RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive348

This is an archive page, last updated 16 March 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>, <345>, <346>, <347>, <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>, <415>, <416>, <417>, <418>, <419>, <420>, <421>, <422>, <423>, <424>, <425>, <426>, <427>, <428>, <429>, <430>, <431>, <432>, <433>, <434>, <435>, <436>, <437>, <438>, <439>, <440>, <441>, <442>, <443>, <444>, <445>, <446>, <447>, <448>, <449>, <450>, <451>, <452>, <453>, <454>, <455>, <456>, <457>, <458>, <459>, <460>, <461>, <462>, <463>, <464>, <465>, <466>

, (new)(back)

Learning Esperanto is fun but a pain at the same time

My main issue is plurals in sentences.

Example:

I might put,

"La autoj estas tre bonaj"

when it should be,

"La autojn estas tre bonaj"

I am managing but I have my struggles. My poor brain --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:04, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Do you proficiently know a non-artificial second? ShabiDOO 03:17, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

No, the first one is right. Estas is a copula and doesn't take an accusative on either side. The form autojn is an accusative plural; the singular is auto. So 'the cars are very good' is la autoj estas tre bonaj, but 'I like the car' is mi ŝatas la auton and 'I like the cars' is mi ŝatas la autojn. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 14:22, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm glad you think it's fun. Yes, remembering to put the n n the correct place can be a right bugger. But it does allow for more flexible sentence structure. As in you can say, Mi vidas vin (for "I see you") or you can say, Mi vin vidas, Vin mi vidas or Vin vidas mi. if nothing else, that comes in handy when you're translating poetry, as my work on the Oscar Wilde (Esperanto) page taught me. Spud (talk) 15:39, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

If you think Esperanto cases are difficult, try Russian. Мою сестру (accusative) зовут Екатерина / моей сестре (dative) нравятся книги Дж. К. Роулинга (genitive) / моя сестра идёт в школу (accusative). Spriggina (thảo luận) (đóng góp) @ 18:42, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Other languages have more (and, as Churchill said, why should one say 'O Table'?) Anna Livia (talk) 18:25, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Welp, Biden (likely) gets the nomination

I don't think Sanders is going to pick up any slack after people in Michigan looked at malarkey man and decided, yes, this is my candidate. Welp, well played, moderates, you won. Also thanks for my 20-25 demographic who didn't fucken vote for Sanders, really, you suck too. I'll hold my nose, bang my head many times equal to the X amount of states Bides won delegates in, and dot Biden's mark with the force of complete unenthusiasm, and vote for the Bide in the general election as you ask for. This is despite you and the mainstream media shitting on my base, excluding women like me the entire season with the "bro" narrative, comparing us to Trump voters (especially when you compared Sanders rallies to Trump rallies but without the red caps), but there's nothing stopping me from voting left-wing down the ballot. I will still hope Biders will surprise me, maybe he'll beat Trump, but the pit in my stomach that we'll get another 4 years of the tangerine throbster is going to be there all season, and I did fear the worst back in 2016. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 04:10, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I was guardedly optimistic about Trump back in 2016. I thought that a godless big city boy who knew fuck-all about the Bible could change the Republican Party for the better. I thought that he just might get rid of free trade, and get US forces entirely and unconditionally out of Iraq, Afghanistan, and the rest of the Middle East. It seems I was wrong. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 05:34, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Huh I always saw Trump as a liar who emboldened racists and sexists and also pandered to the richest twats on the planet. He pretty much fulfilled all what I expected from him, corruption, appointing conservative hacks, shitting on healthcare, enabling corruption, incompetence, promoting anti-intellectualism, tax cuts for the rich, being a racist fuckwit, allowing pollution to rule, not doing jack about climate change. It got personal when he kneecapped legislation that's supposed to protect birds and endangered species. Except for the part where I thought he promised to fix up the infrastructure or something but he flubbed that up too. About the Middle East thing, but.... No offense, I don't know how you expect someone that has a demeanor of a flailing perambulator, a con that revels in chaos to suit his own needs, would ever fulfill the diplomacy aspect of foreign policy. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 05:57, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I've never believed that a scummy person could be an effective political leader for the greater good. Of course the relationship between being a decent person and being able to pull off constructive and/or positive policies can be ambiguous...I see it as almost absolute that a scumster is a scummy political leader. This is true regardless of ideologies, place on the political spectrum, policies, motives etc. A scumbucket fucks shit up. ShabiDOO 07:01, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

If Bernie loses, it's going to be a self-inflicted wound on the part of progressives, since Warren didn't get behind him. The white wolf (talk) 13:23, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not doing it. I'm not holding my nose again. The party fucks up and runs someone who doesn't actually offer me anything I want, I'm not voting(for president). I did it for Hillary, and it achieved nothing. Hell I even got accused of causing the defeat since I thought she was a terrible candidate when I did vote for her. FWIW Michiganders haven't actually voted yet. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 13:33, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, congratulations on your vote for Trump, then, I guess. Semipenultimate (talk) 17:21, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Nope, "not trump" got me to do the dumb thing last time and give legitimacy to a right wing candidate, trying the same strategy again just gets you to lose harder. You've gotta give people, including me, an actual damn reason to vote for him. Give me a single reason unrelated to who his opponent is. A single one. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 18:25, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Biden now only seems to have to dodge the spotlight as far as possible (i.e. what Bloomberg probably should have done) to win the nomination. The reason I say this is that time seems to be working for Biden in the primaries, but he also has not had one single time when he looked like a strong candidate based on his own performance. However, the only minuscule chance I see for Biden to beat Trump is if Trump’s (mis)handling of the corona virus turns into a Hurricane Katrina debacle and/or the virus triggers a severe recession that tanks the economy. ScepticWombat (talk) 17:57, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Biden might be better than Trump on climate action (or inaction, as it turns out). Idk, gotta look at the positives. 171.33.193.245 (talk) 18:00, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Biden pushed the Obama administration to openly support gay marriage. That doesn't make him a saint, but he doesn't look like an enemy to me. He will sign anything Obama would, I guess. Ariel31459 (talk) 19:13, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Notably voted for DOMA just a few years before that. His credibly there is paper thin. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 19:25, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

1996 is a while ago.Ariel31459 (talk) 19:43, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

It's still voting against the protection of universal rights. "Times weren't different" have some place in forgiving the people who voted for Biden then as ignorant louts, but to vote to affirmatively deny the equal rights to marriage is a pretty thick position. Especially given the other candidate in the primary race voted against it.

Let me put it to you this way. You may or may not have strong opinions about poly relationships, but if someone put a bill in front of you that said "Children may never have more than 2 legal parents" would you vote for it? It just formalizes something that's already legally true. Would you vote for it today? ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 19:52, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Forgiveness is not an issue of mine. Vote for what now?Ariel31459 (talk) 20:11, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Nevermind. Analogy won't get through. He voted specifically to strip gay people of their rights and that's a huge negative and some cooked up story about him pushing Obama on gay rights isn't quite enough to undo that. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 20:26, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I really don't want to vote for Biden. I think in California it's safe to go with an empty slot for president and just vote down that ballot. In more contested states, I still think we should vote for Biden because Trump's base is satisfied with what Trump's doing and I don't want to give Trump any chance of winning, as winning would just be a means of validating Trump's actions. I can't accept that. Still, Biden suuuuuuuucks boooooo. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:04, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Anyone who thinks there’s no substantial difference between Biden and Trump is a fucking retarded little brat. I’m no fan of Biden, but if he has the best chance of beating Trump then so be it. People need to get the fuck over themselves. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 22:37, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Fuck that. You get the fuck over your entitlement to votes. I said "give me one actual reason besides who he's running against" and you fucking can't. Biden, if by some insane impossible chance he wins, will lock in every single monstrous evil and poor-crushing choice of the Trump administration as "the new normal." It doesn't matter that you can hypothetically imagine in your head some obscure way he's "better" than the worst president since Jackson. You fucks can't give us people with actual consciences a goddamn reason to vote. Not one. Condescension is driving the entire base away from the party and if you keep trying to use it as a sole electoral strategy, you're handing unlimited future elections to the republicans. Your behavior is not just electoral suicide but also signing off on the murder of billions. Grow the fuck up. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 14:03, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Oh get fucked. If you don't believe that you should vote to minimize harm, then you obviously have no idea how the world works. If your little personality cult candidate loses, sucker up and vote for the person who isn't an active threat to the republic, who isn't an active threat to the safety of minorities, and who won't deliberately set back social progress by decades. Stop throwing a little tantrum and help stop Trump. You think I feel entitled to your vote? I do. It shouldn't be hard to convince you to vote against a monster. People hold Bernie Brats in contempt because they deserve it. They are going to cost us this election and thus do irreversible damage to both the country and the world. But yes, cry about how you don't like Biden's policies on whatever the fuck. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 14:29, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

You're a failure. An utter failure at "minimizing harm". You're now demanding people vote for a man who started child seperation, voted for DOMA, wrote the goddamn patriot act, and a host of other things directly contrary to your stated values. The only thing you're succeeding in doing is staining your own conscience while getting trump re-elected. It's time you got over your centrist entitlement, you whiny brat. Your moral cowardice helps no one. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 14:48, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Ey, consider the backfire effect: insulting like that ain't gonna get other users in our own site to agree no matter how highly you feel about the stakes around here (I agree the stakes are really high), no matter how much you're hoping that'll people to get reflecting. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:15, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

This is the backfire. Duce coming in and condescending and throwing slurs around is exactly the toxic behavior that needs to go. There's no wiggle room here. There's no uniting behind the far right wing of an already too far right party for pragmatism anymore. That era is fucking over. Whether Duce recognizes that or not is on him. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 18:35, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Just shut the fuck up and vote for Biden in November. If the French left could manage holding their noses in 2002 and 2017 to shut out the Le Pens, then you can manage it again, too. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 19:59, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

That turned out terribly for France and they're near certain to elect a fascist in the next election. Your ideas are stupid and you're not going to finger wag your way out of this terrible mistake. Just know that when trump is re-elected you could've stopped it. Voting green has about as much as chance of winning as Biden against trump. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 20:12, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

"He started" isn't a justifiable excuse to escalate it. If you want to be frank and get the point across, but still be respectful and have people be more receptive to your views, there are much better ways of responding to that. Anyhow I wouldn't be sure-as-heck yet when it comes to voting green equals same chance as Biden beating Trump; I don't feel it being likely either but I still am expecting underestimation, overestimation, surprises, upsets, etc. @DuceMoosolini I think you should also hold off the insults too. I really find the narrative that Bernie supporters are mean entitled brats that are overwhelmingly white, are no different from Trump, and don't care about black issues to be hurtful. Biden's a monster, Duce. I saw a clip of him trying to touch a little girl's breast and seeing her shift away from his hand, which makes me break my heart. I'm going to have this image in my head before I go on the booth and so seeing people defend Biden despite the hair sniffing and disrespect for personal boundaries AND also Biden's terrible record on things makes me want to, like vote for Biden but also hurl a rotten fish at his face. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:13, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

He's the only one who did anything inappropriate at all as far as I'm concerned. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 00:59, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I always try to vote on every race in the electio, even uncontested races, just in case some Nazi tries to sneak in with a write-in campaign. Bongolian (talk) 22:51, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

It's a terrible post and you are going to be wondering in November how the fuck you lost to trump twice, and how he managed to win the popular vote this time. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 14:03, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Hey, dipshit, Bernie's losing the primary. He lost the last primary by millions of votes. If he can't win over the left-wing of US voters, what in the goddamn fuck makes you think he'll win over the general electorate? The supposed energy that his candidacy was supposed to inspire in "people with consciences" hasn't made an appearance yet. He's not winning. Get over it. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 14:28, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Good, glad you're so committed to trump winning. I don't care. I'll vote third party maybe, but you centrist bros are running lifelong democratic voters out of the party with your far right candidates. The "eat the trash we give you" play doesn't work anymore. You were warned ages ago. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 14:37, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I would save that venom for the actual people trying to get Biden in charge: the media, the lobbyists, the DNC, etc., honestly, not for demographics you really don't like (even if you feel right about it as I also think the general population is reliant on nostalgia rather than reality of the past) and have different ideas for beating Trump. I don't think any option is good at all at this point, voting Biden, not voting, voting Sanders (I voted Sanders on the primaries), I just feel all of these options are not so great. I also need to figure out what's wrong with Bernie's message because I also have a feeling that there's overestimination on his appeal too by his supporters including me. I just have a gut feeling that Bernie and his supporters might need to evaluate what's wrong with the messaging beyond like accusations of media control (imo media control IS a major factor but I do think there might be a communication problem, I can't pinpoint it). I'm on a on-the-fence voter right now, though, but I don't know if people are going to rip on me if I abstain on Biden as my state's already going to vote Biden anyway. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:26, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

The venom is for anyone who tries to guilt me into voting for a right winger as if it's a moral choice. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 00:56, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

@DuceMoosolini With the exception of that slur, I agree. Biden's an asshole, but the modern GOP range from worse assholes to monsters. RoninMacbeth (talk) 23:39, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Fuck you, you little asshole. What gives you the fucking right to use ableist slurs? Minish (talk) 16:17, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

He's willing to sign off on killing 50k people a year in the name of balance. Disparaging disabled people isn't very far in comparison. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:29, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Why not let the Republicans win big, so they can screw up the country, creating a huge backlash that will enable progressives to win next time (since a lot of the moderate Dems will have been voted out in 2020, if progressives refused to support them, thus making way for progressives to get on those tickets)? The white wolf (talk) 00:00, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Because of the sheer amount of damage Trump can do in four years. Also, considering that moderate democrats are also known as most congressional democrats that might be a bad idea. Also that strategy relies on progressives being a lot more popular than they actually are. Also that would probably only work in deep blue sates with tossup states and light blue states still electing the same moderates(Look how in 2018 the victories of AOC and kin belie that most progressive primary challenges actually FAILED).Flandres (talk) 00:12, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, that would be great for all the white people who don’t end up killed in camps by an unrestrained Trump admin. Why don’t you let the adults do the thinking for you, kid, since you don’t seem so good at it yourself? Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 00:19, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

@The white wolf Because that's stupid. Would you let someone light your house on fire in order to get them to stop playing with matches? Where exactly, have you even considered applying this "logic" outside of politics? Speaking as one of the people who will end up in the camps, yeah, I'm kind of miffed. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 02:35, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

@Smerdis of Tlön (Late to the convo) Err... wait, isn't that exactly what Trump has been doing, if a bit slowly? Renegotiating NAFTA, tariffs and a trade war with China, tariffs and a trade war with the EU, getting the US out of Syria and abandoning the Kurds to their fate, trying to get the US out of Afghanistan even if it means handing it over to the Taliban? While Poe's Law may be in effect here and I might be missing some of your sarcasm, I think that what you think you want and what you actually want seem to be two different things. CoryUsar (talk) 03:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I honestly thought Trump would dial down the extremism and bring welcome change to the Republican party. He has been slow and unenergetic disentangling the US from the Middle East - in 2016 he still could be credibly portrayed as moderate on Israel. Instead, his election has simply enabled the Republicans generally enacting the same old crap. I still stand by voting for him in Indiana: however bad he is, President Cruz would be worse. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 13:58, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Just vote..... Neither. Ted Cruz and Trump are part of that homogeneous beast of warm black slime, rotting Bible book binding, orange peels, and hospital bills we call American conservatism. I honestly think there's even less of a difference between Cruz and Trump than there is Biden and Trump. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:21, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Add: "I honestly thought Trump would dial down the extremism" I don't blame you for expecting that, as lot of voters did, and it's frequent that politicians start out with hefty promises and then kinda hold it back, but I think there's something you should know: older people are really not so impressionable and flexible any more. I think in terms of 70-something, what you see is what you get. Also, if someone is flouting extremist messages to begin with, you should also look at the rest of the party as well as its base and its history: Republicans have been really supportive of those messages for a long time now, it's only at the time, they were veiled in dogwhistles. The Republicans decades ago really aren't any better, they're not "moderates" as people like to think. I think it started well before even Gingrich. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:54, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I guess anyone who honestly thinks might say that.Ariel31459 (talk) 19:20, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I am also in that age range, and I hear you on people our age letting us down. I was standing in line at a restaurant and noticed Bernie Sanders on the TV, there was this group of people that looked our age, or maybe in their late teens, and I said to them we need to get out and vote for this guy, they all gave me a nasty look and the one girl said "we're voting for Trump". I couldn't fucking believe it! Who the fuck out of our generation would vote for that buffoon? GreenNewDeal (talk) 12:51, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

A thought on two men with questionable moral values

Okay does a likely sex offender deserve to have any positions of power? Easy to say about Trump. Okay, Biden? A vote for Biden is letting creeps like that go into power, pretty much brushing off the victims affected by this. I mean policy aside, both men have treated women like.... Well I wouldn't say they treated them with any shred of respect. I notice Trump supporters and Biden supporters don't care about this crap. Oh yes, the responses to this tells me what I need to know about how nasty Biden's fanbase can be. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Even if Sanders loses, the fight continues

We still have several Progressives in both the house and the senate, and if we can elect more we could roadblock Trump for four years. That's the best plan I can think of if progressives lose the primaries. And yes, I'm aware that Trump will likely just attempt more overt authoritarian tactics, but give me a fucking break I can't solve everything. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 02:49, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Virginia is at least killing it, have you seen their legislation on minimum wage, insulin price caps, and marijuana? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 03:07, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Turns out having a single actual socialist in the house who forces shitty dems to take up or down votes that end up on their record forces some basic morality on the party. They don't get to play Duce's "Well at least we're not the other side" game for morons there. Carter is awesome, and most of those are his bills. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:02, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Who do you mean by "Duce....." oh.... oof. — Oxyaena ^Harass 18:02, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Electing Sanders without the necessary political support in congress would, in all likelihood, yield less legislation than the Trump era congress has produced. There are no pure politicians. I am just making sure you all really understand. Sanders can't get anything the Congress does not want to give. Lyndon Johnson, former senate majority leader, was able to work the controls in Congress to produce civil rights legislation. I see why those enamored of socialism favor Sanders. He would, as President, be about as effective as a billboard on your local highway. Might cheer you on your way to work.Ariel31459 (talk) 19:17, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I haven’t seen anyone argue that even a victorious Sanders would be a one man army able to turn all of his policies into law at the drop of a hat. Thus, a Sanders victory would only be a first step, but an important one as a signal to the status quo wing of the party that it is possible to choose an alternative to triangulation and peeling off a few floating Republicans by being slightly less insane than the GOP. As for LBJ, and I have acknowledged his prodigious abilities to work Congress elsewhere, it is also worth noting that he was backed by such a majority in Congress that he remarked: “The situation in Congress could be better, but not this side of heaven.” I doubt that Sanders, even should he defeat first Biden and then Trump (the prospects for both seemingly small and diminishing further), would have such support, even if the Democrats should win a majority. Still, a Sanders victory would give pause to Blue Dogs, and perhaps nudge them in his direction, if for nothing else then for reasons of self preservation and fear of being primaried. ScepticWombat (talk) 23:31, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Stonk morket

So within 5 minutes of opening, the S&P market just triggered the crash circuit breaker. Down 7%. Kind of a big deal. Trading is about to start again. Corona and Saudi Arabia are the big attached news stories. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 13:50, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

And on the 1400 block of G Street in Washington DC, like practically next to the White House, there was a massive dumpster fire this morning.

 

Probably just a coincidence. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 19:29, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Probably legitimately so. It's not like "they" hid how "they" screwed us in 2008. "Here's a loan of a trillion taxpayer dollars at no interest to buy up your failing too-big-to-fail competitors" wasn't secret. It wasn't some back room deal. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 19:40, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I didn't mean to imply that the crash and other things aren't linked. Just wanted to point out another thing (two things?) that's currently a massive dumpster fire at the moment, and that the proximity/timing was a coincidence ℕoir LeSable (talk) 19:49, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Ah. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 19:53, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Rule #1 of investing in the stock market; never forget that people are idiots (rule #2, never forget that rule #1 includes you too, rule #3, if you can't accept that sometimes you WILL lose more in one day than you make in a year don't buy stock in the first place). Let's say hypothetically that coronavirus can't be contained, and it kills 1% of the world population. Alright, 1% of the world economy is gone, right? Not quite, people only make up 30% of GDP whereas capital contributes 70%, so the world economy is only down .3%, right? Again, not quite, as coronavirus tends to only kill the elderly or those with other more serious illnesses, typically not the most productive members of society to begin with, so again, world economy will shrink by much less than .3%. Yet the market went down 20% over the past month. Why? Because people are idiots, that's all. Keep calm and carry on, and if anything, buy some of the stocks that took the biggest hit. Besides, if the world economy tanks, your money is worthless no matter where you put it anyway. CoryUsar (talk) 03:39, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

It's a bit disconcerting that you can legitimately say "Sure, 1% of the population will die, but it won't impact things because they were unproductive anyways, now how would you like to profit off this?" RoninMacbeth (talk) 04:31, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

1) 1% isn't what will happen, it's just the absolute worst case scenario of what could happen if absolutely everyone on Earth decided to hold a giant coronavirus orgy. We are human, we can pull together and survive as we always have regardless of the horror.

2) The only way we won't survive is if we panic. We must keep calm and carry on with our lives. Nothing to fear but fear itself and all.

3) My main point is "calm the fuck down folks". "Hey, you can make some money" is more of an incentive to calm the fuck down than anything else. Because not only are people stupid, they are greedy, and that should get their attention.

4) It's not "fuck the elderly anyway, they aren't important", it's a macabre explanation of just why the stock market is clearly wonked out. Death is a tragedy, yet society seems to survive flu season.

5) The topic was already about the stock market and coronavirus.

Seriously folks, calm the fuck down. CoryUsar (talk) 05:04, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Not bashing you, just making a macabre observation. RoninMacbeth (talk) 07:22, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Once the coronavirus is eradicated, we're still headed for a serious recession. Expect Trump to make it worse, like always.— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 13:12, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

You'd think at some point, the rich would run out of middle class wealth to appropriate and a massive recession would wipe them out too. But on a more serious note, don't worry too much. Recessions happen all the time, and we recover. It's the overreactions which exacerbate the recessions. In The Great Recession's case it was the bailouts themselves that made everything worse. Any economist worth their salt will tell you, a tax cut funded via future tax increases does nothing as people have to save up for the future taxes, from which we can conclude that a tax cut funded by even more future taxes due to national debt issues is actually an economic disaster, and a bailout/stimulus is effectively the same as a tax cut. Therefore, we can argue that rather than save the economy, the stimulus packages were what doomed everything to begin with. Stimulus and bailouts should only be used to smooth over the economy, not to make it stronger or whatever. But politicians be politicians. CoryUsar (talk) 14:01, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

The actual underlying economic problems with Corona virus aren't the death. It's the supply chain disruption. Many ports in the US are empty of freshly delivered and have been for a week or so. The downsteam of that on trucking, manufacturing, and retail industries can't be healed that easily. 5-10% correction makes sense even before you realize free fed money made the market about 30% overvalued. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 14:12, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Imo the infrastructure in the US (that abomination we call our health system for instance) doesn't help either. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:29, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

1.5 trillion dollars

To stymie this crash, the fed just lent banks and investors $5000 for every man, woman, and child in the United States. This is 3x the money dumped by TARP. The fact that it barely worked suggests that even my cynical doomsaying might understate the severity of what's happening out there. Things could be super fucked super soon. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 17:24, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Did they get yet another fuckin' bailout or are my terms wrong? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 17:35, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

You can call it a bailout if you want. The distinction in this case is we don't have any particular institutions that were about to fail, besides the stock market in general. Or if there are, they've been keeping it way on the down low. There's no pragmatic Casandras I can point to like I knew in 07 who could tell you "Housing is a bubble, and banks are exposed" or something equivalent. The Cassandras this time seem to be saying "EVERYTHING is a bubble!!!1". It's too scary to consider the possibility that they're right. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 17:42, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

As for particular institutions about to fail, I always thought things just look nice, like a snow-encrusted mountain, but there's a ton of ugly sewage bubbling underneath the surface (predictions of recession, stagnating wages, healthcare, climate change, right-wing leadership in general, costs of literally everything going up but some costs that should've been basic, affordable necessities have exploded over the decade such as cost of college and insulin). I've always felt that it's going to explode and the politicians right now, see some just spill out, and they are just trying to put concrete over it and are only increasing the pressure inside, but it'll inevitably burst. The whole "economy is good" is a farce this entire time, it's just a feel-good thing. I always felt dread when people talk about good economy. Thinking about all of this, I find little reason, at least in the U.S., to view conservatives anything better than intense disdain. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 17:51, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I guess if you wanted to know what it was like to live through the 1929 crash, here you go. Same overall percentage drop in a month, similar daily drop. 2008 looking like a practice run ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 20:11, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm really glum to say, this doesn't surprise me. I think reading about what lead to the Great Recession, yet seeing the issues still in place after a recovery, it's just calm before the storm. Obama had a start in trying to regulate the things, but he appointed some of the architects of the Great Recession into power, and kinda put in some regulations, but just bailed out the banks. And Trump rolled back a lot of that and some more (such as yet another tax break for the rich and a hike in military spending). What scares me the most about economic crashes is not just income inequality going gutter, but the far-right movements that rise up and swallow our countries that follow, just as what happened with the Great Depression. I was really scared with 2016 becoming a repeat of the start of right-wing leadership, but seeing more of them crop up in parts of Europe and in Brazil sometimes makes me lose sleep at night. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:16, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm seeing Bush 2.0 now, the market's going down and people are blaming Trump as how people blamed Bush (rightfully so) for a crash in 2008. A Republican crashes the market terribly over ten years ago, WHY THE FLIPPIN' HELL WOULD YOU PEOPLE VOTE REPUBLICAN AGAIN??? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 00:49, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Because voters have short attention spans. It is not unprecedented for a presidency that did not go well to cost a party the white house, only for that same party to take back congress two years later in the midterms. Even after the 2007 meltdown the republicans took back the house and greatly weakened the democratic majority in the senate. If Biden wins 2020 he will likely lose Congress in 2022. People tend to blame the incumbent president for crises outside their control and generally have a way too optimistic idea about what any given presidential candidate they like can do once elected so a inaccurate amount of blame is attached to the governing party, which gives the opposition time to rebrand from what made them unpopular last time and win 4-8 years later.-Flandres (talk) 01:01, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the Democrats took control of the country in 2006, not 2008. The House is the most powerful branch of government in the US, not the Presidency. The Democrats are just as guilty as Republicans for the 2008 recession, and the bailouts (some of which when the Democrats had 100% control of Senate, House and Presidency) only made things worse. The real problem was never so much as lack of regulation, but a lack of accountability. When Worldcom and Enron happened at the turn of the millenium, what should've happened right then and there was to say that when a company goes bankrupt, all wages and benefits above a certain amount (e.g., $400,000 a year or whatever the President earns) are counted as part of the company assets and it all gets clawed back. None of this "I'll be gone, you'll be gone" bullshit that was happening at various financial firms. CoryUsar (talk) 04:04, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I was not talking about actual policy and influence so much as I was talking about changeable perception and popularity. McCain lost 2008 because he represented a third term of the very much unpopular George W bush. Obama was granted a powerful mandate not to be Bush 43. And yet just two years later the party of Bush had a largely successful midterm election. Republicans began recovering from the historically humiliating Bush administration in TWO YEARS. Hell, one of the greatest republican successes, the election of Ronald Reagan, came less than a decade after Watergate and you can argue Reagan benefited from that because it bolstered his government-skeptical rhetoric. My point is that while republicans are responsible for large scale disasters that should end their party they always can recover.-Flandres (talk) 04:29, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Was responding to Lefty more than you. I'm not one to use the ping thing, but w/e. CoryUsar (talk) 04:42, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I see. Though with accountability, that should be taken care of with good regulations. Those things will do anything they can to get away with what they have, and talking about accountability is just empty words without some laws to properly enforce. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:33, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Obama is a "moderate" who ran with some vaguely-progressive rhetoric. (Remember, he said he opposed gay marriage, though this was obviously bullshit to peel off a few of the underappreciated "fiscally liberal, socially conservative" types.) He also had the extreme good fortune of being young and charismatic, a gifted orator, and not having been in national politics at the opening of the bipartisan Iraq disaster, and of running against a grouchy old blue blood showboater. Even then it wasn't the total blowout that some seem to remember: 53-46 in popular vote percentage. And some Obama votes were definitely people voting for him to "prove" they're not racist. Then in 2010 all the people who were really upset at having a Kenyan Muslim Negro in the White House who was going to euthanize Grandma showed up, while disappointed liberals who saw Obama as the second coming of JFK stayed home. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 03:10, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm seeing people talking about how the trillions of dollars is not tax money, the federal reserve isn't the government, something about QEs, something about temporary loans, etc. I'm not an economist but I'm seeing people disparage the talking point that we wasted 1.5 trillion dollars. I'm not an expert on economics and the subject glazes my eyes but I'm suspecting something off, thanks to acknowledgement of my own ignorance. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 02:39, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

The Fed is the government, but it's an "independent agency", meaning on paper it doesn't take orders from the prez. The Fed made short-term secured loans ("repos"). This is to ensure banks, large companies, etc. have money on hand to pay bills. (For a bank, this includes withdrawals from the bank. Bank deposits are a liability to the bank; they have to pay the money on demand.) It's like if you gave them your car, they gave you money, and in a month or whatever you have to pay the money back with interest and then they give you back your car. This is one of a central bank's core duties: to be the "lender of last resort". The Fed does repos all the time. The only things notable about these were the large amount and longer-than-average loan term. I have not sat down to research what happened exactly, but some people apparently pushed the false idea that this was the Fed filling sacks with free money and handing it to rich people, or buying stocks with it, neither of which are true. None of this had anything directly to do with the stock market, but of course when stocks drop sharply it usually indicates problems in the economy. If you're wondering why the Fed cares about the repo market, it's because most large companies don't keep loads of money on deposit in bank accounts for paying payroll, suppliers, etc. Instead they borrow money short-term from the "money markets" to pay bills. If all of a sudden they can't do that except at crazy interest rates, because no one wants to lend, uh, well, they go bankrupt real quick. (You might hear this referred to as a "liquidity crunch", "liquidity freeze", etc.) Then masses of people lose their jobs, suppliers don't get paid, which means they can't pay bills either, and it snowballs into an economic crisis. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 03:10, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

So, like, the repos are just the fed working as intended, an appropriate response to a market shock. If that didn't happen, the economy would be, like, dysfunctional and a major catastophe. Thanks for clearing things up! I can't always agree with some left-wing talking points especially if people come in and point out why they're wrong. I've seen some disparage economists too, which made me skeptical of the leftys' opinions as economists are the professionals of the field and they're not. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 04:34, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

It's up after the speech

Somehow I have little confidence it will stay that way but who knows. No I didn't watch the speech, I had better things to do like lick a bleach bucket. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:08, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

bleach is known to cure all things including AIDS, cancer and handily coronavirus AMassiveGay (talk) 20:26, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Not a hard prediction, I guess, but there goes the 1929 record. The last record to beat is now impossible, as they'll shut down the market. I don't know if "great depression 2" is where we're at, but it's hard to guess where else we might be. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 20:10, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Daylight Savings Time

I can't even sugarcoat this one: clock switching for Daylight savings time needs to die. I freakin slept in until 11:00AM today all thanks to the BS clock change the other day (Obviously I do not live in Arizona or Hawaii, but days like today I wish I did). There is literally no point in switching the clocks twice a year, here's why. I've heard conflicting reports on which is better, Standard Time or Daylight Time (personally, I prefer standard time, but that's totally subjective, people defend daylight time for equally as plausible reasons). But the thing is, no matter which is better for us in the long run, there's ZERO point in only having it on Daylight/standard time for only part of the year. Why can't we just pick one of the other and stick with it? But which would be better, permanent daylight or standard time? My vote is standard, but that's just me. Aaronmichael5 18:42, 9 march 2020 (UTC).

Reasons for daylight saving..... gets popcorn. Aloysius the Gaul 19:43, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I think every town should just set their clocks by the sun and then rely on the invisible hand of the free market to work out any time conflicts and flight schedules. ShabiDOO 21:49, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

So it's so entirely bureaucratically entrenched that it has to stay. Like, this is the main reason the US won't change to metric. I don't really mind daylight savings, it does seem pretty arbitrary and useless, especially now that all the clocks are automatically changed. I ship things to other countries, I'm very comfortable with weight conversions, pounds and kilograms, not as good with inches and centimeters, today I found a loose leaf advertisement of a sale used as incoming packing material, dated 12/26 to 1/3 from somewhere in Illinois. For cheap alcohol for new years, number one was some vodka 1.75 Liter for $5.99. Holy shit, that is not just cheap, that is TOO cheap, something has to be wrong with that vodka. I took it to another coworker, who I know in his younger years was the cheapo alcohol buyer and read it to him. He said "...You read that wrong, show it to me." Then I ran the numbers and 1.75 liters is about 60 ounces. So taking the cost, divided by the volume, that's about 10 cents an ounce, an ounce being a shot. Now, I love a deal, but I really hope Marc's shoppers could find the dignity to say "No, that's scary cheap." It is strange that alcohol and soda are sold in Liters, soda sometimes in ounces, beer in ounces, and water and milk are sold in Gallons. Buying alcohol in liters, for me now, is like, "ooh la la, I'm drinking 200 milliliters of vodka tonight, how mysteriously gauche." Daylight Savings time pisses everybody off for no reason. We should stop doing it, and it wouldn't be hard because people aren't even pissed off for the practical reason that you have to know exactly when daylight savings is and manually change your clocks, like, that's not even hard and we're fussy about not having to do that anymore? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:03, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

There are negative health consequences to switching the time back and forth.[1][2] Also, there is a possibility that California will end the transition within a year or two.[3] Bongolian (talk) 07:37, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

The EU is going to dump it soon. Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 12:17, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Maybe the UK should've exited a least after the DST removal. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:25, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Jreg

Does anyone here know about him? And what do you guys think of him? He seems like a decent, if somewhat basic, satirist. RoninMacbeth (talk) 21:48, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Ahh yes, the well renowned anti-centrist, he is a pretty decent youtuber.RATIONAL MUNDANE++ (talk) 07:32, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

i was watching youtube...

…while sick with probably-not-corona-virus-but-will-tell-everyone-it-is-like-I-did-with-swine-flu-i-nearly-DIED, and American almost gave me a fatal coughing fit when they described the jam as an 'obscure british band'. then I remembered this and how fucking relevant it is. still. again. fucking tory cunts. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:53, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

seriously though, how is it Paul Weller's never had a hit in the US? are you people fucking deaf? AMassiveGay (talk) 15:49, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

No, we're just brain-dead Nazis that live a redneck lifestyle of Guns, Jesus, and Paleoconservatism. It's all just part of our time before those evil Ziocrats take over the world.— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 15:53, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

A Town Called Malice actually charted over here but elsewise, it is just what it is, it's different worlds (especially in the 1980s). a-Ha was huge in Europe, but for practical purposes only charted one big hit in the US (for Take On Me) plus a couple of other minor hits. Same applies for Kim Wilde (in America, You Keep Me Hanging On was the big charting single, with a minor hit with Kids In America, that's it). On the flip side, bands like the Go-Gos were huge in America in the early 1980s but barely made a dent in the UK. (Belinda Carlisle later had better luck). Most American country or roots rock artists (for instance, sticking with big 1980s names, Kenny Rogers or John "Occasionally Cougar" Mellencamp) don't do well in Europe either from what I see. And that's without the language barrier factor. I looked up the list of #1 singles in Japan in 1982 and I only recognize one name (Ryuichi Sakamoto of Yellow Magic Orchestra fame, but only those who are big into early synth music in the US might know that). Soundwave106 (talk) 21:32, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I can appreciate him not being huge, but his career started in the 70s and hes still and hes still churning out albums. he was like jesus Christ in the 90s music scene he was fucking modfather, a beacon of quality amid a sea of britpop dross, going from punk, mod revival, soul, jazz, folk, hard rock and nothing took? a career longer and more varied than bowie. you all loved yourself some right said fred, but you didn't want 'the walls come tumbling down?' thats gold, you monsters. its no surprise Hendrix had to come to the uk to be appreciated. #maga. #four more years. its what you deserve. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:10, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

ive been in bed for 3 days till yesterday, when my fever broke, and I havent slept since then. now this has angried up my blood, and I aint gonna be able to sleep tonight either. I feel like ive been speeding. motherfuckers. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:48, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

a few years back, 'don't stop believing' was on family guy. it was on glee. it was on fucking everything. and I had never heard this song before. who the fuck was journey? are they from the 60s? I don't know who they are and that song was everywhere. it was alright. did nothing for me. didn't really try to see what else they did.

doesn't feel very good does it, America. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:27, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Eh. That was a tune that was seriously overplayed when it was new. Besides, Journey's an okay band, but there are better. All a matter of taste. Kencolt (talk) 23:36, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Journey was huge in the US in the late 1970s up to about the early 1980s. They had several big arena-rock type singles in spite of making ridiculously cheesy videos for their #1 hits. Yep, they never crossed over either... Don't Stop Believing is actually the only Journey tune that seems to have charted in the UK at all, and that was in 2009. (The song was originally released in 1981, and per the Wiki it looks like it entered the UK public view after the X-Factor popularized it for some reason.) BTW anyone who actually knows a fair bit about music in the States knows who The Jam are, the critical consensus (which I agree with) is they are a little too British-topical to be loved by the US masses (I had to Google the significance of Eton College just now for the Eton Rifles song). But The Jam is loved by rock critics even here, and many who are more "in the know" on music. Remember, to give an example, in the 1982 US Top 100 year end charts, you had a bullshit novelty song about Pac Man and disco classical music (yes, really) in the mix. I would not look at "never had a big US hit" as a qualifying factor for "music is good". :) Soundwave106 (talk) 01:06, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah to the last point, down that path lies Slade. Thank goodness Quiet Riot made something decent out of that despite themselves (no, seriously, they tried to sabotage their cover of it). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:51, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

To the people outside the US- what passes for music is the following: sex, guns, drugs, beer, god/religion, strange romance among others. A nice (i.e horrible) example- "I Wish Grandpa's Never Died" by some dude named Riley Green and it gets played on Country music radio stations. The lyrics sound like some creepypasta. https://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/rileygreen/iwishgrandpasneverdied.html --02:00, 11 March 2020 (UTC) ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Those lyrics look like a beer ad script. My favourite "I can't believe this isn't a song from Team America" is https://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/johnrich/thegoodlordandtheman.html. Something about that song being played on Fox had me creased over.McUrist (talk) 08:51, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Biden and M4A

He'd just said he'd veto it if it got to his desk, gee, what a guy. — Oxyaena ^Harass 13:59, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Weird how easy it'll be for Trump to run to his left. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 14:14, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

The dirty little secret about medicare is that the private insurance subsidizes it. Medicare used to cover the variable cost, which meant that while a hospital couldn't survive only on medicare patients it was still an advantage to take them on rather than not and private insurance would cover the fixed costs. This means that in a M4A scenario, medicare is going to have to pick up the fixed costs as well, so it's going to be far, far more expensive than people realize. On the flip side, "well it'll cost X trillion, where do we get X" can be countered with "we already pay Y in premiums/copays every single year, what does it matter if you pay Y in premiums or Y in taxes if you get the same service". CoryUsar (talk) 14:26, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Dubious. Medicare eats one of the highest risk pools in the country. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 14:51, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

But doesn't pay for all their costs anymore. Why do you think private insurance is so friggen expensive in the US? CoryUsar (talk) 14:57, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Because it can be, and it's impossible actually compete in healthcare. And you know that. I don't know what shitty insurance funded think tank fed you that talking point, but it's real dumb. You gotta know it's dumb. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:00, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Uh, I am the insurance. Health actuary, so yeah, I know all about the costs.

What I will say, however, is that a huge chunk of the cost is administration. The insurance companies need to keep track of all the patient information and such and negotiate with the hospitals, but for every dollar that insurance companies have to spend on that the hospitals also have to spend an identical dollar. The dirty little secret is that this cost doesn't increase all that much for more expensive claims, it's the same whether the hospital bill is $75 or $75,000. Yet we've insisted that insurance cover all the little stuff, and so administration costs have bloated the price of everything. M4A might reduce these costs, so there is that savings. The other option, the one I'd like, is for everyone to treat health insurance as health insurance, not health finance. You should get health insurance for only the huge expenses, not for every little thing. Imagine if you needed to fill out insurance forms with GEICO every time you filled up your gas tank, and you can see how overinsurance has become a huge problem in the US.

What I do advocate for is actually "partial medicare for all". All those screenings, the tests, vaccines, etc? Very simple stuff, almost ubiquitous, THAT Medicare could pay for without being anything too drastic, could be done cheaper and more efficiently than the insurance companies could and with less overhead for the hospitals. If medicare grows organically as a result, so be it, but get that part done first. CoryUsar (talk) 15:04, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Won't solve a goddamn thing for people suffering, debilitates expectations, and focuses on limiting fiscal cost for the government without respect to overall cost, actually becomes and impediment to real progress by branding a good idea onto something useless, you have proposed a perfect neoliberal solution. Now I'll say as a skeptic, I'm aware of the power of free vaccines for public health, but as a human being it's woefully insufficient. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:41, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

"I would veto anything that delays providing a security and certainty of healthcare being available now,” is what he said. Ariel31459 (talk) 19:29, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

This, as much as I'm not a fan of Biden, this is a standard attempt at a "gotcha" soundbite, and he gave an appropriate politician non-answer. The reality: he'll sign any health care bill a Democratic Congress puts on his desk. Congress is where you should be directing your attention. And the only thing that'll get through Congress anytime in the near-to-mid future, if Democrats control both houses and do away with the stupid filibuster, is a German-style system. (This is why "Medicare-for-all" is or at least was a good slogan, because it's vague enough to mean whatever the person hearing it wants, but the red rose crowd has taken it as "Canada-style single payer or BURN DOWN EVERYTHING".) --47.146.63.87 (talk) 23:54, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

The thing is, it isn't. When pressed, Sanders didn't answer "what Canada has" he answered "A public service funded by taxes that covers all healthcare needs". So, how shall I put this, maybe you should go back and pay more attention? Then again, I'm just one of that crazy "...red rose crowd... so what do I know... ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 00:29, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

"It" isn't what? That quote is similarly vague and can be finagled to mean anything from the NHS to a Japan-style system. By the way, if you took "Medicare-for-all" at literal face value, to mean "the exact Medicare program as it currently exists, except everyone can enroll", it would be neither single-payer nor universal (the latter could be achieved by coupling it with a health insurance mandate and automatic enrollment). The broader point I was trying to make is that in slogans, vague is good, because most people don't care about or pay attention to details. (This is not me bullshitting. Polls tell us this.) But like I said, some of the red rose crowd went with "Medicare-for-all means this exact proposal and if you say otherwise you're a traitor to the cause and a neoliberal Trojan horse". Which kind of worked as a Machiavellian strategy to make people choose sides and take down primary opponents trying to muscle in on Sanders's "lane"…except that most of those candidates' supporters decided they didn't like Sanders and went with the "safe" choice of Biden. Oops! --47.146.63.87 (talk) 01:49, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Or we could listen to whole sentences from candidates rather than turning our brains off after a few words... That might help. See above for for an explanation as to what I heard when the candidate in question spoke. As in the actual words he used. I'm not going to endlessly repeat myself because you're illiterate. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 02:23, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Fuck you too. "Why won't these stupid fucking idiots with mental disabilities support the candidate I want? The system is rigged!" --47.146.63.87 (talk) 09:18, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

What convolutions did your brain have to sail through to make up that sentence from the words posted here. A straw man is one thing, but this is like... totally unrelated to anything posted by anyone in this thread? At all. Even in the most strenuously ungenerous of readings? The whole "Sarcastically reading your own sentiment back to you" rhetorical strategy requires some semblance to the original thought. Some relationship a coherent mind could affix your ravings to. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 13:29, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Oil price crash

Welp, Alberta's in the pits now. Can't say we didn't warn them. It seems much of US shale is also going to go down under, but I wonder what that means for our long-term prospects of ending oil addiction. Colossal Squid (talk) 16:28, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Just a few weeks ago, the Alberta Tories were whining about how the feds were holding up the Teck Frontier sands mine. I guess they'll be eating crow now. WheelOfCheese (talk) 22:18, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

They've gotten so much sympathy and concessions already from the federal government and the media by constantly throwing a temper tantrum. What makes you think they'll stop now? I mean, they've been told so many times over decades that putting all their eggs in one oil basket was a bad idea, yet whenever things go south, they blame everyone else instead of show any signs of introspection. Colossal Squid (talk) 00:41, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Trump is already talking about handing them public money, so that should help calibrate your expectations. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 01:53, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Just sayin, oil could be this price if we didn't rely on it as a resource. I mean, when you overproduce as a point, and there are other methods of energy that people could buy into, overproduction of oil could be the standard and not reliant on the whims of political power struggles. But that would take infrastructure, some kind of big overhaul that would require high skill planning and low skill installation, and then you'd have to pay all of the labor, uuuuughhhhhhh. And then businesses would have to adapt and create new products and services, which they are not known for, so see ya later business sector. Oh, wait, I just read Atlas Shrugged, a realistic fiction novel from 1957, and I'm taking a hard turn here and saying nobody could have driven that golden spike into the ground like John Galt, whoops, I mean Leiland Stanford was a genius and the last industrialist. If it ain't trains, it ain't brains is my new point, we can't trust the government to use our money to pay people like us, get off my back. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:27, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

dunno how that book could be so influential. I tried reading it awhile ago but couldn't get far enough in to be converted to a libertarian. its just so fucking poorly written. libertarians are made of sterner stuff it seems, able to stomach levels of dross that would kill us proles. I am also perplexed by its focus on railroads when I thought public transport was socialist and when my experience of private rail companies is that they are dog shit bad at their jobs. AMassiveGay (talk) 00:29, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Libertarianism's ideals tend to end up similar to naïve child's play. "What can possibly go wrong?" Is usually the vibes I get whenever they keep proposing their ideas. I think there's a power fantasy at play, and who doesn't like feeling strong, capable, independent, and important in this giant land of misery. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 00:33, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

It's a fanboy read, for sure, but Shale is actually not big money anymore, and now it's scary no-money. I personally fought against shale. I'm not going to cry about strip mining, I don't have that bone, and it's a little late to say that's a fucking stupid practice. But building pipelines for shale in the same way you build for crude, that's stupid. Shale extraction does not remove all sediment, sending it though a pipe requires dumping in lots of chemicals that separate the mud from the pebbles, in a pipe to refinement is like flushing paper towels. If shale can't be processed on site, the little drip (this is on a massive scale, so more like a sceptic tank blowing, but an entire neighborhood's worth of shit) that falls out of the pipe is actually really, really harmful. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 01:46, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Yep, a lot of its appeal is just that it's an appealingly simplistic philosophy. "Fix All of Society's Problems With This One Simple Trick!" --47.146.63.87 (talk) 20:36, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Most people who invoke it haven't actually read the whole thing, as with most scripture. They just know that it (a work of fiction) "proves" government is bad, except when it's doing things I like. The train stuff has a simple explanation: Rand liked trains. Therefore, trains are Good. (Serious link.) Also she wrote it in the '50s, when the U.S. rail network was still mainly what tied the country together (Old Thing Good), and of course it was gifted to us by genius Job Creators who built it with nothing but their own blood, sweat, and tears. (Historians will tell you it was a corporatist government-backed project, but don't let those pinko "intellectuals" lead you astray!) The Interstate Highway System was being proposed at the time, and as a socialist Big Government project was obviously a commie plot by that pinko commie Eisenhower (New Thing Bad). That's it. Yes, this is the typical intellectual depth of right-libertarian thought. Amusingly, as you note, once said interstates were completed, this facilitated even more white flight to suburbs and exurbs, and then cars became even more so the Instruments of Freedom™, since you could then justify slashing all other forms of transit because we have freeways, dummy! Conveniently, "the Negroes" had trouble affording cars (because they're lazy and stupid, and of course if one of them is driving a nice car they probably stole it, but our Boys in Blue will "take care" of them), so this kept them penned up in the "inner cities" where they belong, away from vulnerable white women. So the train stuff is largely a product of its time. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 20:36, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

its even funnier if you consider that the railroad built America. a railroad built in a large part on the blood, sweat and tears of Chinese labour. The Chinese built America. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:14, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Those wily Chinese were playing the long con! They built us a railroad system just so they could try to trick us into becoming communist! That's why we should have long ago built a wall around the whole country, including the ocean! They're right there on the other side of the Pacific'!!! --47.146.63.87 (talk) 23:54, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Ooh, sounds like a dysfunctional oil-rich state might be in need of one order of Freedom™, served hot! --47.146.63.87 (talk) 20:36, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Governor of Michigan taking credit for fixing the roads..........

Which still have not been properly fixed! The roads here is Michigan are crappy as ever. The road workers still have not got the proper funding to fix the fucking roads and they are stuck using asphalt to fill holes. How do you take credit for something that has not been done? --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:22, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I know that roads can be shitty, last winter I had to help a friend change a tire, drive him to an autoparts store because his tire iron was busted and mine didn't fit, and a city with a lot of traffic can be bad about fixing shit when the roads that have to be taken care of don't hit your roads. I work in a business district that is also brushing up on two other towns that got annexed, so now the city collects taxes to its county limits, and by fuck, maybe that's a little more than they were supposed to be in charge of. A road crew finally got to a problem spot on a super busy highway-to-normal road about a block from my work, like, a month ago, but it's a busy intersection and the pylons were constantly flat and in the street, until one day I had to merge out of a highway turn lane to take an alternate route because somebody had dipped their car into the hole. Like, I get it, it sucks, it definitely was not ideal for me either, but put off your octogenarian complaints until you get there, and don't vote like an octogenarian. None of your heroes will fix the roads. I once talked to a guy who was helping campaign for a democrat, and I said "Why don't you take those campaign donations and pay to fix up some neighborhood roads, and put up signs and shit?" He said "you think you're just gonna go out there, and 'pat pat pat' fill some potholes and win an election?" I said "No..." but he made me feel like shit. Those old people districts that got annexed probably saw first priority. I don't think somebody wouldn't have tipped their car into a gaping hole at that exact intersection if the city had dealt with it half a year ago. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:11, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

lol, isn't "fixing potholes" the stereotypical "local issue" that politicans run on? Although I'm not sure if campaigns would be allowed to spend campaign funds on doing it. Here in Commiefornia we do the insane thing of taxing ourselves and using the tax revenue to fix and improve infrastructure. And this has been quite effective; freeways around here have been having full closures for much-needed repairs. This makes right-wingers howl because taxation is theft unless it's used for bombing shithole countries, throwing brown people in cages, or going towards stuff for them but only them, but fortunately the ones who haven't left for whiter pastures are mostly powerless in CA. Granted, the problem is gas taxes are regressive, but that's not what righties are upset about, and any tax gets resistance; with a gas tax you can use the tactical argument that people who use the roads pay for the roads. Not that it's all sunshine and roses; we just had school bonds shot down in the primary, likely because primary turnout skews even more towards old people who hate taxes, especially for those damn kids who need to get off my lawn. (I'm not sure why they weren't put up for the general election instead.) --47.146.63.87 (talk) 19:21, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

how is it that a country so enamoured with the automobile apparently has such shitty roads? AMassiveGay (talk) 21:17, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Shut up commie. Today it's because a lot of whites don't like paying taxes for things that might accidentally benefit minorities. Gated communities usually have pretty nice roads! It's not an accident or coincidence that the only ethnic group that consistently votes Republican today is whites. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 22:08, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

To our far-right nut case: taxes did increase to fix the roads and money from the legal pot industry was to go for fixing the roads. The problem with terrible roadways is across the entire state and not just where I live. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:11, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Far-right nut case? You mean nobs? I'm a far-left nut case, thank you very much ;) I thought "shut up commie" was obvious sarcasm, but maybe I need to be more explicit. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 01:13, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

forgive my ignorance...

...or if this has been answered elsewhere, but just how easily can medicare be implemented if your next pres is for it? Not when its all up and running, but simply transitioning from now, with all the hundreds of insurances companies, pharmaceuticals, private doctors and hospitals and like, who would need to get paid off/compensated? is existing infrastructure - supply chains, patient records and the like adequate for the shift? would there be road blocks in senate/congress? legal challenges hold things up in court forever? effect on patient care during the transition? what happens to patients debts incurred before its comes into effect? what if significant industry players simply to refuse to play? its a fundamentally different model imposed on an already functioning(for some) system, not piecemeal but wholesale. there must be teething issues, push back, unforeseen problems, failures before its set run as advertised. how big a deal is this likely to really be? or am I misunderstanding what medicare 4 all actually is? are there limits on what/who is covered is it really medicare for all ie universal healthcare? (disclaimer: I still really fluey and genetically thick)AMassiveGay (talk) 20:27, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

and all your fucking special flower states wanting to do every little thing just different enough to fuck everyone AMassiveGay (talk) 20:31, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I mean, if thousands of people can suddenly afford healthcare, who treats them? where? with what? AMassiveGay (talk) 20:38, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

"Medicare for all" takes an existing program that covers the medical costs of retirement age people, and gradually lowers the legibility age to include the entire population. Almost all prices that insurance companies negotiate for are derived from the prices that medicare(an already existing program that 10s of millions use) sets for different treatments and drugs. The only fluff that gets cut is the insurance companies. But they're pretty big fluff that cause a lot of waste (and real human pain through extremely questionable denials and related horseshit).

(EC) I think you're overestimating the extent to which there is material shortage of care facilities and experts, and instead of how much of the problem is just how financialization makes the system fucked up. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 20:42, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I read that 27 million americans are uninsured. granted they aren't all ill, but are us hospitals really so spacious? there must be some strain on the system in the short term if they can suddenly afford to see a doctor AMassiveGay (talk) 20:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

its not the end result I am asking about, but the transition period, the short term issues getting there AMassiveGay (talk) 20:53, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Like I said, the plan is gradually lowering the eligibility age over the course of years. No need for 27 million in a day. 27 million in a day would save thousands of lives, but that's the kind of compromise that's actually necessary. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 21:03, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

ok that makes sense (and I missed the gradually bit in your previous post). I can imagine insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies must have shenanigans planned for such an eventuality though. is there any they can do to resist losing their cash cow? 21:12, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, since that stuff takes actual time to show results, and there might be some short-term discomfort of change, lobbyists and conservatives will try to capitalize on it to fight really hard rolling back that shit. ACA, that was a bandaid on an amputation, that still didn't stop Republicans from trying to poke holes on it and peel off the thing, complete with skin going raw after peeling. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:32, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

The places where people who can already get it? And any smart bill would throw in money to open health care clinics or whatever. Hey, have some military doctors do "homeland" rotations. You're not going to have five million people show up at doctors' offices the day the law goes into effect. Yeah, there are potential issues with capacity, but all you need is a little planning. This is small potatoes compared to things like natural disasters. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 02:06, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

The UK National Health Service was signed into law on 6 November 1946 and came into force 20 months later on 5 July 1948. Reportedly, throwing money at doctors was key to its swift implementation.[4] --Annanoon (talk) 10:47, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

it was also overwhelmed in its first year going massively overbudget AMassiveGay (talk) 23:50, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

also, doctors still got to be doctors, and consultants got to keep lucrative consultancies. medical insurance companies wont be medical insurance companies or at least be greatly diminished. im pretty sure they will be throwing money at congressmen and senators, but im sure those up right fellows wouldn't stoop to pick up that cash. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:57, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Which is the strategic argument for a "German-style" option. Don't try to immediately kill the health insurers, just regulate the hell out of them while also providing "public options" so everyone has health insurance one way or another. A bit of judo. Gradually you shift the insurers to a non-profit model, which is aided by the "public option" being able to undercut them if necessary. If desirable you can eventually nationalize them and shift to outright single-payer. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 13:11, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Leaving

This has been coming for a while. I've contributed a lot to this wiki project, and yet lately I've been treated like garbage entire community on repeated occasions. People don't do anything productive here. They just start drama and bitch on the Bar and now they're personally insulting me. No wonder so many of the articles here are trash, and no wonder this site is so small. I'm done. I'm resigning from the Board and ending my association with this increasingly hostile community. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 02:59, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

awwwwwww... You did a really good job working hard on the history pages! I'm really disappointed you'll leave. The primaries are really, really tense and it can really ugly. I was looking forward to having more conversations with you on the Board. If I'm the one giving you an unpleasant time, I'm sorry, I was trying my best to mediate and I don't intend to make your experience more unpleasant. I don't think you really needed harsh words directed at you. We're supposed to work as a team in the wiki, not yell in some forum. I'm going to miss you, and I'll be ready to welcome you back when you need. Okay? Take care and do what you think is best for you. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 03:05, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that you feel this way Duce. You've contributed more than most of the other users here, including myself. Take care. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 03:09, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

You should stick around to watch the gears grinding in their heads when Bernie drops out and starts campaigning for Biden. It'll be tons of fun. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 03:14, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Let's use a thread about toxicity and drama in the community to instigate more toxicity and drama in the community. This is a logical evaluation and not at all moronic. Fucking A... ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 03:17, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

That wasn't smart, Helena Bonham Carter. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 03:22, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Don't be a drama queen. The community in general has treated you quite nicely. You're well liked and people (although very very infrequently) have thanked you for a few things you did which is more than anyone else ever gets. Just because one or two of us become complete fuck-holes on the bar about a contentious topic isn't any reason to run off. Hopefully he will apologize to you but I wouldn't count on it. A user here pissed me off so much once I took a few months break and came back like it never happened...because after all...for how horridly toxic the internet can be...this place is very low level drama considering the flame-potential of everything we cover and talk about and the snarky point of view we have. It would be a bummer if you take off. As the french-canadians have an old saying: twist your tongue three times before you speak. The best way to translate that is: take ten deep breaths before you make a decision. ShabiDOO 04:06, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Ace, you are indeed an awesome editor and will be missed! There's really no need to hang out in the saloon if you don't want to. The saloon is largely an unproductive time waster in my opinion, but I myself feel obligated to hang out here due to being a moderator. You have no such obligation, DuceMoosolini.

Also, related to this, people might want to consider refining the idea of civility in RW discourse. Believe it or not, there is some pre-existing encoding of the idea of civility here (Help:Etiquette or "How to edit politely" on Help:Contents). Some of our other pages refer to ideas behind civility (e.g., tolerance, argumentum ad hominem, intellectual honesty). I was actually challenged by an editor who said that "'civility' is just centrist stupidity".[5] In reality, Americans (at least) overwhelmingly want civility in public discourse.[6] That is not to say that there is no place for incivility: in my view, people who are demonstrably bigoted, hurtful or intellectually dishonest do not deserve further engagement or civility after initially being called out on the behavior. Bongolian (talk) 07:22, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Hear hear. I have very rarely called for civility during my time here, even though I wanted to do it more. The problem was I was afraid of being called out for tone trolling, even though the page itself presents a caveat that one should be wary of unnecessary verbal abuse. Emotions matter, people often lose respect for each other solely on the grounds of verbal negativity, not necessarily always just based on the substance of each other's points. We're not robots who evaluate everything rationally, we're humans. Basic respect should be given, not earned (any respect going beyond the basic should probably be earned). For an example of how civility can be used to turn bigots (KKK members) around and dismantled an extreme hate group, check out Darryl Davis: https://www.ted.com/talks/daryl_davis_what_do_you_do_when_someone_just_doesn_t_like_you/transcript?language=en 171.33.193.245 (talk) 09:25, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I really am very sad that DuceMoosolini is leaving. He did so much to turn awful stubs into actual articles that are worth reading and also look good. I've never found him anything but pleasant in our interactions I was also looking forward to getting to know him a bit better through the Board meetings. It's a pity that won't happen now. And he really could have been the best thing that happened to the Board since FuzzyCatPotato. I sincerely hope that this LANCB turns out not to be forever after all. Spud (talk) 11:44, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry to see you go. Hope you come back in the future. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 13:08, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

For fuck's sake. I'm allowed to think LANCBing over my response to his needlessly hostile comments is petty drama shit. Don't knock off my comments because you want to spare his feelings. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 18:23, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

"Anger management: 10 tips to tame your temper"[7] Bongolian (talk) 18:26, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I congratulate you on your passive aggression, but I find actual aggression is frequently far better at expressing yourself clearly. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 18:36, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to take a break for a month or so too. Ikanreed has so thoroughly toxified the bar I just don't want to be here for a while. Will give me a chance to actually do constructive things like work on the annotated quran. You really need to dig deep and find your human side. It always amazes me how someone who can be so driven by humanist principles can think its okay to be thoroughly rotten to achieve those goals. You must be a terribly sorrowful and dejected person ikanreed. ShabiDOO 18:46, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Unwarranted. I decided to review what I've said in the bar(at least what's on the current page, archiving is hard), and I can't really speak to much toxicity except in explicit response to people directly condescending and insulting me. And I retain my position that that is fair game. I know Duce was okay almost all the time, but throwing a tantrum over a little rude pushback when you say I am "a retarded little brat" is not reasonable. I don't particularly think it was fair of you to delete what was, on the whole a pretty limited comment about my dislike of that situation.

By all means do what you feel is right, but this is where "He started it" kinda bullshit actually matters. People throwing shit around then getting hurt when it comes back isn't going to create the healthy polite dialog you want. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 19:02, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

If you're hurt, you feel personally attacks, then there are better ways of, again, communicating that without having to insult back and escalate the thing. This isn't specific to you but you have to own some of that mantle: you did escalate. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:07, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Shabidoo: the "don't be a drama queen" I don't think is an appropriate response to this case of lancb, involving one of our long time users. No one likes a flame war, honestly. It's just a lot of unpleasant crap you have to tolerate, and you leave feeling hurt, angry, maybe sad. I think prior flame wars probably took a toll and this just broke it.

If Duce wants to take a break, guys, please respect it. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:13, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

There is always the rest of the wikiverse to explore (and spread the influence of RW to). Anna Livia (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

There's a difference between taking a break and this childish charade. Ikanreed behaved incredibly poorly and the community has gone rather downhill in the last three-ish years, but the foot-stomping melodrama here is simply gratuitous. Spriggina (thảo luận) (đóng góp) @ 19:32, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

All Biden supporters a dumb and smelly

Oh wait, this is a needlessly inflammatory headline. Hmm, I wonder why a moderator might keep collapsing the content of it? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 14:35, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

As someone who struggles sometimes with BO problems, I dislike this comparison to biden supporters. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 14:45, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I shower twice a day and drench myself in lynx and still smell. Should I vote Biden? McUrist (talk) 14:52, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Actually I'm feeling bad for posting that tired old internet joke "How dare you compare [bad thing] to [thing OP was denigrating by the comparison], which is far worse" isn't funny and I wish to apologize. Snark that isn't witty isn't snark. I should know better. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:04, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

We are now approaching this level: "I don't want to talk to you no more, you empty headed animal food trough wiper!… I fart in your general direction! . Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!"[8] Bongolian (talk) 18:31, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe? But don't cite your references. That just makes them even less funny. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 18:37, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

* dons Mod Hat * 

Stop trying out any more witty comebacks and critiques about them about this. Just go out for a jog and edit some articles. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:20, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Coronavirus, The not so Great Scare

I am so f%*king tired of the media making an absolute circus of themselves over the Coronavirus. It's real, yes, people CAN die from it (let's not go Alex Jones mode here or anything), but come on now. The world is not going to end, humanity is not going to go extinct, within a couple months (if even that long), nobody will even remember this virus ever existed. We survived the Swine Flu, Ebola, we're gonna survive this. Honestly what if this whole thing is just a distraction from the election stuff going on? Either that or maybe the news desperately needs something to cover since the 2020 elections are, so far, FAR less eventful than 2016 was. Aaronmichael5 18:43, 11 March 2020 (UTC).

It's uh... pretty bad, actually. Like I'm first to say "look at the flu, it has comparable infection and death rates" but if uncontrolled the way flu is uncontrolled, COVID19 could easily kill a hundred thousand this year. Which is not normal for the flu. It's hard to put 100,000 human lives into perspective. It's like a fifth of the Iraq war. It's certainly not the first pandemic in history, nor will it end mankind, but frankly there's good cause to be modestly concerned, especially if you're older. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 18:49, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

No mention of Brexit in the UK either.

Eventually it will become 'just another virus.' Anna Livia (talk) 19:44, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

That's actually the worst case. Two high mortality endemic seasonal respiratory illnesses is bad. Just influenza is bad enough, but the fact that you could get the flu, then later in the year a deadly coronavirus would suuuuuuuuuuck. More people would die. The hopeful case is a robust and affordable vaccine that handles multiple strains well that could control and eventually eliminate the virus. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 19:53, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Exactly, this is the thing. We maybe have a chance at never letting COVID get to the mainstay status that the flu has, either that or I'm naive, which I've been known to be. 82.36.198.177 (talk) 00:02, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I've seen figures that show the mortality rate much, much, higher than flu. Scream!! (talk) 00:19, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

It's tempting to think that, but here's the thing. Actual cases versus proven cases are massively disproportionate. Everyone who gets hospitalized gets tested. Not everyone who gets sick and then recovers does. With flu, they have better overall estimates on infections. I'm not saying it's not an order of magnitude worse, but distrust analyses that suggest it's two orders of magnitude worse, I guess. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 03:39, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

In my mind, it's definitely a bulletined list. 1) do not spread coronavirus 2) do not freak out about coronavirus 3) do not contract coronavirus 4) if everyone is gonna get it, why do I keep seeing numbers in infected countries that are lower than their populations? 5) do not spread coronavirus Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:13, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Be worried, but don’t panic. As the saying went for imperial Berlin: “The situation is serious but not hopeless” (as opposed to in imperial Vienna: “The situation is hopeless, but not serious”). Be especially careful about not infecting people in the particular risk groups (elderly, weakened immune systems, reduced lung capacity etc.).

If you’re otherwise fairly healthy, you’ll probably not experience anything much worse than during a flu infection, so stay at home, recuperate and don’t risk spreading it around you.

Denmark has just closed down all educational institutions for 14 days (classes continue online as far as possible), daycare closes on Monday (also for a fortnight), all none essential public servants have been sent home for the same timespan, and libraries, museums, after school programs etc. have also been closed. ScepticWombat (talk) 07:23, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

It depends on who you are. As on old chap with various chronic conditions including asthma I really really don't want to get this. But the probability is that I will sooner or later. So it would be great if everyone else did what they could to delay this thing. Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 11:46, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I had to suspend somebody for two weeks because he made a stupid joke. He said he was in direct contact with a confirmed coronavirus case that came up in the last couple days. He's been coughing for over a week, he and I both know it's a sinus infection, but because he made that "joke" and really freaked everyone out, he actually impeded work. Like, it's a small business, I manage exactly 22 people. And he spooked everyone in his department, because he thought it would be cool or whatever to claim he's hanging out with a girl that he's not hanging out with, and actually factually knows nothing about. It's tight like family there, so when he told the bad joke it got around and people with much higher stakes than him were actually really very scared and it made the owner mad. My morning sucked, I had to go around and gather information to prove he was faking it, which I already knew, but he told 3 people different stories. I got the confirmed "it was a joke" from him, but I had to tell him to go home because he's still got the sinus infection, and that's a terrible look. And now he's saying he can't afford 2 weeks off. And I get that, and it was a bad joke, but I am just the manager, and the owner isn't having it, so now I have to suspend a guy who can't afford to be suspended, I have to find a way to fill in his work, and I have to make sure if I can't go in, the business doesn't fold. And, awesome, I just had a parent text me they can't work while schools are out, totally fair. 1) do not spread coronavirus 2) do not spread coronavirus fear 3) do not freak out about coronavirus 4) wash your hands you animal 5) do not spread coronavirus Gol Sarnitt (talk) 01:19, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Scream!! is now Mod

Due to the constant bickering, and the fact that it's now apparently controversial to remove, collapse, or push back in any way to toxic posts, I've resigned and demoted Scream!!. Not that any of you care, given how busy you all are killing each other. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 18:50, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I do, Scream's an enabler of trolls and assholes like HBC. — Oxyaena ^Harass 20:01, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank goodness this lady with her name calling didn't make mod alternate. GreenNewDeal (talk) 12:13, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

* dons Mod Hat * 

Do not provoke into having users respond. Consider this a warning. If I see more hostility being lobbied in response to users resigning from their positions I will take more drastic measures such as deleting/collapsing such comments or even temporary mod-locking the page as a last resort. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:18, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Bongolian (talk) 00:33, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Aware of the difficult context, I must nonetheless insist that you shut the fuck up, bongolian. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 19:25, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Let us all cool down, this infighting helps nobody and it is creating major rifts. None of us need to use personal attacks. Please stop fighting --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

"Good posting" stuff that's obviously contentious is annoying. Tell me I'm wrong about that. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 04:09, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I will give you that- the "Good Post" thing can be a bit annoying if used too much. Now this type of thing can be discussed and resolved without personal attacks. I am not yelling or putting you down. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:37, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

The fight's not over

— Oxyaena ^Harass 10:59, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Let them eat cake 2.0

Have another Beau video, it's free. — Oxyaena ^Harass 11:23, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Latin and other languages

Every time the question of why we teach a dead language in schools is brought up, somebody inevitably counters with something along the lines of along "Knowing Latin can make learning romance languages easier". But does it actually? I've heard this from a lot of properly educated people, but it still just doesn't seem right. Isn't it kind of like saying that schools in non-english speaking countries should teach anglo-saxon because it makes learning english easier? Comrade General Pootis (talk) 13:26, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

There are many valid reasons for studying Latin. But making kids learn it first instead of French, Spanish, Portuguese or Italian doesn't seem like a very smart idea to me. I can't imagine that happens very often anyway. Spud (talk) 17:11, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I speak Spanish. That means that I can make a fair stab at reading Catalan, Portuguese and Italian. I can understand bits too. My thought would be - if you want to learn something which will help you learn Romance languages, then learn a living romance language. And - is Latin a compulsory subject anywhere?Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 09:11, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

It isn't technically compulsory, but when nearly all US colleges require 2 years of a foreign language and latin is only one of three available options at most high schools it is to a degree. Comrade General Pootis (talk) 13:23, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

The others are pretty much always Spanish and French, and I dunno why anyone would pick Latin over those non-dead languages, unless they're planning on a bullshittheology degree or going into study of classics/linguistcs. (Here in Commiefornia it's usually just Spanish and French, at least for public schools. Some of the richer districts offer Mandarin or some others.) --47.146.63.87 (talk) 13:32, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be much evidence/study of the benefits of Latin.[9] One study (the only one I can find cited) found that French is better than Latin if you want to learn Spanish.[10] One factor is that the grammar of classical Latin is totally different to modern Romance grammar (ironically, for that reason, Latin might be more use in learning languages with a complex case system like Russian than French or Spanish). Learning Latin first is almost certainly suboptimal if you want to learn modern Romance languages, but it might have slightly more value if you plan to study linguistics. --Annanoon (talk) 10:55, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

That's what I would assume. If you truly feel you need to learn Latin fluently it's probably easier to start with a Romance language and then "work backwards" to Latin. Much like learning eald Ænglisc isn't going to help you tons with fluency in modern English, the two being about as closely related as modern Romance languages to Latin. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 13:32, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

The Prima faciea point of learning latin is to sound smarter than other people. Ergo, one who uses latin imagines themselves smart. The legal and medical(e.g.) professions are ipso facto littered with latin for exactly that reason. Audi alterem partem, though, I guess. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:30, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Ergo, vis a vis, concordantly, lorem ipsum dolor sit amet. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 13:32, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Bernie consistently beats Trump in one-on-one polls

There are far better ways to say Bernie is a better candidate than flaming those that disagree. If I see more hostile comments here, I will delete this discussion all together. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 15:09, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Are you really sure "No discussing ongoing political issues that matter a great deal to people" is going to do anything but make people angrier and view calls for civility as barely disguised "Sit down shut up and obey"? I know for a fact your own positions are not in favor of that, but it still reads a bit that way. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:21, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid it might come across that way, yes. Explaining my judgement: I've seen several complaints of people talking about how toxic the Saloon Bar is involving politics, and tensions are already high since yesterday. My perception on was that I was being too timid in approach, I was not doing my job in moderation, and I didn't want discussions to resemble more of loosely moderated forums. Oxyaena additionally has a tendency to provoke people into responding too as well as continuing escalation after the first remark some people like HBC that often escalate it. Nevertheless, if it wasn't election season and if it weren't for, like, two users resigning recently over this, I might've let it go. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 15:36, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Various communities I've been a part of have a no religious/political discussion rule for exactly this reason. It tends to open up rifts in the community. Not that this would be a good idea in such a politics and religion focused community as this one. RW will always have trouble coping with such conflicts. Ah well. 171.33.193.245 (talk) 16:59, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, the religious discussion component I think most RWians are in the same boat anyway, being major critics of all religions. I guess discussion of Islam would be more of a disagreement though, there's sometimes no clear defined line between disliking what Islam advocates and being Islamophobic. As for politics, I've been through multiple conflicts before. I think I missed 2016, to be fair, but seeing two users resign from conflicts mean to me that it's getting out of hand. I really want to discuss Biden and his incomprehensible appeal to voters in the primaries, probably question his differences with Republicans. The only reason to vote Biden would be just Supreme Court shenanigans and Biden's a moderate, but that still has caveats as Biden might cave to Republicans refusing to hold a vote, Biden may just continue all the god awful conservative policies based on his record, a Merrick Garland 2.0, a "compromise". Also Biden might have the advantage of a general appeal that we Bernie folk have underestimated or that we Bernie folk have overestimated Bernie's appeal to change, maybe people just long for 2008 even though 2008 was honestly terrible, just not as bad as 2016.

I'm not going to, like, put a clamp in all discussions related to a heated primary either. The primary's not going anywhere for now. I just want to keep drama to a minimum. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 17:14, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Note I am trying to be civil-if it does not come off that way and you collapse me I understand. However I would like to build on that fascinating point LMG raised about Bernie not being as popular as you guys think, which I think is true. Look at how many districts went for Sanders last time but Biden this time-have you ever considered that Bernie only got as far he did in 2016 because he was against Hillary Clinton, one of the most unpopular politicians in the USA? Biden has baggage, but he is not as commonly hated as Hillary was. 2016 was not really a repudiation of centrism so much as it was a product of HRC's own foolishness(look at how close it was). Thus, so long as the Neoliberal status quo is helmed by someone other than Hillary at least primary voters a perfectly okay to go back to what they know and remember. Leftism, in spite of it all, still has a definite popularity ceiling.--Flandres (talk) 18:16, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

You're wrong on that front, Bernie overwhelmingly pulls favor among young voters, the Bernie/Biden line is split along generational divides. — Oxyaena ^Harass 19:23, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

True, but young voters do not make up enough of the voting population to decide the primary. It's my fault, I should have phrased my point more cleverly; Leftism has a popularity ceiling with people who actually vote. Enough older regular voters are at least willing to tolerate normalcy that we will probably not see a large amount of progressive change until more of them age out of the voting population, which will be a while.--Flandres (talk) 19:44, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

You're doing a great job, guys, please don't worry. :)

And yeah young voters are not representative of the population. I don't want to attribute older generations as being more selfish, no, I just think they have more of a nostalgia about ten years ago and they want to play more cautious, and there's more of them. I do believe a big amount of older people want the younger generations to succeed and prosper but they're proceeding with strong caution and they're not really feeling the brunt of the financial pinch, but they definitely are, and a lot sympathize with younger people as they too likely had to work ridiculously hard to find a home. My parents, they didn't just get a nice house in a nice neighborhood, they lived through apartments, escaped due the L.A. riots, lived in a condo for some time, then lived in a rented house in an expensive city because of the property tax paying education, and now they're in a house. Among the Twitter crap, we're both trying to achieve a similar goal of removing Republicans, but it's the means we disagree on, and as far as things can turn out, there's a lot of predictions we're making that's not turning out well, assumptions that might not be correct. As you said, we viewed Hillary's loss as a repudiation of the moderates when it might be more accurate that she has too much baggage to not inspire enough enthusiasm and Hillary did go against Obama, whose vice president was Biden; Biden has his quirks people might fondly remember; I kinda remember "the big fucking deal" think back when I was in high school. On the other side of the coin, the "both sides" complaints, characteristic of criticism of moderates, have been more numerous compared to when Obama was around, but I was too young and not on relevant social media (gaming forums made me occupy my time instead), so I don't know if it's confirmation bias. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:07, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ No, it very clearly ties to privilege, older people tend to be more wealthy and financially secure, and hence support Biden, younger people and the disadvantaged in society tend to support Bernie. As far as removing Republicans goes, I find moderates to be little better when they offer policies that don't differ substantially from that of the GOP. — Oxyaena ^Harass 22:36, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

March Sadness

Apparently, the NCAA has banned all fans from entering the court during March Madness due to fears of the coronavirus. In other words, the players would have to play in an empty arena. If I controlled a professional sports league, I would have two options: 1). I would force the arenas to do some serious cleaning and recommend that all fans wash their hands and cover their coughs, and 2). I would be just like the NBA and postpone the season until we're all clear. The latter is probably the safer option. Yes, March Madness may be played n April or even May, but the safety of players and fans would be my top priority, although I'm pretty sure that the coronavirus, which is deadly enough, has been heavily exaggerated as an excuse to be racist towards Chinese people and promote BS pseudoscience. In fact, I'm pretty sure that our irrational fear of the virus, coupled with Trump's irresponsibility and belief that travel bans could protect Americans,(it makes things worse, per The Hill) is actually delaying treatment of the virus.— Jeh2ow ^{Damn son!} 15:05, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Well if any racist people in my area get infected, they can feel free to refer to our many Chinese/Taiwanese-American doctors. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:55, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

The various European football leagues also play at empty stadiums. This is at least partly a logistical question: If the matches aren’t played at all, they create a bottleneck later in the season, as well as for “super tournaments”, such as Champions League or the Europa League, in addition to the national teams competing for the UEFA European Championship in June. Playing without a live audience also allow teams to fulfil their contractual obligations vis-a-vis TV and other media that have paid top dollar (or euro) for the transmission rights. Oh, and it of course gives quarantined people something to watch. ScepticWombat (talk) 00:15, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

The only problem I see is not understanding that cancelling large gatherings is the way to mitigate the problem, not end it. Like, the idea is that we contain it exactly as quickly as it spreads, and full quarantines are useful for that until the warmer months, when allergies and snot kick in. And that tends to work for respiratory viruses, but it doesn't mean it goes away. The concern is that this is a virus that has evolved to work in the upper respiratory system, unlike SARS or MERS which really needed the lungs, so a person would have to get to pneumonia level symptoms to spread it. Also, there's a meme going around that for $7k USD you can enter a clinical trial on COVID-19 in the UK. Fucking, I will fly myself over there, you can infect me or anything, I have paid leave, I don't even have a cat to leave food out for, I am not overweight by 1lb, I am the test subject, give me $7k! Just let me pack my Gameboy and a couple books and I'll be there, NHS. 02:04, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

You might want to get on the last plane out. checkBob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 16:33, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

One concern raised is that if games are played behind closed doors, fans will go watch games in bars and spread viruses there. Bars are ideal for the spread of viruses, being warm, full of things to eat and drink, and with drunk people less able to follow hygiene rules. (But indoor arenas are probably bigger germ incubators than outdoors in the cold, and availability of food and drink at sport events varies.) --Annanoon (talk) 11:04, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

in the uk, such bans usually mean less of that kind of thing, especially in cities reliant on 'football tourism'. hotels, bars and restaurants in such places are dependent on visiting fans. and of course visiting fans wont need to reach a cancelled match taking new infections with them to maybe new areas, and they wont be needing public transport, a very good venue for infection. and of course restaurants and bars are already taking a hit as customers say away from such places. economic uncertainty in general wont help either on that score.

as for 'mitigating the problem' who isn't understanding this? the focus in uk is currently on delaying, not ending, till summer when there is less pressure on the nhs AMassiveGay (talk) 14:06, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Coronavirus Reveals Deep Incompetence?

The Covid-19 epidemic has revealed the disturbing incompetence of many areas of our society. From conspiracy theories running rampant, to some world leaders (trump) ignoring the issue entirely. I'm too young to remember Sars, but it seems like the world has grown more unprepared than prepared for these things. To everyone who is old enough to remember past epidemics, how does today's response compare to those of the past? MirrorIrorriM (talk) 16:18, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, try looking at how governments dealt with the Spanish Flu, see what you think. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 16:45, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

The response has been ... slightly better than in the past, I think, but then again I wasn't paying all that much attention during SARS, so I could be wrong. Also I'm ignoring USA in my assessment altogether. 171.33.193.245 (talk) 16:52, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Reading the passage, I see a bit of a parallel: the "Spanish Flu" was misnamed to stoke xenophobia, and it's alarming to see Trump calling the thing a "foreign virus" even though the damn thing has set foot in U.S. like colonial folk rampaging the shores. And look, didn't we just got Republicans blocking legislation to encourage sick leave? On top of our own healthcare system being ill-equipped to contain the thing, as getting tested for it costs a thousand dollars or so? Man for some reason, I just am morbidly curious to see exactly how bad this crap turns out, maybe it'll help convince disgruntled voters to avoid the Republicans like the coronavirus. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 17:04, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

outside of medical authorities I don't really remember anyone outside of the far east being too concerned with earlier sars. at least, it had no impact on me. it was brought to an end via quarantining those effected. the current covid version seems to a whole lot more infectious than sars ever was (a thousand times reads some headlines). it not as deadly, but it has already infected far more people, and as such the death toll is higher, even if the death rate is lower. quarantining has been far less effective, as for most people, infections no big deal and wont see a doctor so wont even find out if they have an infection. its comparable to flu in that respect, which while dangerous for some is just an unpleasant inconvenience for most. but flu has a cure, should you require it. people are a bit more gung ho about it knowing theres a treatment in the unlikely event its serious. covid doesn't. even if unlikely for most to be serious, the possibility seems to be making people a bit more nervous. media coverage makes you acutely aware there are deaths. its not so much panic, but people maybe more keen to stay home for a bit. not eat out. not fly. seems a little quieter on the street, but might be just me. organisers err on the side of caution an cancel public events. better safe than sorry. the internet means you arnt cut off from the world, and you can work from home. economically dire, as sars was for hong kong, but economically dire globally this time. if some governments have been to slow to react, to make a big deal of it, that's probably why.

not personally concerned. I am generally healthy, and economically, my ship (more of a skiff, or maybe a raft constructed with flotsam) was wrecked some time ago. nothing to fear from an economic storm. unlike sars though, I can see, or am aware of, an impact outside of myself. an impact on normal folk outside of health authorities. is this all an over reaction? too little too late? I couldn't say. concensus of health experts says uk is lagging behind Europe. concensus says trump have has half arsed it. trump not withstanding, we cant say if there is a level of incompetence compared to the earlier sars epidemic. its not that sars. and its not flu. its not the same. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:22, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

regarding 'Spanish flu', the intention wasn't to stoke xenophobia. war censorship everywhere else just meant spain was the only place talking bout it, and the association stuck. totally agree that today such associations are 100% xenophobic. I heard one senator refer to it as the 'Wuhan virus'. what a prick.

to be sure though, none of that is needed to stoke xenophobia/racism, nor even racist policy (though surely helps). in the uk, news coverage was very heavily based on the what was going on in china initially, in Wuhan and in hong kong, and considering the scale of the, on going, coverage, is enough of an association to bring out the worse in some. looking Chinese has been enough to warrant a beating by some fuckwits on a couple of occasions here in the uk. 21:39, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Those being the same types of people that would beat up black people or arab-looking people willy nilly, I wager. Now they just have an excuse to do more of the same. There are some dangerous places around the city and outside the city in the UK if you look like an immigrant. 82.36.198.177 (talk) 22:46, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

the attacker in one of the two incidents I am aware of has been described as Asian ie indian-pakistani. no one race has a monopoly on arseholes, and non whiteness doesn't make one look like an immigrant. it hasn't for years. an accent might suggest it, but if its polish, they likely to be pretty white

the second incident though, a group of white pricks AMassiveGay (talk) 23:35, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

My adventure to Wal-Mart today

Holy Shit! The store was empty, the cleaning products were gone, people were stocking up on canned food and even the placebo "medicine" was going (Airborne and Emergency-C). Okay there is a big difference between taking basic precautions against getting sick and being completely paranoid. I know I am paranoid but that if mental illness and I am on medications for it along with my laundry list of psychiatric conditions. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 16:35, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Hell, I've been stocking up on canned food and such. It's not because I'm paranoid, there's real reason to believe food prices will go up and various places will be closed down where I live. 171.33.193.245 (talk) 16:55, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Man my "tragedy of the commons" senses are tingling. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 16:57, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Stocking up is reasonable (getting a modest supply of non-perishable food that one can use in an emergency or when sick), hoarding is unreasonable (preparing for armageddon). Bongolian (talk) 20:21, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but if everyone does unreasonable hoarding it suddenly makes hoarding a sound and sensible choice. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 20:32, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Hence, I evoke tragedy of the commons.

I recall some Australian politician attributing the empty aisles as... a failure of socialism. Despite all that depressing crap I've been talking about, this just amuses me. A hilarious stupid response, "Socialism - where people queue for food & goods. Capitalism - where food & goods queue for people.", I just have to imagine food and goods coming out of the stores like half-awake zombies waiting in line to eat people.

I also take note that people are scalping toilet paper too, so yeah, that's capitalism too, and it's something capitalism not only allows, but encourages. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:37, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Thankfully, one of the real social goods of our country, affordable clean water pumped to every house, is still perfectly functional and you can just wash your butt. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 20:52, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

And that one's a government monopoly, thank goodness. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:55, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

except in flint, Michigan, I hear still. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:41, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah we need a competent government for those things to work too, not racists in suits. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:49, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Flint has a city water utility. The city government was taken over by the (Republican) governor when it went bankrupt, and the administrator he put in switched to the Flint River for water to save money. One little problem was the water was corrosive and corroded the lead pipes that the city was still using. The city is gradually replacing the pipes. The cool thing is lead is still everywhere in older U.S. buildings and cities and it's super-poisonous, but no one with power cares about getting rid of it all because it mostly harms people who don't matter. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 12:16, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

There are actually private water companies in some places in the U.S., though they're generally regulated as public utilities, much like private electric/gas/etc. Also some parts of the country mostly use private wells. (Which sometimes get polluted by agricultural runoff due to lack of regulation, because lol freedom.) --47.146.63.87 (talk) 12:16, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Ew, water? Like from the toilet? brb buying out my Costco's entire inventory of Brawndo. It's got what plants crave! --47.146.63.87 (talk) 12:16, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

As for Flint, Michigan the water is still awful. It is sad I know. As for the Corona virus pandemic, got my landlord and the bank tellers laughing by cracking a few jokes about paranoia such as- "Time to go pretending it is the apocalypse". --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:58, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Try this one, "I want to panic buy, but I don't think I can hold my breath that long." Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:20, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

On the plus side, the panic buying and hoarding of perishable goods would actually be a huge boost to the economy and prevent a recession. Or at least boost sales of bread and milk. Gotta have them milk sandwiches. Though given that after every major storm there's a spike in babies born, you'd think people would grab all the condoms, but, well, people aren't at their brightest when they are panicking. CoryUsar (talk) 03:47, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

A boon you say? That's it, I'm mixing up bootleg hand sanitizer in my bathtub. I'ma get aloe plants growing in my closet, UV bulbs are still cheap. And I tell ya, I got this really mellow strain, won't dry your hands out. Don't buy from Clean Willie, I hear he uses ditch aloe, I got that all wet all trimmed hydro-vera, know what I'm talking about. Don't worry where I get the alcohol from, alcohol is alcohol. Just know that even in a drought, I'm in the streets, you can get your shit from me. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:59, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I think I will go preaching the end times and the virus so I can make some extra cash. Plenty of idiots in my area I can scam. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 14:26, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

you are too late - televanglists are already curing this plague through the medium of tv. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:47, 13 March 2020 (UTC)