the polls, pretty much *all* the candidates poll better than Trump. (As in, roughly speaking, Biden *and* Sanders are +5 over Trump at the moment.) I don't buy the "electable" argument personally. I'm also kind of eh on who ends up winning unless someone is stupid enough to try to split the Democrat "big tent" with a third party run. Soundwave106 (talk) 21:58, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Not to be rude, but why should we give a fuck about the "moderates" (Moderate of what? Whether or not to care for their citizens? What an inane position.)? Seriously. These are the people that voted "yes" to the PATRIOT act, "yes" to torture, "yes" to Iraq, "yes" to tax cuts for the wealthy, "yes" to insane amounts of deregulation. These are the people who don't give a fuck about us. Why should we give a fuck about them? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:47, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Because moderates(or what pass for moderates in the USA) make up a depressingly large voting bloc and in the current circumstances the democrats need all the turnout they can possibly get. Considering that progressives preform best amidst voter demographics that are actively suppressed during elections alienating moderates, while morally praiseworthy, is tactically suicidal. The best hope is that four more years of Trump is so scary that it can unite all democrats behind whoever the eventual nominee is regardless of their own weaknesses. Politics in a representative democracy is not about who is morally right, or even who is empirically right, but who can win. Flandres (talk) 21:09, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The larger problem I see is that by the standards of the rest of the civilized world, nothing that, say, Sanders or Warren have proposed is particularly extreme or even all that 'socialist'. That said, Bloomberg is categorically unacceptable to me as a candidate. He is the soda-pop tax guy. He thinks legalizing marijuana is a 'terrible mistake'. Then there's the stop and frisk business. If the Democrats offer a candidate with this kind of hostility to personal and civil freedoms, I won't be able to hold my nose tight enough. Instead, I will watch the polls, and if it seems that the Republicans will carry Indiana like they always do, I will cheerfully throw away my vote on a Green or Libertarian. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 23:28, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
I mean,arguably there are "third world" countries like Cuba that have a better healthcare system than the US... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 04:44, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I believe that prioritizing "electability" over supporting what you believe in is like the old saying goes, "If you stand for nothing, you'll fall for anything." Colossal Squid (talk) 01:39, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
@Colossal Squid Ah electability... I guess his repeated re-elections as senator of Vermont don't make him "electable", or the fact that he came in second in 2016... I mean, gosh, it's almost as if there's lots of people that want to elect him for some weird reason... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 04:42, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Depends how you want to frame "lots of people", I suppose. The US has nearly thirty cities with more people in them than Vermont, so you probably shouldn't get too excited about a proven track record of electoral success with a notably unrepresentative ~0.2% of the US population.
Finishing a well-beaten second in a primary that was a two horse race from Iowa onwards doesn't make much of campaign ad, either. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 15:14, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Damnit, why do so many people keep voting for Bernie? Don't they know he's completely unelectable! Comrade General Pootis (talk) 14:38, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
"And that's why I think we should ignore the popular vote and let super-delegates from even less representative states decide who to run" ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:48, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
It's early days, and it's mainly the fractured field that's making Bernie look competitive at the moment. I'm assuming there'll be some consolidation of the "moderate" candidates, hopefully sooner rather than later, and that should be enough to stop him securing an outright majority, maybe even a plurality, in the first round of voting. After that, I would indeed be more than happy to see the DNC super-delegate the fuck out of him at the convention if necessary. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 21:30, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Some, but according to polls Bernie is no. 2 pick for a majority of biden and warren supporters and a great many of klobb/butt supporters. The only people who actively seek moderate candidates as some kind of goal are pundits and insane people. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:43, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Where are you getting your data? I haven't been able to find much recent polling that records second choice by first:

I don't see anything remarkable in Bernie's second choice support, and if you set the YouGov graph widget to plot second choice by first, it appears "not sure" is the dominant answer almost across the board. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 20:48, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

You're still confident there'll be a meaningful election? I think it's about even odds right now Barr will just have the Democratic nominee arrested on some vaguely plausible-sounding charge. Or Trump will just refuse to recognize the results if he loses, claiming the Democrats rigged the vote with "illegals". Him saying he would have won the 2016 popular vote if not for fraud was laying the groundwork for that. In either case the "establishment" will wring their hands and say it's "unprecedented" and otherwise do nothing. Or, in case you needed more comfort, there's a decent chance of an Electoral College tie, in which case, long story short, Trump gets re-elected. Or faithless electors could flip the election for Trump if the EC vote is close, which it probably will be. Our antiquated, creaky Constitution isn't going to hold up much longer. -- (talk) 10:02, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
I heard the word "fealty" on NPR to describe the Republican party and was like "Whoah, I remember not wanting to edit that word out on Rationalwiki." The Republican party is the big tent. The Democratic party is the impossible tent. The two party system is fucking trash. Vermin Supreme isn't on the ballot for Nebraska Libertarian primaries, I can't fucking re-enlist as something other than an independent for the sake of a primary, I'm a fucking independent and that is important to me. There used to be talk of Bernie needing to run as an independent, as if he didn't give that up to run as a Democrat. People who vote democrat as an antidote to insane conservativism need to register independent. That's the only way the demographic is going to scare the Democrats into acting on their constituency. Otherwise it's like "I'm good, but; these people want this, these people want that, these people want things done and I can't do any of that!" It would be less intimidating if the Republican block didn't fall in line so quickly and shamelessly. But that's that fealty thing. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:37, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

El Al[edit]

Logo of El Al Israel Airlines.svg

This is Israel's flag carrier airline, and one of the most secure airlines out there. Lots of conspiracies about them, so let's make a page about them and some El Al crashes.Jeh2ow Damn son! 15:38, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Cursed name and airline. Oxyaena Harass 20:30, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
WTF? Bongolian (talk) 20:46, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
One word: "Israel." Oxyaena Harass 20:59, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
@Bongolian Don't piss her off, or her "Centrist sense" will tingle. But seriously, this is RationalWiki worthy. After all, some of El Al's flights have been hijacked, while others crashed for no apparent reason. Once again, there are a lot of conspiracy theories about El Al and the hijackings, including those made by those dumb fucks.Jeh2ow Damn son! 21:16, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
My objection was not to creating a page on El Al. It was to calling it a "Cursed name and airline.", particularly without further explanation. Bongolian (talk) 21:25, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Airline of an active apartheid state. Oxyaena Harass 22:44, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Once again, Oxyaena has some sort of "Centrist sense". Anything that appears just ever so slightly right wing, she's gonna rant. It's her special superpower.Jeh2ow Damn son! 23:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Funny. Oxyaena Harass 01:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
So now even an airline connected to a country with politics you don't agree with is cursed trash? I mean...is extending your hatred towards a transportation company going to achieve anything? ShabiDOO 23:47, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't think opposing apartheid is a matter of mere "disagreement." Oxyaena Harass 01:06, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
You can persist with this, but it really would be so much quicker just to cut straight to the "Yeah. It's just an airline. Got a bit carried away again." Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 01:53, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Surely a more pressing subject would be Soda Stream, the cursed Israeli soft drinks device manufacturer. I heard all kinds of crazy stories about them when I was a kid. And if you're still short of material, they've been in trouble from BDS-ers. --Annanoon (talk) 08:40, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
SodaStream is different, as they had one of their factories in an illegal settlement in the West Bank before they moved to mainland Israel. Of course, I just wanted to know if any of you would be interested in starting a draft about the airline, and the numerous conspiracies about it. Or, I could just delete this talk. Your choice.Jeh2ow Damn son! 14:18, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Opinions on Israel aside, can we at least agree that the logo is super aesthetically pleasing? You Won't BELIEVE What Astronomers Found In This Neutron Star! - Number Four WILL Shock You! 19:46, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
El Al is also part of my dog's "formal" name, as it was his breeder's official kennel name. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 02:16, 28 February 2020 (UTC)


Bloomberg was born working class, he made sixty billion dollars off the back of his workers and via other various ethically dubious means and has become a fucking oligarch. No one can get sixty billion dollars and still be a moral person, that's more than the GDP of entire countries for Christ's sake. Excuse me for pointing out that fact! Fucking liberals. I mean, wealth hoarding should be a crime, Bloomberg is even worse than Trump. He has the same, er, "moral flexibility" as Trump but unlike Trump he can actually think, if Bloomberg wins office we'll get something not much better than we have now, a formalized corporate oligarchy as opposed to the ad hoc one we have right now, or even a full on fascist state. Bloomberg already has a similar record to Trump, including a disregard for civil rights, doing nothing to combat income inequality (and actually making it worse), and scapegoating minorities. Oxyaena Harass 01:14, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Oops, he was born to affluent parents. Wikipedia got it wrong again. Never mind folks, typical bougie here. Move along. Oxyaena Harass 01:23, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't know anyone here that would disagree with you. The Overton window must be really out of calibration in the US for a former Republican billionaire to just throw a bunch of money to convince everyone he'd be a good Democratic candidate. Personally, I find it awkward that he has his own media outlet. Conflict of interest, much? Colossal Squid (talk) 01:34, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Honestly, though, from a pure numbers standpoint, Bernie Sanders has a huge lead right now, so I'm not worried about Bloomberg yet apart from the inherent skeeviness of the way he entered the race. We've all said similar things about Biden being a terrible candidate while he was still leading in the polls, and look at him now. Colossal Squid (talk) 01:37, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Well, Bloomberg is a social conservative billionaire but he also wants to re enter the Paris agreement and is okay with gun control so he is part of the globalist satanist cabal to the republicans. The democrats are really just the party of "Not republicans" rather than having their own identity so it is easy to see Bernie Sanders and Micheal Bloomberg in the same party even though they are polar opposite. Also, "Bernie is in the lead" depends on "other moderates do not drop out and keep splitting the vote" so be careful about calling the primary just yet.Flandres (talk) 01:50, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
"His father – a bookkeeper at a local dairy who never earned more than $6,000 a year in his life – sat down and wrote out a $25 or $50 check to the NAACP."[1] I guess that makes me a class traitor myself. One of my ancestors was a village cobbler, but I've been a petit bourgeoisie for my entire life. Bongolian (talk) 08:15, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Cool, you're nitpicking, you're ignoring the broader picture here. Bloomberg's an oligarch, a member of the ruling class, it is absolutely imperative we stop him. Oxyaena Harass 14:05, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
You're not convincing me at all by just saying he's a member of the ruling class. I don't like billionaires, I don't like corporate CEOs. I think they're all grossly overpaid. I think they have not earned their wealth honestly — by white-collar crime, failing upward, or inheritance. That said, there are things about all the candidates that I don't like — that will always be true. The real issue as far as I'm concerned is beating Trump. Bernie, by the way, will have a very difficult time winning Florida given the number of old-guard anti-communist Cubans still living there. In Bloomberg's defense (and I don't really have a favorite candidate in the primaries right now): 1) He has donated $5.5 million to keep the US paid up for the Paris Agreement.[2] 2) He's funding down-ballot races for Democrats. 3) It is clear that he's going to financially support whoever the Democratic candidate is (unlike some other candidate we might know, perhaps).

Bongolian (talk) 18:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

There's more to this election than beating Trump. Bloomberg's no better than Trump, they're functionally the same. Oxyaena Harass 20:16, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure why people left of centre aren't celebrating Bloombergs run. It's a rare blessing. I imagine establishment types were twizzling their moustaches when Warren started splitting the votes, it looking like it nailed down the victory for Biden. Now you have Bloomberg, Biden and Buttigieg. Bloomberg won't leave the race, so will adsorb the votes of the "I vote for who ever the media tells me to" crowd, but he's still such a god damn terrible candidate. Watching the people hand it to him on stage is the debate equivalent of DBZ when the overpowered character ragdolls the opponent for a while. The establishment won't reject Biden since they've already invested too much in this particular lame donkey and Buttigieg, while he could be a good candidate for them, I'm not sure if the mainstream considers him electable enough, but if he was to leave the race it's uncertain it would be to the advantage of. I'm always a bit frustrated in the pattern where the corrupt fuckers fight at the start, but eventually establish a common front so they can fuck over everyone else, while the opposition gives lip service to unity then at 5 minutes to midnight has a major fallout over which style of hat is most socialist. Am I wrong in saying that it's nice to see the establishments greed fail to consolidate for once? /endrant McUrist (talk) 08:59, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Bloomberg is the one person in the Democratic race that is categorically unacceptable to me. His soda pop tax, which was apparently struck down for illegality, is to me a symptom of a vicious and authoritarian mindset. He is apparently opposed to legalizing cannabis and endorsed New York's draconian drug laws. Then of course there's stop and frisk. He's basically the Tipper Gore of public-healthism. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 16:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes, the tax is the most obvious sign of authoritarianism, not the completely arbitrary random police stops of practically every non-white person in the city in any given year. It's the tax that's the giveaway. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:26, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes indeed a tax to motivate people to be less sugarmonkeys and cut down on sugar related diseases etc. and raise some money to cover the huge costs of treating such diseases is symptomatic of absolute monstrous tyrrany. It's okay that the government can spy on every email you send all the time and no one makes the slightest stink about it anymore but the diabetes water tax...those few pennies truly attack freedom and America.. ShabiDOO 17:09, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
I read the entire comment, and I'm pretty sure he mentioned more than the soda tax... The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:23, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Be that as it may, running a city as an actual police state was not in that post. If it were a one-off thing I'd take it as a quirky observation, but Smerdis has this weird problem where he understands that bad things are bad, but seems pretty much totally incapable of prioritizing serious injustice over questions of tone and tenor. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:31, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
The soda tax is one of those horrible ideas that the ninnies and handwringers will be all over like white on rice. It needs to be shouted down before it takes off. Lifestylism, the pernicious idea that the ailments of old age are All Your Fault for Not Living Right, is yet another of those things that the clerisy uses to look down on and wrongfoot the poor and what's left of the laboring class. So yes, fighting it is important. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 18:09, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
See what I mean? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:11, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
There should be an added sugar tax, but lol we won't have that anytime soon. Currently sugar in the U.S. is artificially cheap because Congress subsidizes corn (and therefore corn syrup) to buy votes in "farm states". Type 2 diabetes is increasingly an "ailment of young age", with U.S. rates going up among younger age groups. -- (talk) 00:39, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Of course no government has the right to try to moderate people poisoning their bodies (especially children exposed to relentless marketing) nor recoup some of the government cost of treating their expensive diabetes. That is just tyrranical authoritarianism. It is utter mayhem madness. Next thing you know they'll start taxing cigarettes or alcohol or gasoline. They'll get so out of hand before you know it they'll have a general sales tax. We have the right to toxify our bodies without the 2 cents guilt trip. That's what freedom is all about. ShabiDOO 22:55, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
If you ever hope to have tax funded medical care in this country, it is necessary first to put down these belief systems that claim that illness is caused by not living right. It won't work any other way. When you start blaming the ill and elderly for their own conditions, absolutely nothing will be nobody's business but your own. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 05:04, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
No...you're so hyped up on the anti-"nanny" state and rabid-small-tax-hysteria that you've done a cosmic-slippery slope from a few cents pop-tax to Soviet tyrrany. Perhaps...Smerdis you've slightly exaggerated that slippery slope from what's actually a tiny stair case of fairly uncontroversial government policy into a razor edge cliff of silliness? I live in an EU country that has things like sugar related taxes and they are so completely uncontroversial and no the government doesn't bud their nose into our lives. In fact the surveillance-state-system is a lot less extreme than in the U.S. It's petty money. And if it helps fund a program to get kids to stop looking at diabetes water as the default go-to drink with their lunch I really don't mind. Nor do I mind sugar addicts contributing a few cents more towards their health care treatment. Remember...we are talking about pennies here. Sometimes these taxes are effective in moderating hyper-consumtion or activities of toxic stuff, sometimes not. But even in those few cases where it doesn't moderate things a litte...it does add some extra funds the government always needs for the fallout. You still have the freedom to buy the pop. You still have the freedom to drink 5 litres of sugar a day if you like. If you really want to fight for consumption freedom in America...then try getting the government to lower the drinking age to 18 which would actually give millions of Americans the right to choose to drink as an adult. That's the difference between "freedom to choose" and "a few cents petty tax". 18, 19 and 20 year olds don't have the first right and yet the rabid rage is directed at a question of a few pennies. ShabiDOO 09:31, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
I always hoped that the picture of american political attitudes was just a bad stereotype. Then I see people calling a sugar tax fascism, while sleeping through military invasions, coups, corporate lobbying etc. Something is wrong with this overton window. It's perfectly reasonable to avoid offloading the tax burden for peoples terrible decision making. Nudge taxes aren't going to kill anyone either. McUrist (talk) 13:18, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
We agree, at least, on drinking ages, which are laws no decent person would enforce. If we must have them, set them to two years before you can get a permit to drive a car. But in the USA, nobody ever went broke by proposing new abstinence based pseudovirtues. We have a bad history of crap like prohibitionism and the war on drugs. Need to nip that sort of thing in the bud before it becomes a major problem. Stopping people from moralizing about other people's food preferences is actually quite important given our national tendency to go nuts with that sort of thing. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 13:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
So... you think alcohol prohibition and a 2 cent tax on a can of coke are the same thing? That explains all the protection rackets from the sugar mafia. The problem with this stance, as with others where the US differs vastly (guns jump to mind), is that it doesn't even try to tackle the contrary evidence from around the world. Just keeps making the same slippery slope argument about a vague notion of liberty. McUrist (talk) 13:42, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
And what 'evidence' can that be? Not interested in an argument about whether drinking sugar or corn syrup is Bad For You. My point is that even if that's true it's still none of the government's business whether you choose to do t or not, or to try to dissuade people from doing it by artificially inflating prices. It's another way for the haute-bourgeoisie to express their contempt for the working classes, like so much else that flies the flag of 'health' in media and cultire. Anti-smoking has been a civil rights emergency for years. Good governments do not portray an underclass of their citizens as lepers whose contagin endangers you if you so much as smell one. It even revived segregation. I will do whatever I can to prevent similar belief systems from taking root. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 16:58, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Wait, anti-smoking is a what now?Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 17:19, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
The good thing about Bloomberg entering the race is that he likely has no chance of winning the nomination on the ballot and helps split the “status quo” vote (though he simply seems to be hoovering up defectors from the other “status quo” candidates). The bad thing is that he is very well placed to get the nomination at a brokered convention, if Sanders fails to win a majority. While I’m not convinced that such a scenario is inevitable, if Sanders (as seems possible) wins a plurality, but not a majority, neither would I rule it out; despite the risk that such a move would seriously fracture the Democratic Party. ScepticWombat (talk) 17:53, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
I consider Bloomberg to be at least complicit in the death of Eric Garner. It was Bloomberg's policies and taxes that made NYC the most expensive city in the USA to be a cigarette smoker. This in turn fueled the demand for 'loosies'[3] and led to the 'crime' he was killed in the process of being arrested for. Draconian antismoking campaigns have a real human cost. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 04:32, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The Democrats need someone who will generate interest and excitement. Bloomberg is not that person, for many reasons: and for me the soda tax is one of them. It is one of many things that show him to be elitist, out of touch, somewhat contemptuous of the working classes, thinking he knows what's best for everyone. Hillary Clinton also had this problem. Back in the 1990s she was endorsing abstinence based sex education, handwringing about how marijuana might lead to sex, as well as more substantive failings like her support for three strikes laws. Stuff like this tends to suck the air out of the room. An I will admit that I did not vote for Al Gore, and a major reason was that I could not cast a vote that would put Tipper Gore in the White House. If the divorce is final now, and he picked someone other than Lieberman to run with, I'd be happier to see him in the race than I am Bloomberg. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 01:37, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Florida Man Horoscope[edit]

I wanna get this game started here, all you gotta do is Google "Florida man" with your birthday minus the year and post the results here. Mine is Neighbors complain about Florida man doing yardwork naked RockfordRoe (talk) 18:59, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

This has Category:Generators potential for Funspace. Bongolian (talk) 20:12, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Only one I got was from Fox News, don't blame me. Fugitive Florida man on bike hoped 'hideous' blonde wig disguise would help him evade deputies, police say Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 23:10, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Well, it seems that I drew this callout to classic cartoon shows. Hunh. I'm not that old... Kencolt (talk) 05:05, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
I got Florida Man Arrested For Throwing Sausages At His Mom. Huh. It seems even the news articles are trying to make me hungry. You Won't BELIEVE What Astronomers Found In This Neutron Star! - Number Four WILL Shock You! 19:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Can we have original thoughts?[edit]


The video sparked my interest despite the fact that I don’t really have much love for the guy. I read his book but found it wanting since much of the concepts were either ripped from Buddhism or just completely crackers. But the idea of original thoughts was interesting. I mean much of what I know today I learned from other people who came before me. But the what about those people?Machina (talk) 00:04, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

What is an original thought? Is it a thought in a proverbial vacuum with no impulses to guide it, or just a thought no one has ever had before? If it is a thought no one has had before, then absolutely. Advancing technology is proof of this. No one 5 thousand years ago was contemplating trying to use lasers to fuse Hydrogen atoms into Boron atoms to create a sustainable fusion reaction. If it is a thought on a proverbial vacuum, then we dont know. At a basic level we have chemically induced emotions that prompt thoughts, a brain without that has never been observed. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 00:41, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
The answer is yes, but right now I'm not having an original thought. I'm having a thought I've had many times before. Specifically the thought is "Jesus Christ, Machina, that's more meaningless deepity". ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 03:59, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
No, because you're all just characters in my dream, and when I awaken you'll cease to exist. -- (talk) 07:45, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I don’t think the video has anything to do with solipsism.Machina (talk) 17:45, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for not going over this. It doesn't have to do with solipsism, it has to do with biology, evolution, and human intelligence but not knowing how to combine them. And one of the most powerful tools we have is to learn, apply, and learn again. To look for answers is to say "I don't know" and ask a question. In some way, no, we don't have control over our thoughts. That's hard determinism, but humans are not jellyfish. Being able to use multiple tools between linguistics, mathematics, physics, philosophies etc. to create original questions is actually how science works. So I like this answer, that questions are more original than answers. But then the problem is you have to define thoughts as questions or answers, and a quick answer to that is thoughts should be questions, and answers are supposed to be facts. Using that logic, Ben Shapiro is one of the worst arbiters of thoughts. I think original thought is possible, because the word "original" implies an origin that isn't isolated. But yeah, hard question. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:18, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
So I missed a huge thing in my last response, "Original thought is psossible, because the word 'original' implies an origin that [/and] isn't [necessarly] isolated." What I mean is that if you are defining an "original" thought, it absolutely can come from two unoriginal sources. But then you have to define originality as a kind of synthesis of previous truths. And yeah, so to make this sound less like deepity, I don't think taking untestable truth and mashing it into untestable or unmeasurable observations is any way to get a real truth done, even if it can be original. So here I am saying you're not going to get a purely original thought unless you want to go all Aquinas on me. And what I mean by that is "If something perfect can be thought of, it must be that something more perfect exists." That's a hard one to get around, but it proves a higher power about as well as it proves, I don't know, optimism or hope. I really wouldn't be able to philosophically argue for the benefit of hope, even if I know the difference between having it and not having it. And I find hope is one of my personal favorite feelings, but I'm a nihilist, so that's just me.
What I mean more is what we make AI do for us, run algorithms. We can't always read algorithms as originating from anywhere, one, two, five, a hundred points of data that comes out as something true. But they have to, on some level, originate from data or we can't interpret the output. I think Original Thought is possible, but again, hard question, very.... unstable definition. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:46, 27 February 2020 (UTC) Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:30, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Bernie and Russia[edit]

Bernie was briefed a month ago by the State Department that his campaign was being supported by Russia. This is quite bad for several reasons.

  1. Bernie did not make this information public, but instead sat on it for a month.
  2. The information only came out because of a Congressional briefing with senior intelligence officials that occurred last week.[4]
  3. This is the second presidential election in which Bernie was supported by Russia. We have the Mueller Report to thank for telling us that Bernie was supported by Russia in 2016.
  4. Since it is also known that Russia has supported Trump in 2016 and in the current election, it puts Bernie in the same plane as Trump.

Two possible non-mutually exclusive reasons for Putin's support of Bernie are:

  1. Bernie is an agent of chaos within the Democratic Party. Chaos will weaken the nominee (e.g. a brokered convention) if it's not Bernie.
  2. Bernie would likely lose to Trump, who is their actual favored candidate (favored primarily because he is corrupt and mobbed-up just like Putin's inner circle).

At this point, I see the path to defeating Trump as defeating Bernie first. Bongolian (talk) 01:14, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Isn't the easiest way to lose to Trump for the dems to push yet another uninspiring establishment candidate during the primary? (talk) 15:46, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
So... You fully support full Oligarchy so long as its AMERICAN Oligarchy? Revolverman (talk) 02:35, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
you are forgetting a more obvious reason for supposed support - sowing dissent. they don't need much to disrupt the dems it seems. AMassiveGay (talk) 01:59, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
The Russians are really good at mercilessly probing the sensitive nerve endings of the American public. Taking advantage of our open society, they appear to have a hand in a lot of political movements including environmental and racial ones. Meanwhile, Putin has more or less got a lock down on the media and political scene in Russia in a way that prevents any meaningful internal or external challenge. To me it seems obvious that they want the most isolationist American president they can get. Trump doesn't care what happens outside America's borders, he barely cares what goes on in them. Indeed, like a lot of American conservatives he seems to be surprisingly sympathetic to Putin. I've never quit figured that out. Sanders has always been a "skeptic" of America's role in the world and has at times been overly sympathetic to hostile regimes and dictatorships. Either one would be a good opportunity for Russia to annex or de facto annex another big chunk of some former Soviet Republic, Crimea style. Neo Stalinist (talk) 02:21, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
There is another ostensible reason for Putin to support Sanders. Trump is a snake and Putin knows, whatever leverage Putin might have on Trump, he cannot trust Trump to support Russian aggression on the scale Putin has in mind. And I believe Putin is spoiling for a fight to get the Soviet empire back. Say if Putin were to invade a Nato member in eastern Europe, I don't think Trump could restrain the response of the European members and the US could be dragged into the conflict. I advise all our socialist friends to consider that a big increase in government social programs means a big decrease in defense spending. A similar decrease would be unlikely under Trump. He could not possibly run on that policy agenda. Were I Putin, I would support the candidate most likely to reduce the size of the American military. Those would be Warren and Sanders with Sanders a clear favorite. Ariel31459 (talk) 04:19, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Oh no, how will we win any wars with a slightly less-bloated military? Invading the Baltics would be stupid because they're tiny NATO members with strong anti-Russian sentiment. Insurgency plus possible world war is only something a megalomaniac would go for, and Putin isn't one. Instead you undermine them with manipulation, as with the U.S. and other countries. -- (talk) 04:33, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Why are you surprised U.S. conservatives like Putin? They want the U.S. to be like Putin's Russia. Russia isn't Communist anymore. -- (talk) 04:33, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Eastern NATO would be a tough but to crack even without US involvement. Poland and the Baltic states have been obsessively preparing for this shit for years. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 04:36, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Psst, I think you wanted to put this above my later comment. See wp:Wikipedia:Indentation. -- (talk) 07:41, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
I can only assume Trump, given his well-known antipathy to "leakers", will be swiftly condemning this leak and vowing to find out who's responsible. After all, he just stated he's going to stop Bolton from publishing his book because he says it contains classified information. Nunes went to tell Trump about the briefing regarding Russian 2020 election interference, so I presume he's aware of it. Now on a non-sarcastic note, I've seen people saying all candidates received this information, and they would have broken the law by disclosing this publicly, as it's classified information. I have no idea if this is true. Would be glad if someone felt like looking into that. You might argue Sanders should have done it anyway; that's a separate matter. -- (talk) 07:41, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
It’s obvious that sowing distrust and discord within the US in general and towards its political system in particular is an obvious motivation for the Russians to ratfuck with Sanders by some form of “stealth support”.
Unlike Trump, however, there is nothing that suggests that Sanders has any connections to Russia or that a Sanders presidency would be more beneficial to Russian interests than the chaotic freak show that is the current and likely future Trump White House.
Also, the idea that a Sanders presidency would result in anything more than a less ludicrous increase in military expenditure (and a stronger focus on curbing waste in the military budget) is the kind of wishful thinking that I don’t really see Putin subscribing to.
Not only are drastic military cuts unlikely to make it through Congress within the timeframe of a Sanders presidency (though if he manages to successfully launch a long term movement that can pressure Congress critters, this might be different later on), but cuts big enough to significantly impact US military capabilities vis-a-vis Russia are simply implausible, given that current US military spending is 684.6 billion dollars versus Russia’s 61.6 billion, or literally 10:1. ScepticWombat (talk) 17:39, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Ah, so that's the reason you got so pissy with me! You're okay with having another Trump-like oligarch in the White House at the expense of real, meaningful change for the betterment of humanity, @Bongolian! You should've told us! Really, you wanna defeat Trump? Don't nominate a candidate with policies that lead directly to Trump in the first place (*cough* neoliberalism *cough*). Bloomberg and all the other centrists are not what America needs, and they're not what the American people want. You've let your hate of Trump cloud the issues here, there're far more important things at stake here than just "defeating Trump." Bernie's the only one with policies that actually benefit the American worker without compromising integrity for the favor of the moneyed classes. Insert typical libby paranoia about Russia and insults about "muh socialism" here. Fucking privileged brats. Oxyaena Harass 19:37, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Hate to be a downer, but how much meaningful change is Sanders actually going to accomplish? Congress will be centrist democrat at best, the supreme court is far right, and considering his age he has one term to deal with all of this and furthermore the current system is so dysfunctional as to be beyond saving. This situation does not fit the profile of a grand era of radical reform like the New Deal(the Democratic super majority is a noticeably absent). The Sanders administration will probably just be four more years of Obama-esque dithering, so I don't see why you are so optimistic about it(especially as someone who wants to end capitalism; Sanders will at best just save it like FDR did)-Flandres (talk) 20:01, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Meaningful change on the scale of, for comparison, civil rights movements of the past, comes from the bottom up, not top down. If Sanders is able to lead people in putting pressure, mainly electoral pressure as I understand his interviews, on local politicians, and at the same time grow a movement that goes beyond his own time in office, it may result in meaningful change eventually. Case in point, democratic positions on various issues were shifted left towards Sanders since 2016, and what he did then may have something to do with it. Why not see how much more he can do once in office? (talk) 20:21, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
They have shifted towards the left because they want to drive up turnout in 2020, because they want to unseat Trump. The same centrist hacks still dominate the party, and without the threat of Trump to unite them they will knife Sanders in the back because he has served his purpose-they will accept no long term threat to the status quo they benefit from. Also, when you say meaningful change "eventually", look at the weather forecast, look at the world around you, look at a motherfucking actual prediction by a climatologist, WE DON'T HAVE TILL "EVENTUALLY." We have, like, a decade, and every month counts(so sanders has to be succeeded by a president just like him). What I suppose I should have clarified(sorry) is that Sanders cannot achieve radical change in a time frame that matters.Flandres (talk) 20:35, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
And so what do you propose is the thing people should place their hopes on? Or are we to give in to despair instead? (talk) 20:55, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Your problem, not to mention the problem that most humans have in times like these, is that you are so naive and optimistic as to believe there necessarily must be a solution at all. You are trying to undo the legacy of decades, arguably centuries, of mismanagement. You are attempting to fight against implacable forces of entropy and history. This is not the sort of story that has a happy ending. The good guys do not "have" to win. There is not always a achievable exit to massive systemic problems; just ask the Romans or the Soviets or the Incas. The "good guys" won't lose if Trump gets re-elected now, for you have already lost.Flandres (talk) 21:06, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Let's imagine for a moment that I am not a dreamer and do not strive for a full solution to every single problem, as you are implying is the correct view of things. What then should my actions be in 2020? Should I fight on in the hope for partial solutions and partial mitigations? Should I give in to despair and not fight at all? Now that I have taken over your view of things, what actions should that view lead to? (talk) 21:18, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Hmhmhmhmhm...If that is a veiled attempt to ascertain what *I* am doing in 2020, lets just say I know exactly what I will be doing and how that fits in my own agenda but as for you, just prepare for the catastrophe as best you can, try and preserve yourself and that which you value, and remember that if you live long enough(I am fairly young, personally, which is why I see fit to plan for a post climate crisis life) you may find opportunities. Writing off any attempt to save the current order, partial or otherwise, is not the same as giving into despair and doing nothing if you can actually recognize there are other options(as you have failed to do, though you can be forgiven for that as few enjoy pondering upon the disasters of this scale when they can lapse into false hope).Flandres (talk) 21:38, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
In response to your assumptions about me, let me remind you that just because I have not mentioned other options within this thread does not mean I have privately failed to recognize them. Nevertheless I thank you for your answer, as it helps me understand your perspective. (talk) 21:53, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm just going to point out that election interference is bad actually... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:05, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie Duh, obviously and I can’t see anyone arguing otherwise in this thread. The question is what kind of interference we’re talking about and how to apportion blame. Is this an incident of Putin ratfucking the electoral process or one of Putin specifically trying to get Sanders elected? Furthermore, If one subscribes to the latter view, does this mean we’re seeing an equivalent to Trump more or less directly or seriously soliciting foreign support (as in the calls for hacking Democrats in general and Hillary Clinton in particular during the 2016 election)? As far as I can see, the answer to the two latter questions are no, while the first one is a definite yes (and wholly in line with Russian disinformation/FUD strategies applied to several other Western countries as well). Basically, should we mainly see this as a reason to get mad at Sanders or at Putin? I suggest the latter. ScepticWombat (talk) 20:50, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I can't vote for Bernie now I know that foreign oligarchs want him to win. Now I must vote for the democratic candidate national oligarchs want to win!
Russia interference only matters if a candidate responds to them - Trump did and used information from them in the election campaign, Bernie did neither in 2016 - I don't imagine he will in 2020 either. If it's shadowy foreign money buying ads you're worried about, perhaps the question is why Facebook is allowed to have foreign entities buying political ads. Sanders has already disavowed them, and there's not much else he can actually do while Russia is allowed by Republican legislators to influence the American democratic process. Maybe I'm feeling too much of the Bern, but this does not influence my support for Bernie at all. Minish (talk) 21:04, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

+1 for nuking Bernie by any means necessary. The entire right-wing shithead MAGAverse is visibly erect at the prospect of him securing the nomination. This is not a cunning double bluff on their part. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 20:58, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Is there an actual policy position you hate, or do you base your decision solely on your dislike of a section of his supporters? (talk) 21:08, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
"The media can't tell you what to think, but it will tell you what to think about".
Does this just seem like a no brainer for Putins style of interference. Bernie reliably polls well against Trump and we can pretty much say for sure that Trump is their asset. Appearing to support Bernie lets the media paint both Trump and Bernie with the same brush, giving sanders some apparent corruption on his otherwise fairly clean record. It stokes political apathy towards the dems, which seems to be the weapon of choice against moderates.
...The other theory being that Putin wants Sanders, obviously Establishment Dem Mk2: Hillary with added baggage and dementia would be a guaranteed end of Trump, who pretty much ran on a protest vote ticket. Obviously a popular wildcard would be perfect. /s McUrist (talk) 22:16, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
So many predictions being made here and the level of certainty behind these predictions is incredible. American politics are famously unpredictable. Just look at the varying level of support for the candidates in the Dem primaries. See how candidates stay high and then suddenly crash. How others shoot out of nowhere. How polls measuring possible voter intention between Trump and Sanders vacillates over the weeks. Assuming how candidates will do with that level of confidence is silly and predicting Trump will win already is even more preposterous. It's not just defeatists its just self-fulfilling prophecy. America's political state is pretty broken at the moment but presidents do come along from time to time and institute breath taking changes. Nate Silverman (very good at predicting political winners) is openly changing the likely hood of victory every day. ShabiDOO 22:32, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
How was there even any certain predictions there? The only even out there thing is Trump being a Russian asset, which is far from saying he's guaranteed to win. But I guess since no one knows for sure what will happen, everyone including the Russians will decide their strategy using a roulette wheel. McUrist (talk) 10:24, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
@Oxyaena, I'm not sure what you think is 'pissy' with regard to my behavior. If it's regarding classism, that's a separate issue. I find discussing class warfare-type issues unproductive and unhelpful. It's going to go right over the heads of most Americans who don't generally see things in terms of class — they probably should but one is not going to win an election in the US based on that. I did not find out about Putin's endorsement until after that anyway, and I doubt that Putin cares at all about Bernie's enormous number of policies anyway: Putin doesn't care about policy but rather about power and money. Bongolian (talk) 23:09, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Just like how the Democratic establishment was happy about Trump being nominated because they were confident they could easily beat him in 2016? They're high on their own supply and think repeating "socialist", "communist", "USSR" over and over will lead to a Reagan-style landslide, despite there being evidence against this. "After all, I know socialism is evil and also the same thing as communism (and of course liberals are all secretly communists anyway), and all Right-Thinking Americans agree with me!" -- (talk) 00:21, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Turning Point, now an Irish version[edit]

In following the news about failing in the recent Dáil elections. Fromage's Irish lackey the Irexit's Hermann Kelly, is assisting in creating an Irish version of Turning Point at the National University of Ireland in Galway. This may not sound notable, but it is a Seanad election panel. https://twitter.com/TPointIE/status/1230937180933062657?s=19 Euromec (talk) 11:51, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

The handful of timid conservative voices (who no one stops speaking in Ireland) feel uncomfortable outside their online echo chamber and hearing for the first time in their lives notable dissenting voices. Meanwhile thousands of students are discouraged from (or even silenced over) speaking up about their experiences of sexual assault. I think the latter should be the focus on "free and open speech" on campus in Ireland. Not fake-victims of non-oppression. ShabiDOO 13:14, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Herman Kelly is one of those dangerous tosspots that confuse freedom of expression with free speech. We don't have free speech in Ireland as that twat understands it. There are laws curbing hate speech and quite rightly too. But ignorant halfwits like Herman and that other dangerous mouth piece, Gemma O'Doherty seem to believe free speech allows them to say hateful things about people and cry foul when they are banned from corporate platforms for violating the rules they agree to. And as such, in the Gemma O'Doherty example, have an ongoing protest outside Google's offices in Dublin. https://villagemagazine.ie/village-editorial-september-gemma-odoherty-2019/ Cardinal Chang (talk) 18:38, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
You've heard of Turning Point USA, but now get ready for Pointe Ag Casadh IRA. (sorry, I couldn't resist) Comrade General Pootis (talk) 17:15, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Politics in Norway[edit]

You know, FrP leaving Stortinget, SIAN burning the Qua'ran and stuff. If you are wondering about what is going on at Stortinget, just ask.--Alola, my name is Delibirda! (talk) 14:28, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Do you have any plans to get some buddies together, sail to a British town, and steal a bunch of shit before burning it down? Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 14:48, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
No. But maybe I should visit Northen Ireland once.--Alola, my name is Delibirda! (talk) 11:43, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes. Oxyaena Harass 19:12, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
It's sad to see Norway end up like us. We rednecks in America need to be a better example. And less racist.Jeh2ow Damn son! 22:11, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Extreme right assholtry is not a uniquely American thing nor did it start in America. Every European country has between 10-20% far right representation in their parliaments. They are loud but mostly ignored and rarely invited to participate in coalition governments. There are a handful of exceptions like currently in Italy. They are terrible embarrassment and make politics extremely toxic. The fact that they have a few seats in parliament and their representatives say stupid shit publicly...provokes the crazies into doing super vile shit publicly (like spray painting swastikas on buildings or burning Korans). The notable difference between the US and Europe is that the US has an extremely high degree of free speech while Europe/Canada/Aust/NZ does not. A high degree of freedom of expression including all political criticism ... yes. Hate speech however can be prosecuted in most countries. And most people overwhelmingly support that level of free speech. You don't have the right to make life a living hell for marginalized people nor provoke hate crimes or other crime. It's not a case of Norwegians copying Americans. It's simply a crazy guy who once in a while does something grotesque despite the fact that they will be prosecuted. It happens so much more often (hate speech) in the US only because it is protected by the constitution. ShabiDOO 22:25, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Laughs in UK 60% far right parliament. McUrist (talk) 22:33, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
British is its own language, you know. Oxyaena Harass 23:32, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Do anyone know 'bout the new SAS ad?--Alola, my name is Delibirda! (talk) 11:39, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

@Delibirda Yup, and it was a storm in a teacup. I wasn’t surprised that it riled wingnut trolls (SAS’s claims that they were the target of a coordinated cyber attack seems to be bunk, though), considering both the main (the world around enriching Scandinavia through imports) and the corollary message (nothing is “really” Scandinavian). Of course, political opportunists subsequently jumped into the fray, predictably including the Danish People's Party. ScepticWombat (talk) 06:25, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
@ScepticWombat I wonder why people still fuss about it. Yes, it was stupid, but not "SAS deserves to go to Hell" stupid. Plus, just cuz one ad was anti-nationalistic does not mean (unfortunatly) that you have to be anti-nationalistic to work at SAS, if you understand.--Alola, my name is Delibirda! (talk) 08:04, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
@Delibirda I haven’t checked which people still fuss about it, but I’d guess that it’s the usual bunch of self-validating wingnut conspiracy trolls and/or politicians looking to make hay. An example of the latter is the Danish People’s Party desperately trying to get immigration back on the political centre stage to the extent of flirting with, if not outright endorsing, The Great Replacement conspiracy theory and similar crap. For the self-validating online wankers, it’s of course a sign of how nefarious “globalists” have buried deep into the ruling institutions of the state/society, working towards their dastardly plot to abolish the nation state, replace all the good, pure and proper Scandinavians with immigrants and shove all of nationalism down the memory hole by way of the dreaded mainstream media. ScepticWombat (talk) 08:35, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
That sounded interesting. I Googled "SAS nothing is truly Scandinavian" A bit late, but I've just added it to WIGO:World. Spud (talk) 11:58, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

The odd obsession with bacon (for some reason)[edit]

Even after awhile the bacon fad started people still obsess over bacon and more recently: pickles. Is there something I am not understanding about fads? There is bacon themed clothing and even perfume! Why do people obsess over food items?

I know with 100% certainty that it is an American thing but I am not certain that either bacon or pickles are a fad in other countries. I do know that bacon and pickles were made for centuries because that they were easy to store and produce. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:09, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Bacon can be a fad, really? I mean it's already a really popular food in many places, giving it a fad seems like a waste. (talk) 00:38, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
It certainly has in the US of A. Cannot say for other countries though. Somehow bacon has been a fad for like 10 years give or take. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:42, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Ten years is quite long. Maybe American cuisine needs more different things that can compete for attention with bacon. (talk) 01:00, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
It's less of a fad than it used to be. The chief cause of the "craze" is a combination of diet craze changes (1980s: low-fat, 2000s: low-carb) and pork companies successfully hawking bacon as a flavor enhancement to the overcooked blah meat often offered at fast food restaurants in the 1990s (generally Hardees is credited with starting the trend). I think bacon mania started in the 1990s and peaked in the 2010s, but high protein low carb diet woo and people who are like Ron Swanson non-ironically will keep bacon in vogue for a little bit longer, at least. Soundwave106 (talk) 01:57, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
The increasing prevalence in pickles could be due to an increased prevalence of openly transgender women. ⵚⴱⵔⵉⴳⴳⵉⵏⴰ (ⴰⵡⴰⵍ) (ⵜⵉⵡⵙⵉ) @ 02:03, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
五花肉 is good though. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 03:02, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
^Seriously good. (talk) 08:44, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
For the bacon-craze, check out:[5] For the pickle craze, check out:[6] Bongolian (talk) 07:35, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Johnny Appleseed was a hard cider man. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:25, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

New Royalty, or swipe right. Expecation, Pop Idolatry, Whishful Sentiments[edit]

Grimes, who isn't even apparently a person with a name, is pregnant via Elon Musk. Her plan for concerts is to Holograph. I think it's commendable to focus on your pregnancy, and it would be tough to forward your career. Mr. Musk even put out a song, just trying it and it wasn't good, apparently. I used to call Grimes baby-babble. She started using words.

I think Boucher definitely deserves to be engaged in her pregnancy. What's weird is people thinking EDM needs a live version, and the confusion resulting.

Like, cool, she gets to do a hologram show, and that's cool. She also got electrocuted by an earpiece and fought through the show, and that was ok? Electrocution?

This is the American version of royalty. I love engineering, I love songwriting. Elon Musk and Ms Grimes are both good, I don't want to take anything away from them or their enabling of engineering and songwriting. I think they are both inept at both, but that's me also. They are idols in an environment that isn't picky, and I like their pet projects. The idea that sending a hologram off to be a performer while you literally mother a child is actually really cool. I don't think they are smarter or better, I think they have enough money to do it and I think they get an undeserved pass. Hologram Tupa and Jackson from beyond the grave shit is cringey. This is ok, but it's also cringe.Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:00, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

An aside: I actually think it would be neat if an EDM act actually performed truly live versions (I saw a few in the late 1990s but can't think of anyone who really does this now). A few "indietronica" bands like Hot Chip actually manage to pull off reasonably live indie-EDM dance. It sounds quite a bit different from the studio tracks, but it's personally something I'd rather watch than "just pressing play". But I'm probably in the minority these days... Soundwave106 (talk) 05:31, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Hahaha, no Joke, I tried a Theremin, I had a friend who was just buying wacky instruments. It was just a fruitless endeavor, I don't think we had a bad time. Gol Sarnitt (talk)

The point of a theramin is making one and saying "I made a theramin!" then explaining to your friends, acquaintances, and strangers what a theramin is. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:06, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Toast Day[edit]

Happy Toast Day to all my old chums. Genghis Khant (talk) 11:19, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Happy Toast Day, Genghis. Oxyaena Harass 12:57, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Back at you Mr Khant! Scream!! (talk) 16:43, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Yay Genghis.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 20:41, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Bernie, Trump, and Russians[edit]

Here you go. Oxyaena Harass 12:56, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
He's right. It's not shocking that the other two superpowers are doing this crap, given how often we ourselves do these kinds of stunts to foreign countries. It's also not necessarily that big a problem unless the leaders/candidates reciprocate. And yes, the PRC probably has agents involved in this stuff, at least on a passive level. Hell, I'd bet various European agencies are at least passively involved as well, if only to keep track of what us yanks are doing. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:16, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
It's not something to got too worked up about it, it's par the course for international affairs. This is really a nonissue, and Bernie's not reciprocating for Christ's sake. Oxyaena Harass 21:21, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Now that I've had time to get a feel for what's going on, meh? I mean, it should be obvious why Russia attempted to help Trump back in 2016, i.e. he's a corrupt and morally bankrupt moron. Sanders being less interventionist works to their advantage as well. Just overall, the only real thing of note so far is that Russia seems to be getting sloppier in their spycraft recently. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:38, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
sloppy? it casts doubt on the validity of on the presidency of whoever gets elected. it only works if they are 'sloppy' AMassiveGay (talk) 22:47, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
The only thing that matters to the validity of any presidency is whether or not they get elected, anything else is semantic. This kind of thing happens all the time, the US has done it plenty for example, I don't see why people are so miffed about it. Oxyaena Harass 23:55, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
its difficult enough as it is to get people out to vote. its another excuse not to. then you get more populists. then you get more trumps. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:15, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
I still think this is all a moot point since the Trumpublicans are gonna win big in November. When it happens, I’ll keep saying “I told you so” until the day next year when the far right militias shove me into an extermination camp so the doctors can strap me down and slice me open without anesthetic for human experimentation. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 00:26, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm bamboozled. The Russians do this in every US election, because the US does this in unstable countries. How do they help elect Obama, how do they help elect dubya? I get the idea that if the US is not a strong and unified military force in colonies, ignore that, countries that are pleading for diplomacy, Russia might step in and do the dickhead thing. The threat of that is maybe a thing. That doesn't substantially decrease US military power. I don't think the United States is going to get caught on military strength, regardless of interventionist Russians. I don't think Bernie Sanders plays into Russian chess, because this guy, I'm glad he has a shed to post in? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:57, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
The point about personal American and Russian oligarchic needs not inherently being in conflict should probably be hammered harder. That said, as a counterpoint: https://www.wired.com/story/bernie-sanders-russia-chaos-2020-election/
There's examples of Russian trolls literally fighting against themselves, with the presumable intent of just muddying the waters, disrupting discussion and letting domestic media attach to whatever line they need. I'm not sold on the "Russia wants Bernie" angle, sure he might be less interventionist, but Russia also has a lot of money tied up in the US oligarchy that Bernie wants to tackle, so I can't imagine it's a general win case for them. It's possible, but not guaranteed they'd prefer him over a moderate. Given the prospect of a weaker moderate going against Trump, I can't see them jumping on the fence, given how much of a good time they're having with Trump.McUrist (talk) 10:45, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't know why you're resigned to a second Trump term when polls have consistently shown Bernie beating Trump in a head-to-head. Even being resigned to Bernie losing doesn't make much sense anymore, since he's currently the frontrunner. Minish (talk) 14:48, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
a week is a long time in politics. we have the better part of a year to go and no confirmed dem presidential candidate. at this point any predictions are simply a coin toss. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:41, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I cant help but think that a lot of the impact of this would be lessened if you didn't have such an obscenely long (and costly) election process. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:25, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

No! Where would I, as a non American, get my dose of political drama? For serious though, I think the political circus is a result of the sheer scale of corruption involved and seriously needs to be tackled and I'm hoping the model that works there could be applied elsewhere. McUrist (talk) 10:45, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
politics should be dry and tedious. when it isn't, there is a problem AMassiveGay (talk) 13:23, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Game over, Man!. Game Over[edit]

As you surely know, "Mad Mike" Hughes has basically splattered trying to prove Earth is flat, once the rocket's parachute failed. I wonder how much time will pass before cranks begin to claim TPTB killed him, making his flight to pear-shaped.

Sorry for not logging in. (talk) 21:07, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Sure, They want you to think he died. Non-sheeple know he ascended to Asgard, realm of the gods! -- (talk) 01:43, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
He's flatter than the angels now (give me a break, he went looking, I feel bad about the joke too)Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:17, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Mike clearly faked it. He's actually a 20 year old a tor who faked the whole thing so he could get a free trip to Disneyland. ShabiDOO 09:21, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
What was Mike trying to do? Did he know what he was trying to do? He wasn't trying to go high enough to where he should have been able to see the curvature of the earth: he wasn't trying to go higher than commercial jets or tall hills, so if he just wanted to get 5000 feet above sea level he could have walked. I guess he just wanted to go up in a rocket and didn't worry too much about the science. --Annanoon (talk) 09:53, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
he'd already had 2 successful rocket flights, and the flat earth 'schtick' was apparently a gimmick for fundraising. this thread is in poorer taste than when a truly egregious character dies. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:21, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Height wise, for "proving his point", he would have been better off attaching weather balloons to lawn chairs, frankly.Wikipedia I've hiked to higher elevations than his rockets went. And LOL at the "of course flat earth was a joke" post-death hand-waving from his publicists. Soundwave106 (talk) 14:03, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
so what? planes go higher. so do hot air balloons. but so what? that mean should revel in the death of another human being? and I don't actually believe any flat earthers genuinely believe the earth is flat, just they are contrarians. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:39, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
and his initial fundraiser netted 300 dollars. he came out as a flatearther and he netted 8 grand. seems pretty clear to me. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
and is there really that much difference between this rocket failure and this one? AMassiveGay (talk) 15:50, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
A) "We are what we pretend to be". B) I don't believe that death all of a sudden whitewashes anti-science crankery. If he was only an enthusiastic tinkerer of homemade rocketry, the conversation would be different. C) Frankly, "rube fleecers" are *way WAY worse* than the ignorant. (Reflexively anti-institutional idiots and rebels without a clue also are way worse than the ignorant in life, when it comes to your flat earth argument.) So saying it's a "joke" that he did just to get funding actually *lowers* my opinion of this guy considerably. Soundwave106 (talk) 15:53, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
its interesting that the second half of that quote is 'so we must be careful about what we pretend to be'. this chap was pretending to be a flat earther. not a Nazi. not an anti vaccine crank. not a climate denialist. but something harmless. risking only ridicule. as for 'fleecing rubes' he wasn't selling snake oil to the desperate. he wasnt selling phoney solutions to a world ending crisis. he said he would take a picture of the earth. something he potentially could have done - this rocket was just one of several planned, he had 2 successful launches already. if anyone was 'fleeced' then it was their own vanity that was taken advantage of. so please tell me why this all warrants the mockery of the death of another human being? I feel this pips a quote and a dubious idea of 'rube fleecing' as rationale in the holier than thou stakes. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:47, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes, there is. Did he even test the rocket in its current setup before betting his life on it? Don't know and don't care enough to try to find out. In Challenger, NASA had known for years about the O-ring flaw and ignored it. Morton-Thiokol engineers also knew about it but were ignored. The engineers told them they would probably fail at the temperatures predicted for the launch, but NASA pressured Morton-Thiokol management to sign off on the launch anyway, because they had already delayed the launch a lot and were impatient to get their "celebrity" teacher in orbit. -- (talk) 00:49, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
I've never taken a plane but I've also hiked to mountains as high as those 4500 feet Mike it's said that wanted to reach and higher still. Earth still looks flat from these heights --surprise, surprise and if his plans were true and Flatearthers crowdfunded him that says a lot and nothing good of them. That said, after videos claiming Jupiter and its moons were in front of clouds and other of an almost full Moon with the terminator line crossing a big crater presented as proof of it being just a projection I expect anything of such cranks. Panzerfaust (talk) 14:51, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Who knew there were Kerbals on earth? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:13, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Nobody claimed that flat-earthers are as toxic as holocaust-deniers. I think it goes without saying one is worse than the other. But no factual-denial is harmless in the slightest. There ARE flat-earthers who aren't contrarians totally convinced in a large conspiracy. And you'll notice that those websites have adds that link to worse conspiracies. Contributing to any science-denial helps prop-up the illusion that there are alternative facts that deserve the same consideration as fact-facts. It may have been a less notable story 20 years ago but with the recent proliferation of fake news and fake-fakery of news it is a notable menace. A Brazilian cabinet minister is a proponent of it who sponsors nutcase speakers and funded a forum that drew large crowds. In a country where climate-change denial is already rampant because of the President there, flat-earther just helps instill further the idea you can deny anything if a few popular-people say it out loud. Just this week a video of a bullied boy in Australia was released and with an outpouring of emotional response a crowd-funder will have him going to disneyland with famous people leaving encouraging messages. Some videos claiming he is a faker, an actor, its a stunt were put together quickly and now it seems half the internet is utterly convinced and vehemently insulting anyone who shows any pity for this boy. It shows you how extremely easy it is to convince people of alternative-facts and how quickly menacing and toxic and even cruel it can become. If Mike was a fake-flat-earther and died trying to make money and attention while spreading disinformation I don't feel sorry for him. If he died really thinking the Earth was flat while spreading misinformation through his own stupidity...I vaguely feel a slight bit sorry for him. I mean...how sorry do you feel for a stupid asshole attention whore Russian skyscraper climber who finally falls off the building? Add disinformation to it and here we are. ShabiDOO 18:54, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
I do wonder how his schtick would be handled on the Science Channel show he was filming for. My impression is that the Science Channel hadn't experienced the race-to-the-bottom network decay that others like History, Discovery, or TLC have gone through, and the channel reasonably avoids pseudoscience and quackery. But I haven't watched in years. Soundwave106 (talk) 19:38, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
God, I remember loving all the documentaries on all those channels. That transition really fucking depressed me until I stopped watching TV entirely. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:13, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Yup, same. Just old enough to remember when those channels had quality content... (talk) 20:42, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
The decay is not limited to basic tier cable networks. Even PBS channels here in the US now run Dr. Axe bullshit woo shows. Cosmikdebris (talk) 20:46, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
I haven't seen this. What shows? What stations? How can I demand they get taken off the air and be ignored as a crank? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:50, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Hughes is now on the astral plane. Bongolian (talk) 20:56, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@Bongolian I lost a great deal of respect for my local Maryland Public Television since they started playing shite like this (full schedule here) Cosmikdebris (talk) 21:47, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Yikes… sounds like it's an infomercial for his book of the same name. Bongolian (talk) 23:10, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
The only people who watch "traditional" TV in the U.S. anymore are old people, outside of sports and kids' programming. Gotta go where the money is. I mean, even in the '90s The History Channel was called "The Hitler Channel" because it was mostly WWII stuff, which was because it was being watched by oldsters from the WWII generation. Now they're mostly dead. Also Science Channel is owned by Discovery, so don't expect some altruistic devotion to facts. -- (talk) 00:49, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Fuck well you know warrior I hate to say it but truly was a piece of bread potatoes for defense attorney you got it yet when he gets to have to feel like a motional started the best case you can’t hear any of it and right and you testing yes I name well if it was exceptedPizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 21:59, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
You forgot the most disturbing part: had Mike's stun been successful flatEarthers would have been claiming that Earth's curvature was not seen as proof of them being right even if from such low heights it cannot be appreciated, at least outside the sea. There's an article here about how much modern science must be ignored in order to believe in YEC, but the one plus both not as old one and common sense that must be left out to believe in a flat Earth sure it's worth of an article. Panzerfaust (talk) 22:41, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Can we just make a tribute page already, if we all know so much about him? He went lookin, he found us, this is a dead man, and I think we should honor his dedication to rocketry, regardless of the fact the fool put himself in every rocket he built and spoke out about the earth being flat and science being dumb. I love the guy for his eccentricity and sure as hell can't talk him out of it now, do you not love the guy? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:28, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

/r/badphilosophy doesn't like that we don't like Feyerabend[edit]

Though I'm not sure what their complaints are to be completely honest. Donkey Teeth (talk) 00:12, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Just when you thought anintellectually dishonest hack philosopher started retreating into the shadows he pops up again. No surprise it's from a pseudo-intellectual internet forum. At least he dedicated himself to science-denial instead of say....holocaust-denial. ShabiDOO 09:19, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Feyerabend is a hack who made an academic career for some bizarre reason with a philosophy that can be best described as "my feels are better than your facts". This is an old post you are referencing. First impression is that r/badphilosophy is a strange community full of posts with lots of words with zero meaning, that seems to have millions of ways to get banned, and really has a hard on for hating on "New Atheism" and Richard Dawkins in particular. (This still manages to be a better community on first impression than r/philosophy, bizarrely enough.) Soundwave106 (talk) 13:51, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
I mean there are plenty of reasons to hate Dawkins and the New Atheist dipshits, that's not really that much of a flaw. Oxyaena Harass 16:20, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
It's not all bad for sure, basically the Rationalwiki page on postmodernism seems to apply here. You get a little good, a little bad, a lot of nothing, and a lot of words either way. r/badphilosophy has an interesting reaction to our postmodernism page, tee hee. Soundwave106 (talk) 17:32, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
The comments think we're alt-right because we call ourselves RATIONALwiki. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:07, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Does "But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink! apply? Donkey Teeth (talk) 15:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
But I thought it was supposed to be rationalWIKI ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:33, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Though notably they're probably entirely correct that we do have a bit of a centrist bias. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:08, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Too much of a centrist bias. Oxyaena Harass 16:20, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
I'd genuinely like to hear a qualification of that statement. Not in an antagonistic way, just what you mean. Too much centrist bias to do what well? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:26, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Too much of a "rational centrist(tm)" bias at the expense of actually understanding issues and at the expense of nuance. It's better than it used to be but calling something "insane" and listing it as a fault just because it's not center-right or center-left is cringe as fuck and bad form as well. A lot of the times articles here are poorly written and poorly sourced, and read like they came from a reddit new atheist than anything else, and when I try to improve that often times my edits get reverted and I get shit for trying to improve a shitty ass article. Oxyaena Harass 16:33, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
It's one of the ways Snarky Point of View can backfire, because a bunch of users come in with an inflated sense of self-righteousness. Before I reworked it, the overpopulation article was mocking any criticisms of overpopulation measures with lines like "They argue that it is classist because some hard green activists who support the stereotypes fail to consider the excesses and byproducts of capitalism in developed nations, which is incredibly vague and meaningless." There's also the globalization article, which used to dismiss criticisms with the classic "But...stuff!" thought-terminating cliche, and now reads as if it's fighting with itself. Colossal Squid (talk) 17:28, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
The comments on that sub are actually hilarious. It's an "iamverysmart" goldmine. Apparently it's all "NeoCon propaganda" here from the "alt-light". Also there's a comment chain about how rejection of objective reality is not part of postmodernism. I'm no philosopher, so I may be wrong with my use of the term, but they should really take it up with wikipedia because apparently wikipedia disagrees with them as well... McUrist (talk) 13:21, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
To be fair to them many of or articles are old and amateurish, ie meaning they are in serious need of updating. Also to think we're "alt-lite" is ridiculous. Oxyaena Harass 13:33, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
It's more that for all of their word puffery they ad hominemed with a complete swing and a miss, retorting to the atypical "any criticism must come from THE OPPOSITE SIDE". Hence "alt-light". I mean, one person mocked that Jordan Peterson edited the postmodernism article. I'm not sure who were the main folks that created the postmodernism article, but in "talking head" circles the atheist intellectual types and postmodernism intellectual types have *never* gotten along, as far as I know. This Wiki is friendlier to (though not completely aligned with) the former. Scientist types also tend to have issues with postmodernism (due to an anti-science perception) -- again, this Wiki aligns more with the science types. So what did they expect? It's actually pretty ridiculous that some in that Reddit sub can only think in Western binary political terms, frankly. Not very philosophical. :p Soundwave106 (talk) 14:20, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Some post-modernists deny objective reality (and that pretty much makes science a difficult subject to deal with) while others may accept (to some degree) objective reality but they disagree that there are inherently better methods for discovering, describing, articulating, measuring and making conclusions about that reality. Hence the scientific method not necessarily being more reliable at accessing objective reality than say...a post-structuralist critique of post-patriarchal post-colonialist hegemonic world power structures. Ahem. Others don't even necessarily have a problem with the scientific method as much as critiquing just how strong it is at avoiding elements of human social/cultural/subjectification which, in a small sense is true because we have terribly failed at our application of the method, have skewed it to suit our cultural biases in the past and we have a lot of work to go. There is some truth in that and we can always do better. But none of it takes away form the fact that the scientific method is by far the best way of accessing the objective world yet most post-modernists are simply too uncomfortable to declare this (partly due to the pressures of more radical anti-objectivists). ShabiDOO 14:03, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
The "correct" way to do postmodernism is to question the objectivity of claims about objective reality. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:05, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Ergo. it's turtles all the way down. McUrist (talk) 16:15, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
You used "Ergo" but that conclusion doesn't logically follow in the slightest. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:57, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Google v. Oracle going to the Supreme Court[edit]

So the ten year old case is finally going to the Supreme Court. Basically, this lawsuit could determine the copyrightabily of programming APIs and standards. If Oracle gets their way there, it could have the potential to give Micro Focus ideas to sue the Linux foundation citing a copyright violation for the usage of the POSIX standards. It's a real interesting read and maybe it could be a potential article under the copyright category here? (Google v. Oracle AmericaWikipedia) RockfordRoe (talk) 05:35, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Yep. It's real dumb. It'd be like copyrighting "having a band with a singer, a lead guitar, a basist, and a drummer" instead of the actual music you make. Real real dumb that the case ever got this far. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:17, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Speaking of Feyerabend, here's a Reddit comment explaining the thrust behind Against Method[edit]

Your mileage may vary on whether it's compelling though. Swirvithan L'Goodling-Splatt (talk) 13:29, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Share my suffering[edit]

Look at this shit. Just... look at it. The worst. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Meh, some cranks dithering about nonsense. There's far worse things to be cringing at, like centrists. Oxyaena Harass 16:24, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Today is the twenty-quanth of February, according to time shills. But the real number could be in the millions!! ⵚⴱⵔⵉⴳⴳⵉⵏⴰ (ⴰⵡⴰⵍ) (ⵜⵉⵡⵙⵉ) @ 16:27, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
The number is in millions -- actually, billions! according to UNIX epoch time. And Unix (as Linux these days) runs the Internet, and since smart phones are Internet devices and cell phones are the new life, epoch time is life! EQD and checker-mate or something. Soundwave106 (talk) 16:59, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
@Ikanreed I hate you now. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:31, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
It's really a quadrillion, or a thousand trillions. Who knows, we could even reach a googol, if you know what I mean. ;) Jeh2ow Damn son! 17:36, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
My penis exists in nine dimensions. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 18:46, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Giant Canadian tar sands proposal just got withdrawn[edit]

That atrocity would have cost $20 billion on startup, to say nothing of the environmental impact, so it's good news. Still, I get a mild chuckle out of these fossil fuel companies essentially saying "And I would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for you meddling environmentalists!" as a parting shot, even though the actual reason these projects get dropped is because fossil fuel prices have crashed hard in recent years. Colossal Squid (talk) 17:20, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

At least we still have some time before the Earth is on fire.Jeh2ow Damn son! 17:38, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
It took them that long to respond to the fossil fuel price crash? That started happening, like, around 2014 or so. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 18:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Canada is a petro-state, and Alberta's government in particular throws extremely loud tantrums whenever anyone makes the slightest moves against expansion of the tar sands industry. A lot of decisions such as the federal government's decision to buy a pipeline for $4.5 billion from a company that bailed out due to the bad economics involved can only be explained in the context of addiction. Colossal Squid (talk) 19:07, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
I'll put on my Pipeline Fighter #NoKXL shirt tomorrow. I got it free for helping build a barn, it only goes on for special occasions or if I've blown off laundry. I really never got why the petrol companies spent so much money influencing legislation and public opinion and never tried to monopolize renewable harvesting installations. At least in America, they could have done it easy. The input/output is spottier, sure, but workable. And then you don't have all that overhead of making sure your colonial harvesting is protected. Probably just easier to pay people who don't have mega-moneymaking-brains to dig or shoot, because that's what makes sense as labor. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:35, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
It seems most of the other provinces are sick of Alberta throwing temper-tantrums whenever the country doesn't bow to their oil-industry whims. They presented themselves as conservative libertarian like folk who cut the shit out of social programs and called for personal responsibility and accountability. So...they took their oil money and instead of investing it like Norway does...they went on a spending spree and now they aren't swimming in money and the industry crashed its: "COMPROMISE THE INTERESTS OF YOUR OWN PROVINCE TO HELP FIX ALBERTANS MISTAKES AND FIX OUR ECONOMY". And Canadians are supposed to take them seriously? The victim mentality. I say they should separate and face their own personal responsibility and then properly negotiate with their neigbours without being able to rely on their temper-tantrums. ShabiDOO 14:27, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Companies really need to invest in renewable energy resources. Due to the petro price crash, it would be too damn expensive fossil fuel start up companies. At this point in time from an economic stand point, renewable energy is the way to go. There are plenty of universities and organizations who would probably invest money into renewable energy sources. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 16:18, 25 February 2020 (UTC)


Anyone know what's been going on there lately? A friend of mine is from there and I haven't heard from him in a while. Oxyaena Harass 19:11, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Peace is a relative term - just 6 days ago BBC reported both sides blaming each other - https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-51543463 And you've probably seen this from last May?? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/the_killer_queues_of_ukraine Aloysius the Gaul 20:00, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Donbass documentary[edit]

Found this. Oxyaena Harass 20:11, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Very sympathetic to the Russians. When the Hessians were in America, we shot at them too.Ariel31459 (talk) 20:57, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
@Ariel31459 Most of the Eastern Ukrainian population is of Russian ethnicity, of course it'd be pro-Russian. It's more complicated than what people here in the West think. Oxyaena Harass 21:23, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Indeed - I've corresponded off and on over several years with many "ethnic" russian Ukrainians - their feelings towards The Russian federation are universally of betrayal - they have no wish to be any sort of Russians any more, and they really resent that TRF has actually made them defensive for being native Russian speakers in Ukraine. August last year I had a conversation in Kiev with a Ukrainian speaker and a Russian speaker - they were fully in agreement on condemning TRF, and the wish to be Ukrainian. Aloysius the Gaul 22:04, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I propose the "Republic of RationalWiki"[edit]

The national animal would be the Goat, we would need an anthem, a currency, physical territory, a government (ideally a democracy), a declaration of independence, a constitution along with other odds and ends. It would be bad ass. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 16:12, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

The followers of Mighty Lord Jerboa, May His Fluffiness Make You Go "Aaah," reject this imperialistic move by the heathen followers of the Smelly One, and will immediately secede to form the People's Republic of Rationalwiki. We're taking the beaches with us. RoundeTheeHorne (talk) 16:24, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
No, fuck that. We will form the People's Commune of RationalWiki. I'd prefer an anarchist commune to a "people's republic" any day lol. Oxyaena Harass 17:35, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
We're about a post away from the People's Front of Rationalwiki and the Rationalwikian People's Front going to war over this... we can ignore the Rationalwikian Popular People's Front. Splitters. RoundeTheeHorne (talk) 17:43, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Revisionists! Oxyaena Harass 19:31, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
I hearby seize this land in the name of the autocracy of rationalwiki. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:43, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
I propose a hereditary empire, with myself as unquestioned and undisputed God-Emperor. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 20:19, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
The official languages for the Republic of RationalWiki will be Esperanto and English. The name of the country's military is the "Rationalist Federal Armed Forces". Saluton Homoj! --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 21:13, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
If those will be the official languages, I think I should be Minister of Education.Spud (talk) 06:48, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

What about Tim Minchins "The Fence" as the anthem. McUrist (talk) 12:15, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Ominous Prediction[edit]

Let me preface this by saying that I am almost certain Sanders will be the next president. Let me also say I think the senate will flip, just under tense circumstances. Susan Collins, Cory Gardner, Martha Mcsally, and Thom Tillis are very vulnerable to Sara Gideon, John Hickenlooper, Mark Kelly, and Cal Cunningham. Whilst Doug Jones is probably screwed against Jeff Sessions which will make the senate 50-50, we have Bernie's VP as a tiebreaker. Now I know this sounds wonderful because Trump is gone and Mitch McConnell is no longer majority leader and Sanders has a mandate to solve all of our problems by leading the USA into a new age of leftism, I feel compelled to point out a problem-to pass any of his more radical polices(Medicare for All and the Green New Deal come to mind but you could really describe all his polices this way and his cabinet picks might be a problem) he NEEDS the senate. If the Republicans thought Obama the "Neoliberal" was a Marxist and opposed all of his polices they will not vote for anything Sanders proposes unless he compromises on them so much they are meaningless. This is where half the users chime in "fuck the Republicans" but then remember even some of the newcomers(Hickenlooper and Cunningham) will be centrists that are willing to vote with Republicans and since his majority will be slim it only takes one or two defectors to wreck his plans. He can't primary them; most of them are not up for re-election in 2022 and since midterms rarely go well for the president rampaging against his own party is suicidal. He can't compromise-It's against his nature as an ideologue. Why does a Sanders administration merit any more optimism than "at least trump is gone?" Getting anything done along socialist lines in this climate is essentially impossible.-Flandres (talk) 20:23, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Among other reasons: Compromising is exactly why Obama failed to achieve things. He'd do things like deliver one completely far-right ideals without getting shit in return for it.
  1. He started the whole kids in cages thing to "prove" he'd "enforce the laws on the books" in hopes of getting some ground for his DREAM act. So the net effect is we got nothing, because trying to show how you'll compromise and work toward a shared goal doesn't work when you don't actually share goals.
  2. He(well really house democrats) offered the sequester as a pre-compromise on budget negotiations so as to avoid a shutdown. Then the republicans just took it, even though it was supposed to be a "worst case just in case time bomb to force negotiation". If he'd stood his ground and actually did something like let the government shut down and people would see problems arise from that(wait, you need an active FAA to fly on planes?!?!?) he could have forced an actual compromise.
  3. Obamacare, where he gave away every scrap of left-leaning actual life improvement in a compromise with right wing democrats got utterly destroyed trivially by trump because no one really valued it, besides people who wanted to pretend Obama was good. The people who forced those changes got run out of office anyways the very next election anyways.
Again and again, compromise itself was the cause of failure. Overcoming people who oppose you with compromise is a fool's errand, and if Bernie passes zero legislation because republicans are shitty, he'll find a way to make it damn clear to house voters who their enemies are. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:24, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
While I will agree that compromise is why Obama failed to do anything, that does not vindicate the alternative action. And compromise with the republicans is not even the thrust of my objection-it was sanders not working with the senate DEMOCRATS who he is significantly to the left of. People like Joe Manchin or John Hickenlooper are not up for re-election in 2022. It will only take a couple democrats voting with republicans to fuck it all up. "Overcoming people who oppose you with compromise" will actually be applicable to both parties with Bernie in the white house. Note this is not an endorsement of the moderates, none of whom can beat Trump, merely a reminder the USA is still doomed and there is no way out. Sanders can't wave a magic wand once elected and save us all. The problem is Sanders needs more than a republican majority, he needs a progressive majority, and to get that in 2022 he would need to primary almost as many democrat senators as republicans those people will face in elections. That is not likely.-Flandres (talk) 21:42, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Eh, sometimes all you need is the threat of being primaried. Career dems don't have any principles so if they're threatened with a popular movement that can take their seat, they'll act like it will. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 22:14, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Even those who have 4-6 years to build up a war chest? Even those who will not have their seats threatened in 2022? Even those who still accept donations from insurance, oil, and pharmaceutical types? Sanders has a mediocre record passing legislation in congress. Also, taking out a senator in a primary is a lot more difficult than it sounds and they know it. What happened in 2018 happened just to representatives for a reason and even then it was fairly over hyped-most primary challengers failed. Furthermore, again midterm elections tend not to benefit the party in power(the low-info public blames them for everything going wrong whether it is their fault or not) and the senate dems know it so they will sit back smugly knowing if sanders campaigns against them and they still end up winning the primary that just decreases turnout from progressives and could lead to a red wave-since if that happens Bernie's entire first term was for nothing so they can count on him not being that stupid. Even his own campaign advisers (Not to mention AOC herself)are admitting compromise with the senate dems will probably be necessary and they will end up just getting a somewhat better public option plan. If this happens to say, the green new deal the results would be disastrous because on climate change there is no room for comprise, or at least there shouldn't be.-Flandres (talk)
Executive orders. Can do substantial changes in many policies. Fix America's forign relations. Pass less contentious laws favouring a more liberal stance. Reverse the tax cuts on the richest (even by just a little but makes an enormous difference). It's all a whole lot better than Trump deregulating everything and demanding terrible budgets. Plus that fucking wall building will stop. Every day with less of his toxic speech will be a little less motivating the crazies to be extra stupid with their homophobia, racism and sexism. It'll be a good thing even if health care doesn't pass. Even if universities aren't free. ShabiDOO 23:57, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Obamacare hasn't been anywhere near "destroyed" by Trump. The most important parts of it by far are guaranteed issue for health insurance (no "pre-existing conditions"), removal of lifetime limits for policies, and the Medicaid expansion. Republicans are currently trying to get Republican judges to undo it in the courts, precisely because Trump can't undo it by himself and they couldn't get something through Congress. -- (talk) 00:10, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Well yeah, Sanders isn't going to get Congress to start nationalizing a bunch of industries. He's not a die-hard socialist anyway; he's basically a social democrat who has stuck with the "socialist" label to be contrarian. The executive still is capable of doing a lot by itself. This Vox article goes into some of the things a Sanders administration could do without Congress. (Psst, don't forget the Supreme Court!) I think you might also be underestimating a bit the long-term value of shifting the Overton window. It sure worked for conservatives! 60 years ago Ike could laugh at the conservatives who wanted to go after Social Security, but a few decades later it became "bipartisan wisdom" that we had to do something to "reform" (read: cut) it. Fun fact: Sanders took a lead in galvanizing Democrats to resist Obama's push for his "compromise" with Republicans to cut it. -- (talk) 00:10, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Shifting the overton window would take a lot of time. If you look at climate predictions, a lot of time is something we no longer have. And yes, I do remember the supreme court-in fact, the Roberts court would pose a big threat to the idea of Sanders simply ruling with executive orders. I am not saying sanders would be worse than Trump, or even nearly as bad, but that he will be underwhelming at best or incapable(though not unwilling) of stopping the decline of the USA and that his supporters have a very idealistic view of what he can do if elected.-Flandres (talk) 00:37, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
The United States is structured in government so that one idiot at the top can't ruin everything. This is why the Trump administration has not been a complete disaster for the United States (sure, we got the stark social division, the encouragement of right wing extremism, vulgarization replacing statesmanship, and our diminished standings, but it could have been way worse) -- Trump's big-sweeping "accomplishments" are surprisingly minimal when you zoom out (that tax cut giveaway is the only major one I can see). Sanders if elected will be in the same system -- he won't get everything they want, either, so Sanders will not be able to accomplish everything in his campaign promises. That is fine. If we do get an all-Democrat government, some changes along the line of what Sanders is proposing will probably happen. If we don't, it'll be trickles of action by executive order. That's life in a socially divided US. As far as climate change goes, while it's definitely problematic, it is also not necessarily something that 4 years of United States federal government will change one way or another. Government can fund scientific research and encourage green policies, but some of this can occur at a state and city level with some effect. A fair bit of the private sector also is leaning "greener" than they used to. I'm actually more worried about nations like China which are hellbent on "belt and road" initiatives -- our CO2 emissions per capita have leveled off and are slowly declining by many measurements, whereas in China (for all the lip service paid to climate change) it's rocketing up still. At this point a lot of the discussion should be adaptation strategies with this in mind. Soundwave106 (talk) 01:19, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
I would disagree with the claim that "The Trump administration wasn't a complete disaster" but I do agree that too much of modern climate policy is preventive when we have crossed that threshold by now. Honestly the whole "climate catastrophe" thing is already starting and no longer reversible. This is part of why I am less optimistic about Sanders--his supporters tend to frame it as something along the lines of the old "socialism or barbarism" slogan when he cannot address these deep problems as fast or in as radical and sweeping a manner as he claims. Barbarism already won, I suppose you could say.--Flandres (talk) 02:15, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
I actually agree that the administration has been a complete disaster :) but I was thinking of US outcome overall of the last 4 years. To give examples of populist leaders with worse outcomes so far, the Trump regime outcome in my opinion has not been as bad as Narendra Modi's attempt to disenfranchise an entire religion in India, or Rodrigo Duterte letting vigilante mob justice "extrajudicial killings" rule the roost in the Philippines, or Viktor Orban's dismantling of free speech and democratic government (if the EU had any fucking balls they'd kick Hungary out, ditto for Poland). Let's also count the populist rabble-rousing that ended up resulting in Brexit. Worse outcomes than even *these* examples are actually possible, historically. The Trump administration has been a disaster but also a remarkably incompetent dumpster fire. It helps here that unlike a lot of these populists in other countries, Trump has been unpopular overall, particularly with women, minorities, and younger people. Don't get me wrong, it is very disturbing that Trump's "biggest fans" (conspiracy mongers, racists, fascists) are such a big block in this country, and Trump was the first president that worried me it might go wrong in this direction. But that by and large didn't happen from a full national perspective; instead, from what I see, Trump actually moved the Democratic party left with his dogmatism, and brought enough Democrat enthusiasm to the table to create a 2018 blue wave. So we're now in a situation where not much gets done because the two parties hate each other so much. (Not that much got done when the Republicans had all three chambers, to be honest.) I don't see any signs of a "Republican counterwave" in 2020 so far (still early of course, but still), so "continued gridlock" seems to be the worst case scenario. Soundwave106 (talk) 03:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
I apologize for the assumption and yes, I do agree other countries not only have it worse but are going to have a harder time fending this sort of thing off. As for a counterwave, yes that is not possible but there will still be enough republicans in the senate that a couple renegade Democrats whose seats will not be contested in the midterms can essentially simulate a republican majority anyway. Thus continued gridlock is quite probable. I don't think I would call it the worst case scenario-the delayed effects of Trump's mismanagement, could, in theory, cause a recession in 2021 well after Sanders takes office and when you combine that with the American tendency to blame the incumbent even if it was out of his control(Not to mention republicans doom saying about socialism crashing the economy) that could tank Bernie's approval ratings and cause a red wave in 2022.--Flandres (talk) 03:56, 26 February 2020 (UTC)