RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive400

This is an archive page, last updated 25 November 2021. 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>, <348>, <349>, <350>, <351>, <352>, <353>, <354>, <355>, <356>, <357>, <358>, <359>, <360>, <361>, <362>, <363>, <364>, <365>, <366>, <367>, <368>, <369>, <370>, <371>, <372>, <373>, <374>, <375>, <376>, <377>, <378>, <379>, <380>, <381>, <382>, <383>, <384>, <385>, <386>, <387>, <388>, <389>, <390>, <391>, <392>, <393>, <394>, <395>, <396>, <397>, <398>, <399>, <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>, <467>, <468>

, (new)(back)

Ok guys time to troll the cons:

If y'all have Twitters:
Vote here
Who to vote for. Thanks.𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 00:04, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I didn't expect to see a MEGS reference here AmericanSocialDemocrat (talk) 16:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Russo-Ukrainian War: Looks like Russia is ready for a full scale invasion of the Ukraine

https://www.stripes.com/theaters/europe/2021-10-30/russian-troops-ukraine-border-us-concerns-3431490.html

If that is the case, things will get very hairy. Honestly, I would not put it past Russia to directly invade the Ukraine. They already managed to get portions of the Ukraine under illegal military occupation. Thoughts? I only trust Putin as far as I can throw him. --Channel 48 EAS (talk) 15:03, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Welp, Putin can run until 2036...American time change coming up November 7, Andrew5 (talk) 15:14, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I completely trust Putin - to do whatever it takes to remains Russia's "strong man" leader with the adoration of those who want to recreate the Russian Empire - nothing matters except that, treaties are only followed as long as they are useful and will be discarded as needed, everyone in the West is against Russia, the former satellites have no right to actually exist, etc....completely predictable IMO. Thinking anything else is fantasy. Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 21:38, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

If Ukraine gets invaded, will the West do anything about it? BeardOfZeus (talk) 22:54, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Unlikely on an individual state level, possibly, although equally unlikely at a multilateral level (Nato,EU) Europe needs gas, and there's a cold winter coming. Cardinal Chang (talk) 22:57, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

@BeardOfZeus With the whole China becoming a threat to Taiwan thing, I doubt that the US, UK, Japan, France or Germany would get involved. Looks like the Eastern European countries are on their own. --Channel 48 EAS (talk) 23:43, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, Ukraine isn't a part of NATO, so...American time change coming up November 7, Andrew5 (talk) 00:43, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Bet you a dozen beers China goes for Taiwan the same time Russia invades Ukraine...... perfect synergy and screw over hte West's reputation even more. Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 03:06, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

אני לא מבין. מישהו יכול בבקשה לתרגם את מה שכתבת בבקשה? ג'ִירָפָה (talk) 01:34, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

לא. השתמש בגוגל ועשה זאת בעצמך, או עזוב. CorruptUser 14:57, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

The demand for Russian oil and gas is higher now that the USA has lowered its production. And Joe Biden's popularity is tanking domestically and internationally. Putin's hand is growing stronger and stronger. Ukraine is a corrupt country which is hurting its economic/political strength. It doesn't look good for Ukrainians. They should clean up their political corruption and try to enter NATO. Hiro (talk) 15:53, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Oh, well if that's all they need then I'm glad you're able to point it out - they'd never figure that out themselves. I'm sure they'd welcome Putin solving their corruption for them.... Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 20:28, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Ukraine can’t join NATO as long as it has outstanding border conflicts — and that’s probably a major reason why Russia(‘s “little green men”) invaded in the first place. I seriously doubt that Putin is planning a takeover of Ukraine as a whole, since that would create a hell of an internal security headache, not to mention problems with integration/assimilation and not being in line with Putin’s other narratives.

Just like the situation in Georgia (the country), a frozen conflict, which leaves borders contested and a portion of territory under permanent Russian control to the extent that it is de facto a part of Russia, is a win for Putin and not only prevents these countries from joining NATO (or the EU), but it also allows flexibility. Putin/Russia has the option to escalate or de escalate the conflict, depending on the circumstances and use this as a bargaining chip when facing the US/EU/NATO and in its relations with the countries themselves and their neighbours.

By contrast, an actual takeover of Georgia/Ukraine would bring a load of problems with the subject populations and controlling them, not to mention the broader, international and legal implications. It would also completely undercut Putin’s “benevolent dictator” image, which is based on “defending/protecting ” supposedly “oppressed” Russians in the border areas, as well as presenting this as a matter of Russia’s internal affairs, while being careful not to seem a conqueror of “foreign lands”.

You might also add Moldova to this list, even if the Transnistrian regime isn’t clearly identifying itself as Russian, doesn’t border Russia, and isn’t directly controlled by Moscow, being more of a satellite/client regime instead. However, the pattern of a frozen conflict with part of the internationally recognised territory beyond the Moldovan government’s control and this preventing any accession to the EU/NATO still holds. ScepticWombat (talk) 20:43, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Oh, and as for the gas, that cuts both ways: While Europe does need it, Russia also needs to export it (not least to get hard currency) and doesn’t have the luxury of just being able to reroute it to other markets at the flick of a switch. Also, moving too aggressively will risk pushing its European customers to move more quickly off gas (oil exporters, including Russia, also face this dilemma). So, while “the gas weapon” does give Russia some leverage when dealing with Europe, it’s not a “wonder weapon” that can be wielded with impunity. ScepticWombat (talk) 21:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

In relation to gas as a "wonder weapon" you are indeed correct in how gas is also needed to be sold. But in the short term, as in this winter period, with gas prices already rising, it is quite an effective weapon to clobber your opponents with again and again The weapon is as you say, quite ineffective, but when wielded correctly and your point of impact is chosen carefully, any boring legislation can cripple a state. It's not really a case that Putin is some master strategist but rather his advisors seem to be fond of Alexandr Dugin's multipronged "spread chaos and doubt" approach. Cardinal Chang (talk) 13:34, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

That fits more in line with Putin's habit of keeping events in flux rather than coming to any resolution, thus giving himself flexibility. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 21:27, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I would not be shocked if Russia started to fund more separatist and terrorist organizations to destabilize the Ukraine further. It would be easier to fund terrorist groups to destabilize a nation than direct armed invasion. --Channel 48 EAS (talk) 23:26, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

@Cardinal Chang Sure, but Russian finances aren’t particularly solid and Putin has had less than stellar success in sheltering the Russian economy from COVID-19, so I really don’t see a major “gas war” coming, though Putin is likely to squeeze the prices upwards, not least to shore up the Russian economy. The main thing I see arguing for a more decisive and tough Russian approach would be exactly to divert Russian domestic opinion from their economic and COVID-19 situation. ScepticWombat (talk) 15:28, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Just how bad are Russian finances? Honestly? Pre-covid, it had a GDP smaller than Italy, makes you wonder how it has more of a say in the G20 over that Italian basketcase (Which one, take your pick.) Cardinal Chang (talk) 16:31, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

With the Russians, they managed to annex Crimea using terror organizations in the area. They also funded the Luhansk People's Republic and the Donetsk People's Republic. Both were formed using terror organizations. --Channel 48 EAS (talk) 18:35, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

@Cardinal Chang Russia’s economy remains dominated by the primary sector and it’s heavily dependent on exports of these raw materials, which generally puts it in a weak position, since, while it can use its exports as leverage when the market is tight, the economy will generally fluctuate along with the global prices and it has to sell these raw materials somewhere, in more or less cutthroat competition and with the problems that other raw material exporters face.

For all of its faults, the Italian economy is far more diversified and its problems are due to a complex mix of demographics, the structure of its market/labour and the effects of being financially tied into the Euro bloc, which sets the value of the currency far higher than what’s appropriate to the disadvantage of “Club Med” countries like Italy and the benefit of the German “export economy” and, to a lesser extent, its supply chains in Central and Eastern Europe.

The “Euro problem” is, sadly, too often ignored in favour of stereotyping those suffering its downsides as feckless Latins, when a core issue is that they are generally being priced out of competitiveness by having to follow a currency regime which sets policies and valuation in Frankfurt and according to a German economic model and philosophy, thus, in effect, raising the cost of “Club Med” exports while keeping down costs of German ones. Without the Euro, the “Club Med” currencies would be of far lower value, increasing the price of German goods and services in their markets and making domestic ones more competitive.

In the US, such imbalances are to some extent countered by federal redistribution, but the is nowhere near such a system within the EU and the Germans and other “frugal” EU countries (e.g. The Frugal Four: Austria, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Sweden) have steadfastly opposed any move towards one. This is hardly surprising, because all of these countries have managed to do well through variations of the German export-centred model and whose relatively costly labour and high productivity get a competitive advantage against “Club Med”. Similarly, the EU countries in central and Eastern Europe either benefit through their connections to the “German export machine” and/or have been put through a gruelling austerity regime during the aftermath of the GFC and don’t wish to see rules strictly applied to them along with stinginess from their more prosperous, fellow EU member states suddenly being waived when it comes to “Club Med”. ScepticWombat (talk) 07:59, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Interesting. And the second half of my question, How does a country with Russia's GDP have such an influence in the G20? Cardinal Chang (talk) 21:24, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

@Cardinal Chang I’d say that Russia is basically riding on its geo strategic importance and its military to make its influence count, despite being a medium sized, raw materials export oriented economy. It’s sort of a legacy issue as well, similar to the outdated composition of the UN Security Council with its inclusion of the UK and France as permanent members. ScepticWombat (talk) 09:59, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Volcanic bombs

How feasible is the suggestion that the Las Palmas volcano be bombed - would there be any specific geographical location where doing so would divert the lava flows more than temporarily, and would it be practical cost-wise? (Destroying part of a dyke/levee to allow a river or canal in flood to disperse into the surrounding areas rather than in inhabited areas is a slightly different scenario.) Anna Livia (talk) 13:10, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

One problem is that the lava flow area was apparently rather built up before the eruption, so bombing it may be as destructive as the lava itself. Now, bombing volcanoes to mitigate climate change by encouraging eruptions is a project that might be worth looking into. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 15:57, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

By its nature magma is going to beat whatever is thrown at it.

Would creating a diversionary channel be practical 'in theoretical general or in this specific case'? Anna Livia (talk) 19:41, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

@Smerdis of Tlön We already have those proposals, basically releasing sulfur into the atmosphere to mimic a large volcanic eruption. The problem is, well, you now have a bunch of sulfuric acid in the atmosphere, which is not a Good Thing. CorruptUser 19:52, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Was I mad, then, to propose bombing volcanoes to unleash eruptions? To turn the atmosphere into sulfuric acid? The fools! I'll DESTROY THEM ALL! Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 06:18, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Meanwhile, in Britland, Owen Paterson resigns among a clown plot of Cronies

I love it, stories of Juniors being lined up like lambs for No. 10, all for the purpose of being sacrificed to save this bozo for corruption, it caused a rift in the Tory party just recently, remains to be seen what anti-corruption reforms could grow out of it, or whether it'll evolve into a scandal big enough for Keir to capitalize on, but it's been a great way to start Nov 5th. The thing is, it could act as a litmus test to get a better idea of who is fine with that whole corruption thing and who actually has any interest in governing Britain for Britain. It does not surprised me in the slightest to see Boris and his gang involved in this scandal. BumblingBuffoon (talk) 23:51, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

You know, if the following were actual plots in "Yes, Minister" or "The Thick of It", the public would think the writers have lost touch with reality. And yet, https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/nov/04/charge-retreat-boris-johnsons-top-u-turns-in-no-10 Cardinal Chang (talk) 15:32, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

With brexiteer clown-buffoon Johnson in charge, British politics in an ongoing embarrassing comedy of errors.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 15:10, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

A few weeks back someone on these pages took issue with my description of Johnson as someone unfit to hold any public office let alone No. 10. They didn't like that, no no no no. Seemingly he's done "some good stuff too." His, ahem, promises on climate change it seems. Fuck sake, the man and his cabinet are a cesspit of conniving, duplicitous, shameful and shameless bastards, who have not an ounce of conscience towards their public. Cardinal Chang (talk) 16:43, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity who said "he's done "some good stuff too."" - I'd like to know so I can totally ignore anything they say in future. Scream!! (talk) 17:00, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

More than likely a hit-n-run merchant, there were a few new accounts suddenly active over a number of days which promptly went quiet, just before we all got spammed with links to a conservapedia Cardinal Chang (talk) 21:55, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Turns out it was Beard of Zeus https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=RationalWiki:Saloon_bar&oldid=2371010#Vent:_People_actually_voted_for_this_man_.E2.80.A6.. Cardinal Chang (talk) 21:59, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

vCJD timebomb in the UK

I am sure many of you heard about Mad Cow Disease in the late 80's to early 90's. Millions of cattle were infected and many infected cattle were turned into human food. Over 200 people died of vCJD after eating contaminated beef. This was entirely preventable but the government was more worried about protecting the profits of the beef industry then public health. Government incompetence at its finest.

With vCJD, the human form of Mad Cow Disease has a fairly long incubation period. Depending on your genetics, a person could incubate the disease for 30-50 years. How many people are likely infected with the prion disease and are currently a ticking timebomb? From what I read from public health sources, within the next 20-30 years, a new wave of vCJD cases could arise. How likely is the vCJD timebomb scenario? Consider the fact that millions likely ate contaminated beef during that time and likely got blood transfusions during the Mad Cow Disease epidemic. --Channel 48 EAS (talk) 16:46, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's a massive unknown. It's well documented and I do know there is a radio documentary on the subject. But for the life of me I can't recall if it's Science Vs, Seriously, The Inquiry or The Briefing Room that covered the topic in rather scary detail 2 years ago. When it was viewed as the next possible big pandemic scare. THey got that bit wrong, didn't they. Cardinal Chang (talk) 21:27, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

i keep hearing every few years or so that we are on the cusp of a wave. of articles on the subject i could find, all were no later than 2010, except for one from 2018. all waved a figure of 1 in 2000 possibly infected. all article predicted a huge wave, with huge here around 600 deaths. the article from 2018 said the wave was starting now or rather starting then in 2018. that might have been a little premature.

its been over 30 years as it is. optimistically, if it was gonna happen, feel like we probably be seeing new cases already. seems like you'd have to be incredibly unlucky to get it at this point, and there is nothing you can do about it if you were so unfortunate. i would not lose much sleep over it at this stage. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:18, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Currently reading The Black Tower by P.D. James, written in '74 and set in a private hospital. One or two of the patients have venereal disease. The description of symptoms from initial infection to later (decades later) secondary and tertiary symptoms suggest it may be a bit rash to believe it's all a worry over nowt. Cardinal Chang (talk) 16:49, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

No, the long-term cases might show up, but I don't think that there is going to be a pandemic in any sense of the word. More like among prion disease cases you will see a slight uptick on that group that might be statistically significant with the incubation period, but nothing close to a mass scale die off. BumblingBuffoon (talk) 03:44, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

It's been a long time. It's not clear what percentage of cattle were infected but it's likely it was not the majority. It's not clear how likely it was that people would get an infection from eating the meat, but the probability is that it was not very high (or we we would have seen more cases already). Furthermore it was thirty years ago and many people from that time will already be dead from something else.

And, even if this small hypothetical threat exists, it's beyond our control.

I really think that it would be better to worry about the actual dangers of Global Heating and act on that, rather than worry about hypothetical dangers from a few decades back.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 15:05, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Regarding skepticism

It kinda sucks that some leftist spaces harbor anti-gmo/anti-nuclear power/anti-animal testing/anti-vaccine mandate/mental illness denial/chiropathy bullshit pseudoscience and whatnot. That being said, I really want to resist this mentality—are there any fundamental skeptic texts I should be reading? (I already purchased the Skeptic's Dictionary)--April ^Chat? 20:07, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

The Demon-Haunted World. 96.60.168.60 (talk) 20:36, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

For a more up-to-date take try The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. All good stuff.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 20:51, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

As noted, The Demon-Haunted World and The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe are both quite good. Martin Gardner's Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science is an oldie but goodie. RationalWiki:Bookshelf has a more extensive list of resources. Bongolian (talk) 21:40, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

James Randi’s Flim Flam, and Norman Levitt’s Higher Superstition. Leucippus^{Salva veritate} 22:14, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I personally think Foucault's Pendulum by Umberto Eco is the greatest tool in understanding how woo-woo can take hold. By the half way point of the book you're willing to accept the "core secrets" that are promised to be revealed, and near the end..... Well, it can be eye-opening. Go for the double and read The Illuminatus! Trilogy and laugh at the madness of R.A.W. and operation mindfuck. Cardinal Chang (talk) 22:45, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you all so much.--April ^Chat? 01:44, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

If the Rapture were a real event, can I have the stuff that was left behind

No way I would get into heaven (nor would I want to) so I came rummage through things left. --Channel 48 EAS (talk) 23:19, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Sin would be left. Whoak (talk) 23:23, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Sin is significantly more fun. --Channel 48 EAS (talk) 23:25, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

If so why would God be aganist sin then? It would destory society. Whoak (talk) 23:25, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Nah, I'm just playing ya. Whoak (talk) 23:33, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

You can keep all the worldly shit; I’ll be busy eating leaves as a reincarnated insect. Probliknaut (talk) 00:00, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I would love to be an ant though being part of a larger insect society.Whoak (talk) 00:02, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Witnessing the post-rapture events, your little ant mind all “oh shiiit” Probliknaut (talk) 00:14, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

If that's the case, good luck with the Antichrist. Patty Pat (yap with me) 3:35, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

ANTichrist Probliknaut (talk) 03:48, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

In point of fact the rapture is a business opportunity. If I lived in The States I'd certainly be offering my services to take care of Christians' pets.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 16:04, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Imagine how many homes can be provided for those living on the streets. It is not like those who ascended to heaven would need those homes. --Channel 48 EAS (talk) 21:13, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

You could come up with something akin to this, shame he now claims it was a hoax Sounds like the perfect business venture. Cardinal Chang (talk) 21:49, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

the world was officially raptured on wednesday 8th june 1983. only a solitary 93 year old nun from kilkenny made the grade hence no one noticed. bit a let down by all accounts. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:32, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

RationalWiki was mentioned in a podcast.

In a recent episode of the Belief it or Not podcast about parody religions, the host mentions seeing info on RW, describing us as "wiki for skeptics". We've really hit the big time. Jessamyn (talk) 12:04, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Not the first mention: RationalWiki:Mentions. --Annanoon (talk) 11:50, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Biden's approval rating has dropped again.

He's down to just 38% now. If the democrats want any chances of winning in 2022 or 2024, they're gonna have to knock it off with this "Trump bad" stuff. Trump hasn't been president for nearly a year now and many don't even give a shit about him anymore. I speculated that if Virginia went red, which it did, that that was the reason why. Trump's approval rating doesn't seem to have changed much since January which means that Trump and Biden seem to be equally as hated by the mostly the same people rather than compared like apples and oranges (no pun intended). Honestly, the only way I see the democrats running the White House in 2024 is if Biden doesn't run again. We'll see. EDIT: I was just reading some of the comments on The Hill and holy shit. "Well, at least 41% (he's referring to a different poll) is better than Trump!" ............. When are people actually going to stop setting the bar so low for themselves? This is EXACTLY what turned Virginia red and put New Jersey THIS close to doing the same. It clearly failed in 2021 and won't fair any better next year. Aaronmichael5 17:04, 8 November 2021 (UTC).

Americans rarely seem to have a favourable opinion of politicians and more often than not, it seems they despise whoever is in office. So I do not think that "approval ratings" is a measure of anything. Rather how prosperous the country is, if the poverty rate is going down, if people can feed their children, if violence levels are being lowered, if citizens face real equality in terms of economic opportunities, education at a level enjoyed by students in most other western countries, how many people aren't pointlessly dying of medical conditions and how well the government actually deals with white collar crime and tax evasion in comparison to their overly successful record and coming down hard on petty crime by minorities. These issues and countless other ones to many to mention are what matters, not America's seemingly endless dissatisfaction with whoever is in power, or, at the very least, America's rage against any politician winning who isn't their favourite. ShabiDOO 17:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

538 still says he has a 42.5% approval rating. Andrew5 (talk) 17:30, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, I think his approval ratings are trending down because Biden failed in the underlying promise of his entire campaign-restoring a sense of calmness to America. Of course this still has a lost to do with what Aaron pointed out, because Biden tried to write of Trump as a complete fluke rather than a product of pre-existing trends, then fixated on removing him as if it was itself a solution to most of our problems. Essentially, he said that the USA would get better Fisher King-style when Trump was gone.-Flandres (talk) 17:39, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

It's because we never had anyone to vote For, only Against. Once the Against guy is gone, what are you left with? CorruptUser 17:47, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Andrew5 (talk) 17:53, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

The dems have two main problems: 1) Many in the Dem establishment can't get it through their thick skulls that the GOP has completely lost its mind (like Biden). 2) A lot of Dems are neoliberal scum who would rather let the fascists win than see progressives make gains (Manchen/Sinema/Pelosi).

The result being that nothing will get done. 5.151.22.147 (talk) 01:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

It's all just noise. President Biden has signed every bill the Congress has been able to pass. Shabidoo is right. It wouldn't matter who was the president, the average voter is a dipshit, and half the country is worse than that. In Virginia the typical off-year election cycle votes out the party in the White House. It tells you bupkiss. No party or group of politicians can create Utopia. Otherwise smart people often propose candidates in line with the Great Man Theory of History. Sometimes that might work out, by coincidence. I guess we were lucky with FDR. That isn't in the cards now, but I'm not going to complain about a Utopian effect that was never going to happen anyway. Ariel31459 (talk) 00:29, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

It's strange that all this talk is coming after the House actually passed a major infrastructure bill. Then again, most Americans hardly follow things like "legistlation" these days. Just based on articles like this, no one really seems to know really solid reasons for the drop, though the demographics suggest to me possibly that the progressive-and-racial-justice side of the party is tuning out right now, as the drop seems to be heavily from young people, women, and minorities. FDR had huge Congressional majorities in his favor, that's why he was able to get a lot of things done. A 50/50 Senate is not the recipe for much. Less will be done in the probable likelihood that the House flips, of course. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 02:39, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

NM proposes slight gerrymander

[1]. It would essentially take NM-02 where Yvette Harrel is, and make it slightly Democrat leaning or a tossup. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 15:22, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Swamp in need of draining at COP26 Summit

Campaigners led by Global Witness assessed the participant list published by the UN at the start of this meeting. They found that 503 people with links to fossil fuel interests had been accredited for the climate summit. These delegates are said to lobby for oil and gas industries, and campaigners say they should be banned. 1 What a bunch of concerned, honest citizens they are. Their pockets shall never be malnourished. God forbid. BumblingBuffoon (talk) 12:48, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

It does get confusing. On one hand the we are told we need a radical and immediate change to prevent a catastrophe, and on the other hand anyone who protests that nothing radical and immediate is being done are labelled dangerous, or subversive. What? Seriously, is the choice between the likes of Insulate Britain, extinction rebellion etc or a series long, protracted compromise sessions that change the focus.

Seems carbon isn't as bad this COP, it's now methane that's being touted as the big evil. When you see 503 people have links to carbon producing industries well, you'd clearly be mistaken to think that has anything at all to do with such changes. Cardinal Chang (talk) 16:18, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Insulate Britain are doing it wrong though, they aren't marching on No. 10, but rather blocking highways that could be needed for ambulances to pass, on top of an already stressed NHS. They have too much collateral, and their targets are so poorly chosen that it all looks bad and horrible and makes people out to be deranged if they're climate alarmists. The least they could do is glue their heads in the right places, but they don't. BumblingBuffoon (talk) 16:44, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

The reason this is the case is because many scientist now have doubts that Carbon Dioxide cause global warming. This article is from 2009. Inmate 809 (talk) 23:00, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Its a shame that climate alarmist have taken over the conversation about this issue. Inmate 809 (talk) 23:02, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

That first article may be from 2009, but rather than indicating some massive shift in the scientific consensus, it lists only one lone scientist: geologist H. Leighton Steward. I don't mean to poison any wells, but I gotta say, I don't trust someone who was formerly vice chairman of Burlington Resources, a Houston-based oil and gas company, on global warming. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 23:12, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, based on the first article in Wikpedia on Steward I Googled, he is pretty much one of those flat out denialists operating on the Upton Sinclair salary principle, to the point where this guy apparently made an advocacy advertisement that's one of the most laughable post hoc bullshitteries I've seen. Michael Shellenberger seems slightly more reasonable (indeed it's important not to get too apocalyptic about climate change), but the Wiki article seems to indicate that he's a techno-fetish types ("technology will solve everything!") and one of those types you see that will over-hype nuclear power as The Answer To Everything (not that it won't have some role, but it isn't a panacea). My impression of COP26 so far is that, like many similar shindigs, it's more of a dog and pony show than anything serious. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 00:08, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

This really should be put in many articles regarding Boris and his utter unsuitability for public office. This is from the London Assembly Mayor's Question Time September 2013. With Assembly member Jenny Jones taking BoJo to task over his, quite frankly, moronic opinions on climate change, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BeRok8UvzI Does it surprise you to find that this is the man who after his closing speech at COP26 in Glasgow, flew a private jet back to London so he could pamper and preen some trussed up halfwit he'd just made a lord Cardinal Chang (talk) 22:14, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

There's a very easy way for Europe and the US to transition to a low carbon grid; outsource all heavy industry to India and China. Not only do these countries have virtually no pollution controls so that the absolute cheapest and dirtiest of methods of energy generation are used, this has the added benefit of using cargo ships which run on bunker fuel, a fuel so thick and nasty it needs to be melted in order to flow into the engine.

Oh wait, this sounds awful...CorruptUser 22:39, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Not only does it sound awful, it's what has been happening for decades. Why do you think China is one of the largest polluters? They make all the shite people buy. And there is the crux. Fuck plastic recycling, yes it's important but it's a distraction. You're still consuming it, it's still in the packaging. Ideally we need to stop being consumers, but that's unlikely. But more realistically the corporations and banks are what need to be targeted Cardinal Chang (talk) 22:49, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

It varies by country. Germany imports $124 Billion from China, about $1500 per person. The US imports $460 Billion or about $1300 per person. The UK is $1100 per person, and France only $750. There needs to be a way to levy a tax based on a country's pollution, but it's hard to prove exactly how many KWh went into each ton of goods, etc. CorruptUser 23:09, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

A levy based on a countries pollution level? Considering the largest polluters are also the ones who dictate the rules, that is highly unlikely. And already tried with the joke that is carbon offsetting. Do you reckon the animated shag pile that quotes Piers Corbyn will agree to such a measure, particularly in light of his avowed refusal to honour The Good Friday Agreement and the recent Brexit deals with the EU?. Anyway, this is going off topic, the main issue is not plastic recycling. As plastic is still being consumed. It's a distraction, the US advertising campaign of an Indian by the road and litter bugs. OR, it's not corporations creating this mess, it's you lot not handling it correctly. Yeah. (Have you watched Dopesick yet, similar tactic, it's not our product causing these issues, it's the abusers who are responsible.) Cardinal Chang (talk) 23:46, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

When Santa Claus visits Ireland and the UK, does he get arrested for flying his sleigh under the influence of alcohol?

From what I heard, in Ireland for Christmas tradition kids leave out beer and meat pie for Santa while in the UK, kids leave out a cup of sherry and a meat pie. Pretty sure that he would get stinking drunk and fly his sleigh into a house. --Channel 48 EAS (talk) 21:21, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

what does he get stateside? working so late christmas eve, a small sherry is the least you do for the chap. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:36, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

”Sherry” I didn’t realise Santa Claus was one of the Crane brothers. If we cared about the mans feelings, we might even try to get him something he likes: Santa Claus is from Lapland, so if anything, I’d assume he’d be more of a vodka drinker. Leucippus^{Salva veritate} 01:41, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

They got dry counties over in the US with weird laws too, no drinking in a plane flying over a dry county used to be a law. As for Ireland, beer and a meat pie, possibly, in some cases a glass of whiskey and a glass of whiskey. Gotta keep warm in the cold. Cardinal Chang (talk) 21:46, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I think the "typical" US tradition is milk and cookies (perhaps "explaining" why the US Santa Claus depiction is more obese than other nation's depictions...) PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 21:55, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@AMassiveGay usually milk and cookies. If memory serves, there are regional variants. From what I also read, in Australia, Santa gets cookies and a cold mug of beer. God, Santa must be an alcoholic by now. Get him to rehab. --Channel 48 EAS (talk) 22:23, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

It's not a meat pie. It's a /mince pie, which nowadays contains only fruit, although it did evolve from a pie that contained meat. Spud (talk) 00:03, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

i cannot eat mince pies. i was convinced they contained meat in them, but even now i know they dont, still cant eat them because i cant shake the feeling theres meat in em. AMassiveGay (talk) 03:12, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I hope he saves some for the elves. I don't think he pays them, and I'm pretty sure that's illegal. DietMondrian (talk) 04:29, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Santa should probably bring a flask. Getting smashed on booze might not be good for the Christmas holiday. --Channel 48 EAS (talk) 23:24, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

We all knows what happens tomorrow.

Sunset immediately before DST in a NYC suburb at 5:50. Tomorrow at this time it’ll be pitch black.,Andrew5 mobile (talk) 21:53, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Time change ends. 06 UTC for ET, 07 in CT, 08 in MT, 09 in PT and 10 in Alaska. Enjoy seeing everyone's hours shift back one. Why not permanent? Because...darker mornings are a problem.American time change coming up November 7, Andrew5 (talk) 12:36, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Recently, I lost some money and had to do more work because daylight savings time starts on different dates in the USA/UK/Israel. I had no idea this was the case until I had to schedule some event/meeting times for people in different countries and the time zone issue threw a wrench in things to some extent.

I spent 15,000+ hours and thousands of dollars becoming educated and not one of my teachers mentioned the time/zone/countries issue. I was blindsided! I was I was robbed!

"...there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns — the ones we don't know we don't know." - Donald Rumsfield Dunbar (talk) 14:24, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

In some countries time changes can be linked down to the sub-county level. In Palestine which side of the street you're on can cause an officially recognized timezone change. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 16:05, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

In AZ we don’t pay no mind to DST. Personally I think it is asinine; just accept shorter days. As an aside, I am literally taking an exam in a few hours that I scheduled for “7:30 AZ time”, but the proctor actually expects me to be there at 7:30 Mountain Time. That is 6:30 AZ time, man. Probliknaut (talk) 00:10, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I envy the people of Arizona for this reason. (Well, aside from the ones in the Navajo nation I guess) Would be a nice place to live if it weren't for the fact that the Colorado River would be almost dry by the time that I'd be able to move there. Oh, and I'm not really a fan of the >100 degree Fahrenheit (>38 degree Celsius) heat. But it is a beautiful state Plutocow (talk) 01:41, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't move to Arizona, and even Hawaii is a bit humid. If I were to move to somewhere without DST, it wouldn't be Hong Kong due to extreme heat and humidity in the summer. Iceland is too cold. This article claims Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas are attempting to be on year round standard (CT parts) and New England to be on Atlantic time, standard. American time change coming up November 7, Andrew5 (talk) 02:06, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah don’t try to work on a roof when it’s 110 out. Or, consider how it is illegal to take your dog hiking with you if it’s over 100- that’s right, people are so dumb about hiking when it’s too hot that they had to make a law about it. But I am detracting from the theme of the post; We should all move past DST, it was a reasonable idea when more of the population farmed but come on, now. Probliknaut (talk) 04:09, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

DST serves some value, but not enough to stay in most places. For instance, in Maine, where solar noons go from 11:25 in Wells to 11:11 in Eastport today. Maine, and New England, should be on standard time in Atlantic, which is proposed. Andrew5 (talk) 13:03, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Here in Indiana, 'standard time' puts us 45 minutes ahead of the sun; DST changes that to 1:45 ahead. The problem is that we are in the wrong time zone. We should be in Central time, but the tendency of the government has been to put everyone on coastal time and squeeze out Central and Mountain. Ideally, we should all go back to local mean solar time, where the east side of an urban area may be several minutes faster than the west side. We now have GPS and the ability to do the math on the fly. And the removal of hourly synchronization means more slack for everybody. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 16:47, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but NYC is actually 6 minutes behind, DST makes them 54 minutes ahead. And in Eastport, they are 33 minutes behind. I have a feeling as to why. For instance, Rapid City is a bit ahead, but is also right on the border.Andrew5 (talk) 17:16, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Does this mean your rather confusing and slightly annoying signature will now be put to rest? Cardinal Chang (talk) 16:53, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but expect it to come back in late February. Andrew5 (talk) 17:13, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

The hour change has already happened in the UK. Perhaps Railway Time could be brought into the discussion (and the European city which had three different RTs as well as local time). Anna Livia (talk) 18:58, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but the US is by far the largest English speaking country. Although the EU does cover ~450 million people, more then the ~330 million of the USA, it's multilingual. However, ~370 million speak English. Great enough that it even beats it when Canada joins in. However, how many of them edit RW? The UK only has ~65 million, many of it is actually coming from other nations where people speak English as a 2nd language. Mexico, for example, goes with the EU. Australia...was actually 4 weeks earlier then even the EU. New Zealand is a week before Australia. Although ~15 million Americans do not use DST, that's true also. It's confusing. But the February-March sig probably won't change for Europe for 3 weeks but might. We'll see. Andrew5 (talk) 19:18, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I love a good sunset 131.242.7.111 (talk) 01:50, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but it gets depressing. In NYC the sunrise is 6:37am and the sunset is 4:42pm - here it is two minutes earlier. Those 4:40 sunsets do get depressing, and will continue to be before five until late January. Andrew5 (talk) 17:41, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

This website hurts my brain

https://essentialoiltherapy.org/en/naturally_negate_the_vax.php

There are just no words for this pseudoscience promotion. --Channel 48 EAS (talk) 21:03, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

You would think an electrical engineer would know better, but some don't. I haven't previously encountered someone kooky enough to combine sound healing terminology with essential oils, and add a heaping handful of COVID-19 denialism on top. But here we are. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 23:26, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I diagnose 'garbledegook-itis' (possibly of the 'galloping' kind).

'Various seemingly reputable sources on the web' suggest there may be side effects to consuming fennel tea as recommended on this website. Anna Livia (talk) 13:40, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Safe to say that the dude promoting this stuff has no concept of what prions are or general biology all together. --Channel 48 EAS (talk) 17:59, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Interestingly they have paired the right essential oil to do some derp with each vaccine brand. Interestingly though, Ravensera will work with all vaccine brands. That must be one versatile and powerful essential oil to counteract the bio-weapon properties of ALL THE EVIL VACCINE BRANDS! Does that essential oil contain particles of Jesus's mojo? ShabiDOO 23:26, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Bet that I could blend orange juice, vanilla extract and some CBD oil together and pass it off as a fake totally legit cure for COVID. --Channel 48 EAS (talk) 20:21, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Idea

Hey guys if we could check out RW:DUPLICATE that would be nice - quite the backlog. Andrew5 (talk) 02:14, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Needs a bunch of archiving and deciding things whose period of reasonable ballot submission is over. New to janitoring, who has the power to do that? armed_roomba (she/her)^{What am I doing wrong this time?} 02:22, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@Techpriest @Bongolian As main archivers or whatnot. Andrew5 (talk) 02:28, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

The problem with that page is that it's mostly left unused; usually if you have a duplicate people just try to merge content and then AfD it. Basically the reason for that is similar to what we have in our draft template. That page mostly just incentivizes jerking around the process rather than actually doing it. -- Techpriest (talk) 13:11, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I casted a vote when there was a split, I archived two 3+ year old entries as failed when consensus was against and merged an article. But there are still a lot of articles and also a lot of templating stuff. Andrew5 (talk) 16:28, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

We're banned in China

We did it, people! Interestingly enough, Conservapedia on the other hand is not blocked. Now we know which of our wikis the CCP prefers! NaturalNews is apparently also allowed as is Infowars. Plutocow (talk) 05:34, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Woohoo! Time to celebrate. CorruptUser 06:10, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I think I know why... Andrew5 (talk) 11:13, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Most recently we've had a few tankies try to talk shit on the Uighur genocide talk page, actually. But this site certainly has other juicy targets like the Tiananmen Square Massacre article. Our generally negative article on Falun Gong apparently isn't enough. :p PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 14:01, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

It's pretty hilarious that we are blocked and not the mad Christians.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 14:51, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

The only google company allowed in China is Google Maps, weirdly enough. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 15:08, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

China apparently hasn't seen Conservapedia's Tianamen article, which while kind of weird and poorly sourced (guess the Kenspam part!) is also pretty negative towards the CCP (as it should be, of course). And they have not one but two articles on Uighur. Grumbling about China is generally bipartisan in America these days. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 15:18, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I wonder if China intentionally kept Conservapedia and InfoWars unblocked to foster negative sentiments of Americans among the Chinese. It's easier to attack a far-right strawman than to deal with people with more nuanced political views. LongStylus (talk) 15:44, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Doesnt China like trump or something? Also, maybe Ken is from China. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 15:54, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Let's see if we can get banned in Russia, Myanmar, Cuba, North Korea, Israel and Pakistan. --Channel 48 EAS (talk) 21:28, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't quite understand the enthusiasm about being blocked. It's not really a good thing, is it? Conservapedia is an authoritarian blather blog. The CCP understands that pretty well and they know the people will not take to it.. Social justice topics are, on the other hand, not what the chairman for life wants his people reading now, or ever. UncleKrampus (talk) 01:55, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

The Laws of Stupidity

"Carlo M. Cipolla, a professor of economic history at the University of California - Berkeley, introduced a set of laws no less revelatory than those of Kepler or Newton: The Basic Laws of Human Stupidity." [2] The definition of stupidity given by the professor is fascinating: "A stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person or to a group of persons while himself deriving no gain and even possibly incurring losses." The first two laws are quite alarming 1) inevitably one underestimates the number of stupid people in circulation, and appallingly. 2)"The probability that a certain person will be stupid is independent of any other characteristic of that person." 3) "Non-stupid people always underestimate the damaging power of stupid individuals. In particular non-stupid people constantly forget that at all times and places and under any circumstances to deal and/or associate with stupid people always turns out to be a costly mistake." and finally 4) "a stupid person is the most dangerous kind of a person." Perhaps this paper is article-worthy. Zatoichi (talk) 03:06, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

If we are talking making another page, I'm seconding this. An Advocate (talk) 03:23, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Given this is from the field of economics and not the field of psychology, I'm skeptical. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 04:32, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

And given that the statements are simply affirmed and not (as far as I can see) backed up by any data I share your skepticism.

If it's just meant to be funny then that's cool. But it's presented as some grand universal "scientific" discovery - and it's certainly not that. Any potential article should focus on its flaws and not promote it as "fact".Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 09:20, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

From the unsourced Wiki on the guy and Amazon reviews of the re-published companion piece to this opus, where the development of the Middle Ages was explored via the so-called aphrodisiac properties of black pepper (tee hee), I think this guy was just "taking the piss" in a deadpan scholarly manner, as it were (basically these were joke docs among fellow historians, it seems). Though, the fact that there are 948 reviews for the Amazon re-publication of the stupidity snark suggests there might be a bit of truth to his postulate, though in a more Dunning-Kruger way than true dunce. Everyone is the smartest person ever and all people not the poster are all ignorant dunces, and most of the Reddit comment section will be happy to inform you of this ad nauseam. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 12:57, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I thought stupidity was just ignorance. If someone does something which disadvantages them but they don't know why it would or made an error in predicting the outcome, that's an error based around ignorance with the intent to gain a material advantage in some way. That's stupid, and it is just an inherent part of not being omniscient and taking risks that you'll do a stupid thing in your life. It doesn't account for people who are intentionally self-destructive out of spitefulness, which is worse than stupidity, for example, this is a common vein in conservatism especially among the more ignorant. Some asshole liberal will usually come along, out of an understandable human impatience with people who are ignorant, and will abuse or bully them because they aren't giving them the result they want. That then causes the conservative to become spiteful as fuck because getting back at the abuser even at a cost to themselves is more important than a "good life", it's about dignity. BumblingBuffoon (talk) 11:51, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Although, they are still stupid, because when I am dead, they will be wading in the shit sewer they put themselves in, and be both angry at a corpse and incapable of getting out of their own hell. BumblingBuffoon (talk) 11:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Since my teens, I've philosophized a little about stupidity as follows: Intelligence obviously (lots of evidence) doesn't exclude stupidity, so the two are not opposites. Rather, greater intelligence seems to bring the possibility of more high-powered stupidity. While with very little intelligence, someone could be "as dumb as a rock", rocks don't do much of anything, whereas a supermind gone wrong could do a whole lot. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 12:43, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

On ignorance: Worse than a knowledge gap is a maturity gap, I think. One aspect of "maturity" is relating to the world in a way that recognizes lack of knowledge and constructively does something about it. Maturity is somewhat subjective, though, in that it's tied to both personality structure and to values (or what is striven for). --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 13:06, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Just gonna point out we already have a page on this. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 13:14, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Ah yes! Though perhaps it would be better placed in "funspace"-Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 10:12, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Wow, why are these people so obsessed with gender?

So I just read the clog of Lily Cade. Why does she, and other people, care so fucking mutch about what other people do with their bodies and how they want to be treated? It devolves into a massive tirade about some crazy desire for impossibly machismo men and getting really really obsessed at the idea of "weakness". Like holy shit, if someone feels uncomfortable in their body and want to change it, why would you get any say in that? It reminds me of a time where my mother got really upset when she found out my cat was named "miss kitty" even though it was a boy (sad story behind the name), but she got super offended and said I had to rename it (I didn't and she backed down). But it left me wondering: Holy shit why do you people care so much about whether things are gendered so specifically? A cat literally doesn't care what it's name is. If someone politely requests that I refer to them a certain way, as long as it isn't some megalomaniacal request to be called a god or king or whatever, it's just the polite thing to do to oblige. Like holy fuck why do these people care so much? MirrorIrorriM (talk) 14:55, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Listen to your mother. Mother knows best. Dunbar (talk) 18:06, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I found it interesting that the linked news story called that person an "anti-trans activist". For me, 'activist' always means some unwholesome combination of 'zealot' and 'busybody' and this definitely confirms my impression. And your question is always relevant - why indeed is anyone invested so deeply in that sort of thing? Even if she held those opinions, doesn't she have any brakes, any competing values like 'live and let live'? What makes an evangelist an evangelist, really? Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 15:45, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Some people are really raised with a "this is the right way" mentality to life? Transphobia goes beyond that, but it seems like a very rigid adherence to rules of what can and cannot be. Not even based on fact. They're absolutely wrong, yes, they will keep on though. People who keep trying to force their views on others, such as heteronormative values, traditional gender roles, traditional gender identities, have a deep sense of entitlement to tell others how they can live and can't live. They feel as if, for some reason, they have any moral rights to tell people what to do. In the case of Christianity, it is actually an emergency from their perspective. Think of it like this, you've been told and you believe truly that if you can't convince someone to see your point of view that they will burn in hell for eternity, from your perspective (you believe this) it is rational to treat people who don't conform to your beliefs as people in burning houses. You will say to yourself "it is for the greater good, I am saving them." Because you again, are truly deluded into believing that hell is real and is a real consequence for them, and only Christianity can save them from that. That makes your actions rational, assuming that what you believe is true. Of course, I am not Christian, so I don't suffer this delusion.

For some transphobes, there is a mislead aspect, and that's when it comes to children and medical interventions. People don't get it, so they're reactionary, they'll ban puberty blockers, or say that you can't force your 'ideology' onto kids, completely missing the point that this isn't how real transgender people work. This is assuming a naive interpretation of a transphobe's actions. In reality, very nasty people exist that want to hurt you. BumblingBuffoon (talk) 15:58, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

It's normalization, basically. To the average TERF, trans people are an external other, a threat to a worldview constructed in a world without trans people. It's no coincidence that a lot of TERFs are second wave feminists, as feminist theory from that time is about the essentiallized otherness of the masculine, rather than about social and power dynamics. This forms the basis for more recent TERFs, as their premise is more able to draw people in with its portrayal of "good" and "bad" rather than a holistic understanding of behavior and its consequences. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 16:43, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

When I was still in college back in the 1980s, and a bit more current on feminist theory, it always struck me as odd how little of it seemed to be about women. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 18:22, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

It's always strange to me when someone from a marginalized group (in this case, homosexuals) attacks another marginalized group (in this case, transsexuals). In this case, said lesbian bigot is largely wielding a bullshit stereotype that also has falsely dogged the marginalized group of the bigot (pedophilia). And in this case she also is using violent language that would be rather similar to, say, what a Russian homophobe would say about lesbians. Someone hasn't learned many lessons in life here... PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 18:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

How is this in any way surprising? LGBTQ+ is an umbrella of groups with different goals. Gays and Lesbians have more or less the same goal, e.g., legalizing Gay marriage or same-sex adoptions, but those goals are irrelevant if you are a straight(ish?) Transwoman, whereas Lesbians aren't worried about the bathroom. CorruptUser 19:13, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

It's not surprising at all, a lot of people have blinders about anyone outside their own group, the marginalized included. (Right off the bat, for instance, I remember that famed homosexual advice doler Dan Savage for a long time couldn't comprehend the concept of bisexuals existing.) However, a common goal among all these groups is reducing discrimination. One would think that one whose group is often the recipient of vile bigoted speech would be a little more cautious at spouting vile bigoted speech. But alas, people are all too human... PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 19:56, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Again, not surprising at all given we've given various groups a pass for racism or sexism or other bigotry if they themselves were also marginalized. That's kind of the entire point of the whole Regressive Left argument. Lily has spent her whole life being able to say "I'm a Lesbian, so I can say whatever I want about them queers". CorruptUser 20:07, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

There are a host of issues that will generate opposing views. Gender is one of them. Race and taxation are some others. The truth is, that's the way it is. People are vile and bigoted about all sorts of issues. Unfortunately the most effective way to cause social discontents to aggregate into permanent clans is to campaign against their vile bigotry. "Calling out" may work on individuals, but bigots can form mobs too, and then they will likely never change.UncleKrampus (talk) 21:36, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

After looking at the article it has some stereotypical ways that trans women interact with others as well, this is from the BBC article and goes to show what people assume of most transgender interactions in the first place. ""There's a common argument that they try and use that goes 'What if you met a woman in a bar and she's really beautiful and you got on really well and you went home and you discovered that she has a penis? Would you just not be interested?'" says Jennie, who lives in London and works in fashion." Okay, so first of all when you're transgender, you are acutely aware of your sex, moreso than anyone else in the world, and part of getting into any sexual encounter for trans people involves disclosing to people well in advance that you are actually male sexed. The longer you wait, the more risk you are putting on yourself to be assaulted, in some cases killed in 'trans panic' defences. The article makes absolutely no effort to check how common these situations are and invites the reader to draw conclusions about trans people as a whole. Secondly, the idea that people are anti-trans activists is completely false, you cannot be an anti-trans activist for the same reason you are not called an activist if you are trying to rally against black rights. You are a racist, or a transphobe, that is not activism. It is not dignified by being associated with anything even close to activism, so they can fuck right off trying to rebrand themselves as anything even close to that.

Another shitnugget of falsehood in the article is this one; "Jennie is a lesbian woman. She says she is only sexually attracted to women who are biologically female and have vaginas. She therefore only has sex and relationships with women who are biologically female. Jennie doesn't think this should be controversial, but not everyone agrees. She has been described as transphobic, a genital fetishist, a pervert and a "terf" - a trans exclusionary radical feminist." She ain't being called a radfem because of this view, way more likely she is called transphobic because she explicitly is, and she just happens to hold these views which are not controversial, even among transgender people, who are completely fine with people being able to say no to sex for any fucking reason, because trans people understand what consent is. To suggest otherwise is to suggest trans people as a whole do not understand consent, that people can say no for any reason, and to paint yourself as a victim for views unrelated in most likelihood to the real reason people are calling you an asshole. Damn right there is a reason she's called a TERF. As for those entitled people who do argue this? Show me one and I'll call them out easily, and so will the vast majority of trans people and feminists.

Further the article author goes on to highlight their own inadequacy as a journalist; "Several people got in touch with me to say there was a "huge problem" for lesbians, who were being pressured to "accept the idea that a penis can be a female sex organ". I knew this would be a hugely divisive subject, but I wanted to find out how widespread the issue was. Ultimately, it has been difficult to determine the true scale of the problem because there has been little research on this topic"" She admits the research on this is basically non-existent besides a survey, which she doesn't even link, so she has relied entirely on anecdotal evidence to push a narrative that this behaviour is a "yuge problem". That's pathetic and irresponsible of her, when dealing with a group of people who get killed over shitty reporting like this. BBC has fucking no journalistic standards, Caroline Lowbridge should be blacklisted until she can learn not to spin anecdotes as 'facts'. BumblingBuffoon (talk) 04:32, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Also what the hell is the deal with "oh this person I like has a sex organ I don't want"? Is it THAT much of a different issue than "oh I'm het and I'm attracted to this man, but this man is gay"? --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 04:57, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Uh, no, "activism" is a broad term for anyone "actively" working towards a socio-political (or environmental, etc) goal, whether that goal is noble or not. A person that wants to reinstate segregation is a giant twat. A person working to reinstate segregation is and activist, but also a giant twat. Trying to redefine words just so only you get to decide who gets described by them is like those people trying to redefine the word "racism" so that a Black guy beating up a guy because he's Korean is somehow not a hate crime.

As for the survey you wanted a link to? It's from "Get the L Out". As in, "Get the 'L' out of 'LGBT'", i.e., TERFs that also hate gay men and probably think bisexual women have cooties or something. CorruptUser 05:13, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much, BumblingBuffoon, for using Actual Words to express my absolute disgust and rage at this article 💜 ASELA^{និយាយ} 💜 03:42, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

"Gender" comprises all ideas we have about our life on this planet that are contingent on the development of sexual dimorphism, physical and mental. The physical is the obvious part. The less obvious, indeed, the reactively unknown part, is what the mind makes of these differences. There is symbolic meaning that we just don't understand completely. What turns out to be one or the other can be unpredictable. In most Romantic languages every noun has a masculine or feminine article associated with it, though some as "cat" in Spanish may have either depending on the sex of the animal, something beyond mere convention demands the distinction. Chomskians would recognize the possibility that gender signals have a structural foundation in the human mind as a corollary to Chomsky's theory of language acquisition. The human way of thinking can be anchored in such modes of thought and then, try as we might to change or discharge that fare, it remains as a stubborn passenger. Ariel31459 (talk) 17:05, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Lily's Bio

Just a reminder, here's Lily Cade's classic Cracked article. The Beeb had an article that also included her, about lesbians being pressured into sex with transwomen... but then apparently the BBC removed her portion from the article after Lily's tirade. If I remember correctly, her portion of the article had her claiming that she approved of sex with another pornstar but then backed out when she found out the other woman, Drew DeVeaux, was a Transwoman. Given her later revealed stances on Transwomen, it's hard to imagine she's an unbiased source so the Beeb had a valid reason to remove her quotes. That said, Lily was absolutely within her right to refuse to film a scene with DeVeaux, even though Lily is a huge bigot and should not have been such a b-word towards DeVaux. No one, absolutely no one, should ever be pressured or guilt-tripped into sex with anyone, and no one should ever be harassed for refusing sex, no matter how bigoted their reasons are. No exceptions. Thinking you are entitled to sex from someone or that someone should be shamed/humiliated for refusing sex is literally "rape culture". CorruptUser 17:51, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Addendum, there's a remote possibility this is all Kayfabe, and that Lily missed her calling as a professional wrestler. Think about it, all Lily needs to do now is have some sort of sexual awakening with a Trans pornstar and boom, that sells more movies than all her previous ones combined. CorruptUser 18:00, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Funny story - at first I thought turf was spelled terf, and we all know what terf stands for...American time change coming up November 7, Andrew5 (talk) 18:43, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Also, here's Lily Cade's bizarre blog, on Newsweek. Just, what the ever loving fuck is wrong with her? That multi-page screed looks like something someone writes before bringing a gun into a high school. I couldn't read it all. Transwomen are "pedophiles"? What. Did I miss when "pedophile" became the new "Hitler"? What happened to Lily that she has all this rage? CorruptUser 19:29, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Ok, this gets more interesting.

Ever hear of the "cotton ceiling"? The difficulty that Transwomen have when trying to date?

The term was created by Drew DeVeaux, in part because of Lily Cade's refusal to do a scene after initially agreeing to.

Apparently, Lily has had numerous issues and insults thrown her way over her refusal to do scenes with Transwomen. Is Lily bigoted and Transphobic? Yes. But under no circumstances should anyone ever be pressured into sex, no matter the case, and all the people who have ever insulted her for refusing to do those scenes can go to Hell whether or not Lily will be there as well.

Edit; even more craziness. Apparently, Lily was accused of sexually assaulting numerous women herself... CorruptUser 21:32, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

i believe an aggravating factor amongst all this, is who we consider the 'enemy'. for cade, a lesbian, perhaps the political kind, the enemy is men. for a certain kind of feminist, the enemy is men. for women in general, to some degree, the enemy is men. there are very good reasons for mem to be considered the enemy - patriarchal societies and women as second citizens. here though, the biggest and most important reason why men be considered the enemy is sexual violence. overwhelmingly, men are the aggressors. women are overwhelmingly the victims. in parts of the world, rape is endemic. in parts of the world rape is a weapon of war. it is a weapon of control. even western liberal democracies, suposedly 'safe' countries, women are fearful of being out alone after dark. one two many baileys and your taxi driver will rape you. you cannot trust the police not to rape and murder even, and if you report a rape its your own fault for being a slag and your rapist gets high fives from his bros. i dont think you need to be a particularly rabid feminazi, to hold this view of men, you dont require massive levels of misandry to consider men to be at the very least a 'problem' in this regard. its for these reasons legislation exists, charities, halfway houses, refuge - all existing for the protection and the benefit of survivors of sexual violence. that is, to protect women from men. men are the enemy, men are the rapists. women are always the victims of men. it is women that men rape. and men will rape you. in room, a women on her own in a room with a man, he will rape her. any opportunity, he will rape her. he is a man. its what men do. they are the enemy.

consider then that women may consider woman only environments essential for their own safety. somewhere they can relax amongst other women. in safety, free from men. free from rape. this is strength in this solidarity against men, in this sisterhood. there bodies, their choice. a woman has the right to deny men access to their bodies. a woman has the right not to be raped. she is not the property of man to be possessed by a man, to be bought and sold and bred like cattle.a women has the fundamental right to say no. i suspect there are few would disagree with this.

consider then womans only environments now feature men contained within. the refuge was free from men and male violence. now it is just another place to be raped. consider that you are now an intolerant bigot for resisting the advances of men into womans territory, worse still, you are an intolerant bigot for resisting mens sexual advances. you do not have the fundamental right to say no. men have the right to rape you.

you can see what i did there, right? for some people, for some women, there is no difference between men and transwomen. if you have the genitalia for rape, you are a man and always will be a man. i dont exactly agree with that, but i can understand why transwomen might engender some anxiety in some peoples. i believe this a big factor in peoples discourse around gender. why it is so emotive for some women, inspiring so much vitriol. sexual violence is a real problem in society. its a real issue for womem, a real fear. for to many its not just a threat of violence but a lived experience. i can see why there might be anxiety over admittance of transwomen into some womens only spaces. there is no fear of women being raped by transwomen. women fear being raped by men. its a mistake to dismiss those fears, a mistake to dismiss the opinions of those for having these fears. anger can be expected when the distinction between man and transwoman is not so distinct, not so clear cut. here in the saloon bar a little while back the only clear distinction between man and transwoman was literally rape.

lily cade's screed was all kinds of phobic bile. no question about that. but we should be careful in how to respond to such bile, particularly when they might voice possible fears and anxieties shared by more than just radicals and nutjobs. we should take care to dispel such anxieties and to not just tell concerned woman to suck it up. we should be very concerned when the response includes an implication that woman do not have a fundamental right to say no, as has been the case with cade. i sincerely hope that is and shall remain a very fringe view AMassiveGay (talk) 16:59, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Lily's screed mentioned Michfest, a lesbian-only music festival (that used the term "womyn" in its promos, I actually hadn't encountered that term in recent memory) that apparently in recent years was controversial for not allowing trans women. In reading things about that controversy, my impression is that there's sort of a divide between some of the older generation of LG activists (the fest was founded in the 1970s) and the newer generation, as has kind of been alluded to. The old school might not necessarily be quite as comfortable with gender dysphoria due it not being as visible in their formative years.

I agree that blindly throwing "transphobic" on everything is counterproductive. Some issues are fairly legitimate and difficult, in my opinion (e.g. transsexuals in sports, there is no question of the role of testosterone in athletics, which makes this issue very thorny). Some issues people raise, you do want to acknowledge points outside either of the current narratives. (Hormone treatment / surgery, for instance... for all the hysterics, I feel that the cosmetic surgery industry is *really* good at overselling and pressuring, IMHO, so caveat emptor for any trangender individual pursuing that route, which is no different than *any* advice I'd say in the cosmetic end, really be sure that this *is* what you want. At the same time, to the naysayers who are hysterical about hormones and surgery even for those who do really know what they want, shut up). Other things (bathrooms) really are overblown and are more phobias, but as you say it comes from a legitimate paradigm of general female safety concerns.

On the other hand, when will we get to that point where sober discussion happens? It's not like it's just Twitter mobs with bad hysterics on transgender. It is actually a bit troubling, and perhaps showing just where we are these days, that some very respectable British media (Guardian, Economist, and the BBC, at minimum) has in the last couple years produced either some awful reporting on transgendered issue and/or is making mountains out of a molehill (eg don't you have more important things to report on?). The BBC report that shone a spotlight on Lily Cade for instance was just a hysterical narrative based on a few anecdotes. Hard not to say something transphobic is going on when you suddenly decide that stooping to New York Post levels of journalism is a great idea. Obviously, no means no, and there are bad apples in every minority group, so it's not like the story wasn't possibly "technically correct" (if the anecdotes were accurate and not hysterical, that is, and given Lily's meltdown that's not a given). However, the framing was very much "trans boogeyman".

I mean, let's take that story and change the target only just a little:. What if some news organization created an article that said "we're being pressured into homosexual sex", with the story consisting of nothing but a few straight male quotes that create a narrative of extensive gay men come-ons and maybe a few allusions to some good ol' fear of homosexual rape or something? Experienced news readers would know exactly what that type of story was trying to do: stir up shit. It's no different than the BBC story, its aim appeared to be more shit-stirring then discussion. Transphobic might be the wrong term to throw at this reporter, actually (the story is, of course, but let's hit them where it hurts). With a few more scare quotes and allusions to getting cancer, that story would've easily fit in the Daily Mail. I wonder how the BBC would feel if I told them that. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 18:14, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

IIRC, DeVeaux was post-op, so she didn't have the "tools" (heh) for rape. It's a bit hypocritical of Lily to freak out at the idea of sex with Trans considering that, as she stated years ago in her Cracked article, a good number of her partners were not attracted to women and she would warm them up, just as she was not attracted to Trans. After finding out about the sexual assaults, umm... it's amazing how many things are obvious red flags in retrospect. As an aside, I think "tool'o'rape" would be a rather black-comedy term for penis.

But this does bring up a good question regarding Safe Spaces. How exclusionary can they be to make its members comfortable before they become too exclusionary? CorruptUser 19:21, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

when posting above i had in my mind womens refuges, for domestic and sexual abuse survivors. i believe thats where elements specific to transwomen start to grow in significance while at the same time the vulnerability of the people in need such refuges demands more than an arbitrary bar to decide who gets help and who does not. this is what i find appalling about the whole bathrooms nonsense. thats a debate over nothing that encourages empty with us or against us posturing. that same posturing is inappropriate for discussion of who can be admitted to a refuge. the help these places provide is vital to those in need of it. no one should be denied access or alternatively automatically given access purely because a particular box is ticked, regardless on their suitability, which should always be decided on a case by case basis. here loud posturing can cost lives when it influences who gets treatment, or who it dissuades from seeking help they'd otherwise need. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:26, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I am trying very hard to find a way to express myself “calmly” and “rationally” here, and I really didn’t want to say anything about this. But I do need to say one thing: this genocidal piece of shit wants to murder me and everyone like me, and the literal BBC has essentially endorsed her. I don’t know how I’m supposed to act like any other part of this discussion is relevant, I don’t know how I’m supposed to soberly consider The Concerns of the person who wants to eradicate me, and to be honest, I am only just barely maintaining my composure. I don’t have anything insightful to say except, I guess, please understand how horrific this shit is to deal with for ppl like me. shit sucks. 💜 ASELA^{និយាយ} 💜 17:47, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

The recent BBC story on so called "trans people guilting lesbians into having sex" made me want to fucking retch. If there is any doubt how much more palatable transphobia is than racism at the moment...one only need substitute the transphobic elements with racism and see how such a story would NOT have been published by the BBC. If it were a story of "black men guilt tripping white women" into having sex with them, the entirety of the evidence being a few people's personal experience and that they swear they've heard so many other people relay the same...that journalist would have a hard time finding work again for years, the editor would have been immediately sacked and the blow back would have been huge (rightly so). This kind of shit would have been fairly normal and not that controversial only decades ago. History repeats itself with this kind of shit, showing that trans-people are an easy target for vile journalism of this sort, even on the BBC. Because...uh...we need to have a discussion about something that...uhhh...might be prevalent, we aren't sure, but better to publish shit that might just uh possibly be as bad as we assume it is and make trans-people's lives more difficult...than the terrible consequences of not publishing a trans-panic. To show the impact of this, I went to an LGBTQ+ event this week, and several Lesbians talked about the piece as though it was true and are now afraid of the potential trans-menace and want a "conversation" on the potential dangers trans people pose to their community. This kind of trash journalism, based on anecdotal evidence, pointlessly makes lives of some of the most vulnerable groups...worse. It shows how vicious our caveman brains can be, even in so called progressive "safespaces" of European public broadcasting where the BBC defended this as responsible journalism presenting "multiple voices". Bigoted hate-inspiring fear-inspiring shit is just presenting multiple voices. I don't understand how a racist piece would be unacceptable, but a transphobic one is "fair journalism". Human beings are the embarrassment of the universe. If aliens ever show up and talk to me, I will lie and say I am just an alien in disguise from the Zorg-Blarq nebulae. ShabiDOO 01:11, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

We're definitely on the better end of the species though. We've barely made it to space before wiping ourselves out, which is clearly better than most. It's mostly a question now if we are able to cooperate with each other well enough to avoid causing our own extinction, and nuclear weapons aren't even the worst thing we have the tech to do right now. CorruptUser 02:51, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Update: Lily Cade's videos have been removed from the bigger porn sites. CorruptUser 06:09, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Another journalist compared trans women to Jimmy Savile, I sent them a complaint that at least they don't force me to pay license fees to a corporation that fucking made Jimmy Savile. They're fighting back on this and it's not looking good on them, what the fuck is with the recent transphobia craze? Did they all start fearing being emasculated again? I have no idea why we're still forced to pay for this shit, it isn't like the BBC can remain impartial on any issue as long as they get on their knees for whoever is in power, which at present is the typical transphobes the Tories. As long as they're in power it is unlikely there will be any official punishments or government pressure from higher up for them to change their ways. TheGuardian is doing a lot better and unlike the BBC they aren't state subsidized. Transphobes on welfare. BumblingBuffoon (talk) 21:35, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Infrastructure bill passes

[3] Andrew5 (talk) 01:56, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Good.

Hopefully not the last thing that'll be done in the soon to be two remaining years. I've noticed that compared to Trump, time has passed very quickly for Biden, it felt like a lifetime to deal with those four years. BumblingBuffoon (talk) 20:51, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

YouTube has removed dislikes

Or at least they’re public ratings. Now no one will know just how bad Rewind 2018 was. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 17:33, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Not a fan. Dislike bombs will still be seen by the creators and still affect recommendations, but now you can't just glance at the dislike ratio to see if a video is a scam. armed_roomba (she/her)^{What am I doing wrong this time?} 17:34, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Same but I am actually about to watch a movie so gtg for the next 3 hrs. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 18:00, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Just take the number of likes and divide it by the number of views. The higher the number, the more likely the video is good. LongStylus (talk) 18:37, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

This makes zero difference to me. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:58, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I think it's Orwellian, TBH. Seeing a video is massively disliked lets everyone know that hey, there's a large segment of people that dislike this thing and that it's ok to dislike this thing. Without it, everything you see is approved by everyone. Sure, you'll have lots of people going to a video just to dislike it such as this Fauci puff piece, but I always Approve of people Disapproving of those in charge...CorruptUser 19:18, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Stupid as something really, really stupid. Though hardly the first moronic decision that YouTube has made. Knight Commander^{In Service}_{To Her}^Goatness 19:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Look, it's happening already! Knight Commander can't even think of a proper comparison, because our entire world has been so compromised with Newspeak that we can't even think bad thoughts about our techlords! Wake up people! CorruptUser 19:44, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah whatever. English idioms are not my strong suit anyway. Knight Commander^{In Service}_{To Her}^Goatness 20:09, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

It should be noted though, that even in the past the dislikes have only counted in the videos. Not so much in comments. You could dislike comments, but that wouldn't show in the count. Only the likes matter, because our society tries to brainwash us into positivity. Fucking society! Knight Commander^{In Service}_{To Her}^Goatness 20:13, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

But if we are all positive, then someone only being somewhat positive is the new negative. It's the hedonic treadmill, or something. CorruptUser 07:00, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Depends what you mean by "in the past". Disliking comment used to be visible. I can't remember now if it was a separate count or if it was an overall count (i.e. liking would count as +1 disliking would count as -1 and so if the comment had more dislikes then likes it would be -X etc) but it was definitely was visible in some way. According to various discussions, it was removed at the time of Google+ integration so I guess may not be quite the same thing as this change [4] [5] [6]. Although I also wonder whether the reason Google+ didn't have dislike is similar (remember also it was supposed to be competing with Facebook) and likewise the reason they never bothered to add it back even though Google+ died. Nil Einne (talk) 06:23, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

This change seems like a complete non-issue. The parts of YouTube that actually matter, because of their invisible, pervasive, influence, are the ones that select which videos are shown to you at the first place. Those are secret algorithms, they rely on secret data, and they are constantly being manipulated by both Google themselves and by spammers. Pyro (talk) 22:39, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't see the point, most YouTube videos have a completely skewed like to dislike ratio because typically the only people interested in that video are people who are already predisposed to like that content. If they remove the public dislike counter, you basically just remove the ability to see which videos are being brigaded, and that sucks. BumblingBuffoon (talk) 12:23, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

More importantly, 1.1m people worked together to make sure this video had an equal number of likes and dislikes. All that work for nothing. CorruptUser 16:35, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

This one had 2.6 million people, close to the population of Chicago. Andrew5 (talk) 19:50, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

You can still see dislikes on a phone. CorruptUser 17:26, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

this makes absolutely zero difference to anyone. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:38, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Seeing a big dislike ratio on things you dislike, such as Nintendo Switch Online can be satisfying but I actually don't care if dislikes are removed. Twitter doesn't have a dislike, neither does Facebook. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 18:44, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Twitter has "ratioed" though. Furthermore, those are Social Media, it's a bit different to be able to Dislike someone's wedding photos and Dislike a trailer for "Plandemic". CorruptUser 20:38, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

True, but can comment sections not be a substitute for ratios? --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 20:46, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Suck it, Spammers!

Another filter successfully tweaked/added to frustrate the spammers! Booyah, mother-****ers! Oh yeah! In yo face!!!! CorruptUser 23:07, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Why do we not have a proper page on critical race theory yet?

— 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 ^{talk stalk} 10:16, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Because no one has made one yet? 2A01:388:3F5:161:0:0:1:80 (talk) 15:34, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I've been wondering about this too. Alas, the fearmongering around it is so bad that I struggle to figure out what it really exactly is. Definitely worth an article, I just don't want to be the one to write it (so it will likely never get made). armed_roomba (she/her)^{What am I doing wrong this time?} 19:15, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Good question. Can't believe that there's not even a page on this. The video is pretty good, asides from the disgusting burping! LongStylus (talk) 22:01, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok I am a bit of an idiot can someone please explain to me what is critical race theory? BeardOfZeus (talk) 22:11, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

One of two things.

The real thing is an obscure academic left-wing movement which seeks to, quoting Wikipedia,"examine the intersection of race and US law and to challenge mainstream American liberal approaches to racial justice."

The more common usage of the term is "anything that talks about race in a way that triggers a conservative." Think of it like the way Republicans use the word "socialism-" sure socialism is a real thing but they just use it to caricature any policy they don't like.-Flandres (talk) 22:20, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

So it one of those bogey men concepts like "Cultural Marxist". Ok. BeardOfZeus (talk) 00:19, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Odds are, if you hear the phrase, they're talking about the bogeyman. But what are good sources for the original academic version? If the Robin Di Angelo cult is in any way representative, we have some serious debunking to do there as well. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 04:26, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

NYTimes has an informative article on the history of CRT, https://www.nytimes.com/article/what-is-critical-race-theory.html (if the site nags you for payment, grab bypass paywalls addon for firefox)Cardinal Chang (talk) 14:35, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Looking at the NYTimes explanation of it, I am conceptualizing it as a study of systemic racism, how systemic racism exists, and its effects. Which all sounds fine to me. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory#Systemic_racism_denialists Looking around the wiki on this topic, I'm starting to see why the right-wing hates it. Because they hate anything at all which grants legitimacy to the idea that systemic modes of oppression exist and have existed, if you've ever been involved in debates on systemic racism, you'll probably gel with CRT. Basically, CRT is the framework for understanding systemic racism, it explores the legal frameworks that allow that phenomenon to exist in the first place. This is very similar to how feminism is also about understanding women's inequality on a systemic level, only applied to race. BumblingBuffoon (talk) 21:54, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Do you mean Robin Di Angelo and "White Fragility"? Yeah I have read that book, and I find the book... problematic. BeardOfZeus (talk) 04:25, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Her and Ibram Kendi aren't exactly CRT, as in the legal theory, but are the most vocal people trying to carry those ideas over into mainstream society. I'm sure someone could do it well, but certainly not them. As for DiAngelo, anyone who can fuck up Jackie Robinson's legacy that bad has completely lost me. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:04, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah the baseball player DiAngelo was talking about? BeardOfZeus (talk) 05:09, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, him (my grandmother personally knew his wife Rachel, she still lives here in CT). Exactly nobody (except her at some point in her life, maybe?) thinks he was the first black baseball player good enough to make it in Major League Baseball, to call that tendentious would be an insult to every other tendentious argument I've ever come across. Come on, all baseball fans know his place, it's why they retired his number across baseball (Rachel is very happy that Mariano Rivera was the last player to wear 42, if ever someone carried on his legacy on and off the field during his career it was Rivera with his nerves of steel as he set an unbreakable save record). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:20, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Oh yes and that all white people are racist according to Di Angelo. We are just so fragile to accept the truth. BeardOfZeus (talk) 07:00, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Learning from example, Jim Crow laws with a critical race theory lens

To understand how critical race theory works, and thus to understand the concept at all, it can be useful to try to apply the concepts of CRT to an existing historical example, in that sense you can easily grasp what is going on. So let's look at Jim Crow laws, and let's use a critical race theory approach.

Jim Crow Laws were racist laws that directly affected the lives of black people, through segregation, denial of services, denial of opportunity, entrenchment of generational wealth that enabled future generations of racial inequality to occur down the line. A critical race theorist appears to say that "these laws were not the result of racism of individuals, but rather than racism results from the laws", which I don't think holds water. It seems impossible to me to say that these racist laws didn't exist because individuals were not explicitly racist, at least on a surface level. To know about how people became racist, you would also have to examine the historical context of racism, when it first appeared in the U.S, or perhaps existed even before that point in some way. (You remember this idea that no-one was originally racist, but they became racist because they had to dehumanize black people to make whites more amenable to the idea of their exploitation? The ill-gotten riches of that practice no doubt would have had some convincing power. It's also worth noting today that, in the west, slavery has been outsourced to China, and there will no doubt be similar arguments about the economic impacts of not allowing the import of goods obtained from Uyghur internment camps).

This is a first big hurdle, how do we verify that the Jim Crow laws preceded the racism of the individuals? It seems very unlikely to me, and easily verifiable. Slavery had existed, and was a racist practice in the US since it's founding a full century before Jim Crow laws even came to exist, proving that racism in some form was there from conception, this would debunk the idea that at least Jim Crow laws preceded racism, and would suggest that individuals that were racist planned to implement the laws based on racist ideology and viewpoints. Indeed, the voters are racist, racist people enact racist laws, this goes against one of the tenets of critical race theory, that racism is a result of institutional systems and laws rather than originating from individuals, I argue the reverse is true. Racist systems, racist institutions, are made by and for racists.

I'm using a particular quote from the wikipedia page (it has links to two sources) on this core tenet of critical race theory. Critical race theory "A tenet of CRT is that racism and disparate racial outcomes are the result of complex, changing, and often subtle social and institutional dynamics, rather than explicit and intentional prejudices of individuals." one of the ironies of the current situation with reactionary right-wingers is that they are accusing critical race theorists of calling people racist, yet looking at this, they're arguing more for systemic rather than individual racism. I don't think proponents of CRT are hard enough on people, or look a bit naive when it comes to how nasty and petty people can actually be. But let's focus on something important that CRT actually touches on with laws like the Jim Crow ones above, that being what kind of world that actually creates, and how afterwards you can make laws which are "technically not discriminatory based on explicit mentions of skin colour but have the disproportionate effect on people of colour".

Systemic Inequity; have you heard the argument that laws "today" are colourblind? That it is illegal to discriminate based on race? This gives you the impression that the system promotes merit, but the reality is that in a fair game, you can have unfair results because the starting positions of the players are inadequately balanced. Without paying meaningful reparations for the many years of systemic inequity, centuries of it in fact, the inherited positions of black people in the US can never allow for black people to have a fair shot in life, even if the legal system has been made fit for all of its players to win, it assumes a lot of those initial conditions, and has no dynamic approach to dealing with the blatant unfairness of life. In that way, critical race theorists are correct in their assumptions that the system is rigged to allow people who won historically to carry on their advantages from their destructive pasts. They will perform better in life, in a statistical sense, than will black people, or even other minorities who themselves faced oppression (i.e women). In this sense, they are right when someone comes along and says that the new, liberal system that is at least on the surface non-discriminatory compared to the past, is not racist, when in reality it just allows people to take their historically racist advantages and get ahead in life. The liberal argument then becomes an argument to do nothing, "because the problem is already solved, after all". Essentially, meritocratic systems do not allow fairness, not historically through inheritance, and not even coherently from a simple fact based analysis that people are born different, have different environments, and thus meritocracy can never result in equity. Where is the proof for this? Well, that's where we can look at the knock-on effects of the Jim Crow laws themselves and how it can be empirically proven that these laws has long-lasting effects, even today, this is a part of CRT that has been criticized, as not proving the link. 1.

First you have to establish the point where the effect that a racist law created has caused a deviation from a more preferable outcome. In example; a black person who was forced into working in poorer conditions (due to law), gained a real, tangible health effect (they got exposed to chemicals that then results in a cancer, they gained mental health problems due to the incredible stress placed on them), it's also important to note the argument of "if they had X then Y would not or could have been statistically less likely to occur", basically, "if he didn't have to work in those poor conditions due to those repressive laws that forced him to, then, he could have worked somewhere else, would have never gotten sick as a result", forcing him into that outcome and taking away his agency in how his destiny played out. Then you have to establish a link between his decreased health and his life outcome, how his poorer health has caused him to miss out, and how that also interacts with his family, how he interacts with his kids, what savings he has to enable his family to take on more or less financial risks that a more privileged white kid could do more times (because he was spoiled shitless, the white kid who had a parent who was advantaged by being white, can afford to fail at college a lot more than someone who has a black parent whose life was destroyed by inequity, this is literally the concept of white privilege that many republicans outright refuse to understand, even when it is explained to them multiple times). How that outcome then affects the black kid who may end up failing college? He gets trapped into a working class system, and the cycle repeats itself. Generationally, that family might escape poverty, but the reality is that they were there in the first place through no fault of their own. Meanwhile, it's far more likely that the person from the white household inherited advantages at the expense of black people through histories of slavery and privileging positions of work and property ownership primarily to whites. That is why the system is racist, it can never be meritocratic, a fair system is unfair because it assumes that everyone is competing from equal positions, this denies history. BumblingBuffoon (talk) 22:59, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

There are some facts in your essay but I wonder at your conclusions. "a fair system is unfair because it assumes that everyone is competing from equal positions, this denies history."' A fair system is one in which the same rules apply to everyone. The assumption that everyone is competing from equal positions is not implied by the term "fair," and that interpretation probably only applies to a footrace. The so-called Jim-Crow Laws are no longer endemic anywhere in America. Still, inequalities persist, thus CRT attempts to figure out if and which laws might be involved.UncleKrampus (talk) 00:38, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

No, a fair system adjusts according to the initial conditions of each person involved. For example, it is unfair to have laws which disproportionately punish crimes that are more likely to affect a black demographic, knowing that their historical inequities will put them in a position where they are the most likely to put them through that legal process. No two crimes are equal. It's not "fair" at all to assume that someone who was essentially pressed into being who they were is just as morally culpable as someone who had advantages in life and did it based on personal preferences to illegal acts rather than for example, necessity. The game is rigged, and by definition a rigged game ain't fair. BumblingBuffoon (talk) 01:43, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

https://youtu.be/Xk5pzLeHvdY Vox went into health effects of systemic inequity before which is slightly related to this topic. BumblingBuffoon (talk) 01:43, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

It's also worth pointing out this is related to health outcomes with LGBT, women and men, those of differing religions. Intersectionality is about how various forms of oppression intersect and potentially compound on each other too. BumblingBuffoon (talk) 01:45, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/opinions/systemic-racism-police-evidence-criminal-justice-system/?itid=ap_radleybalko&itid=lk_inline_manual_6 Washington post with one of those doc drops, but if you look closely at the post and the way it reads, you can identify critical race theory in that post, especially dissecting these lines; "Of particular concern to some on the right is the term “systemic racism,” often wrongly interpreted as an accusation that everyone in the system is racist. In fact, systemic racism means almost the opposite. It means that we have systems and institutions that produce racially disparate outcomes, regardless of the intentions of the people who work within them." This line was important to me because it highlights a strawman that the person has no doubt encountered and I brought up, but kinda didn't, in the original post up there. That is that people who allowed these laws to exist weren't racist. No, I'm going to argue that there was very much a racist involved, many in fact, in stripping away black rights. Whether or not we can condemn everyone who is complicit in upholding these laws as racist is a matter of debate that is very similar to whether or not we can hold every german citizen accountable for Nazi ideological views when they had their thing. Whether we can say that everyone, the school teachers, firemen, police, bakers, artists, even the intellectuals / academics of Germany were all themselves racist and antisemitic, I don't think so because there were known rebels that despised the nazi party and it never did have total support. It is undeniable however that the system was ran, and functioned as a result of a lack of resistance. Those people didn't stop, because the Jew was oppressed, they didn't cause damage to a system, so you can argue that in some way their inaction made them morally culpable, can't you? Same as people who are inactive today when faced with systemic inequity, if you aren't doing anything about it, are you a victim of circumstance who doesn't agree with what is said? Or are you guilty, because you pay taxes, which are then used in that system to ruin black lives? Is participation in a racist system enough to deem someone racist? I don't think so, I can concede that, so in that sense CRT proponents have some point there without arguing that racists were definitely involved at these laws' inception. BumblingBuffoon (talk) 02:04, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

You are seriously mistaken, to wit: For example, it is unfair to have laws which disproportionately punish crimes that are more likely to affect a black demographic.

This statement is tragically erroneous. For example, despite representing the male half of 14% of the population in the US, the rate of arrests for the crime of murder is higher among African American men than among all other groups, including so-called white men. We can't change laws to excuse people from responsibility for serious crimes. I must add that I prefer a succinct discussion and will only respond to your first unsound argument. Maybe write an essay. You get to say what you like without criticism. UncleKrampus (talk) 03:02, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

If we're going to have equal laws, then they should also be applied equally to begin with, and when race enters the equation they're not. If you make an environment that makes it more likely that someone goes into a specific area of crime because of the generational impacts that previous anti-black policy had on that group; then you make laws that target that crime, you should be careful that those laws are actually fair, do not overpunish, compared to similar crimes, etc. The problem I have with this is that fairness is commonly perceived by people from privileged white positions when the reality is that fairness doesn't exist because life is about more than a legal system that applies to everyone. I don't think two people are equal, but the criminal justice system is inflexible by design to 'ensure equity'. An inflexible ruleset applied to a much more dynamic public, is going to advantage people based on backgrounds. BumblingBuffoon (talk) 05:56, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

From what I understand, the bulk (but not all, more later) of the disparity between sentence lengths of Black and White defendants is caused by District and Criminal History. You can't just say "random White guy who is convicted for grand theft auto is sentenced much less than random Black guy for same crime", you have to compare a Black guy with 1 prior conviction and a White guy with 1 prior conviction. After these adjustments, the racial disparity drops to about 9%. That is, if a White guy is sentenced to 10 months, a Black guy will be sentenced to 11 months. However, this is only on sentencing and just one part of the puzzle. A Black guy is also more likely to be charged with a harsher crime and more likely to be charged in the first place, and all those combined will add up to more than 9%.

As for a solution, I don't think we should just say "cut all sentences for Black defendants by 10%". Instead, I would recommend that when it comes time to sentence someone, instead of the Judge relying on his/her gut, instead the Judge is given the regression analysis results of what should be the typical sentence given the district and history. So instead of a Judge going by gut and sentencing a Black guy to 15 years when a White guy would get 8, they see that the typical rate would be 12 years, and from there the Judge would decide if the details of the case warrant more or less leniency. Furthermore, every Judge would have a publicly accessible result showing the average racial disparity in sentencing, after adjusting for history and age and so forth... CorruptUser 15:28, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Do you think that it is because the gut feeling is a racist feeling? The stereotype that black people are more 'dangerous' or 'criminal'. This seems to be the implication that people come to. BumblingBuffoon (talk) 17:23, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I think the fact that many Black defendants are often subject to all-white juries is another factor that should be mentioned here. Instances of racial bias in convictions have been linked to the mindset and racial makeup of the juries who decided the convictions, especially in death penalty cases and even more so in the Jim Crow era. Jake Holmes^{yell at me} 18:28, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

No duh. Trials come down to the jury asking "how comfortable am I with letting this person go free given the evidence presented?" The judge creates the sentence along similar thought processes. In recent years, there've been rules added to the courts where an attorney can block the removal of jurors if there's any possibility of it being done based on race, but it's complete bullshit. My sister had a trial where she removed 3 jurors, and the other attorney tried to block it because of "racial bias", which my sister's response was "excuse me? The only potential jurors left are all Black, there's no bias, if anything I should be making this motion against you for getting rid of the only White jurors!" to which the Judge actually said that it doesn't apply when removing jurors for being White. CorruptUser 16:36, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

That's what is supposed to happen in theory, in a world where people don't act on their biases, that's not what happens in the real world. BumblingBuffoon (talk) 12:18, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

It has begun

If you weren't aware already, a draft for a CRT article has recently been created. See Draft:Critical Race Theory‎‎. DietMondrian (talk) 04:33, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Good start, I left a comment on the talk page.12.23.183.186 (talk) 18:40, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

And then I got called a troll. Great.12.23.183.186 (talk) 20:13, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Saying "Schools are teaching kids that all white people are evil" isn't really behavior that gets you on people's good sides, sorry to say. armed_roomba (she/her)^{What am I doing wrong this time?} 20:15, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I said some, not all. I could not have been more clear that I was saying it is worth mentioning, not that it is the cornerstone of CRT. I could not have been more clear that CRT is important. I honestly have no idea why I'm being called a troll. That page is now protected so I can't edit it, and my response was removed. I stumbled across RW a while ago, I like the articles, I've thought about contributing more and/or creating an account. Now I'm having serious doubts if this is the way people are treated.12.23.183.186 (talk) 20:49, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Some editors here are a bit overzealous; we get a lot of spammers/vandals. Just remain calm, add links in the talk page but be sure the links are credible and say what you claim they say. If not, well, don't get into fights. Also, consider registering an account instead of being a Bunch of Numbers (BoN). CorruptUser 20:52, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

The article does say what I claimed it said, as I pointed out. I thought I was being calm, I wasn't trying to start a fight. It was others calling me a troll, a dumbass, calling what I say bullshit, suggesting I need reading lessons, using all caps, etc. And no, GrammarCommie, it's not more complicated than what I made it out to be. What you just quoted confirms what I said. It says that all white people play a part in perpetuating systemic racism. Just because elites have a "powerful role" in maintaining the system doesn't mean that all whites are not perpetuating it.12.23.183.186 (talk) 21:03, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

No culture is inherently lazy or incapable of living a prosperous and accomplished life. If non-white people in a country are consistently poorer, imprisoned more often, have fewer opportunities and face undeniable barriers over centuries only getting marginally better over time...it is because they are being mistreated. This is an undeniable fact. Has been the case for centuries and still is the case to a lesser extent. Teaching this is teaching reality. It is not tantamount to saying "white people are evil". Not a school in the western world teaches that shit. Saying shit like that is a gross misrepresentation of what is being taught and is a cranky ridiculous overreaction. Stop being so fucking ridiculous. ShabiDOO 21:13, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@12.23.183.186 See, the problem here is you're jumping the gun. people can perpetuate racist social elements without being racist per se. That is to say, without intending to. For example, beauty standards. Beauty standards tend to favor traits most common in white people. this is de facto discriminatory towards other groups. Do you think the beauty industry is intentionally racist? Or, do they uncritically promote certain norms which were founded on racial prejudices? Like, we aren't talking moral condemnation here, we're talking large scale social trends within our social institutions. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 21:17, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘@ShabidooPlease read what I said. I acknowledged that POC are disproportionately affected in so many ways in America. I acknowledged, many times, that teaching CRT is important. I'm not saying that teaching CRT is the same as saying "white people are evil". I'm saying that in a few, rare cases that have made headlines all over the place over here, some schools, again, not all, but some schools are actually teaching that all white people are racist and/or perpetuating systemic racism. Again, I am in favor of teaching CRT. @GrammarCommieKind of the same. I am not denying the existence of white privilege or systemic racism or other similar issues, I agree with your point about the beauty industry. I'm just saying that there are some instances where some schools are teaching that all white people are racist.12.23.183.186 (talk) 21:21, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@Shabidoo, Ask yourself how you would improve Western culture. If your answer is anything other than "there's no such thing as 'improving' a culture", you are outright admitting that one culture can be "better" than another. That isn't to say that one culture is definitely better or worse in all situations or that everyone who suffers brought it upon themselves, but it's not "undeniable" that no culture could result in different outcomes. CorruptUser 21:31, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@12.23.183.186 Oh my gods... "White people are racist." Here we are speaking to character and moral worth. "White people perpetuate racism." Here we are speaking of behaviors and norms. By claiming the former is occurring without being able to provide evidence, you are engaging in very sloppy language and the perpetuation of unfounded misinformation. The way you've doubled down on this suggests one of two outcomes. A), you just heard this claim and internalized it uncritically, and this is the first time you've been put on the spot concerning it. or B), you are acting in a dishonest manner, refusing to critically engage with the issues and purposely conflating two different claims. So which is it? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 21:42, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Actually, you are the one engaging in very sloppy language by trying to say that those two things are so different, that one is bad while the other isn't.12.23.183.186 (talk) 21:50, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@12.23.183.186 I never spoke to whether one was "good" or "bad" I pointed out that one describes an innate aspect of the subject while another describes a set of behaviors and norms. Behaviors and norms are not innate. Like, I'm sorry if you don't understand this subject, but you are perpetuating misinformation. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 21:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I can certainly tell you that all segments of all populations would greatly improve by fighting the mistreatment other segments of the population. That can only happen when a segment of the population admits that there is any mistreatment going on at all. As for cultural improvement? Ufff...quite the can of worms there. ShabiDOO 22:02, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I would be very interested in seeing evidence of a school (and not just some teachers) which teach that white people are evil. Could you provide your sources? And even if that were the case and there are a couple of schools which do, it seems so triflingly inconsequential to even mention it in the scheme of things, especially considering how distracting and inflammatory such a statement could be. ShabiDOO 22:06, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I did provide a source on the talk page of the draft which I can no longer edit. Also, I guess I should point out that I never used the word evil, another editor did and put it in quotes as if it was something I said.12.23.183.186 (talk) 22:17, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@Shabidoo Don't you start with the sloppy, imprecise, moralistically subtextual language as well. I can only deal with one migraine right now, thank you very much. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 22:21, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Incredibly stupid hypothetical that I need help with

I've been struggling with a hypothetical that one of my friends found online. I have my own convictions, but while posing the question, I'll remain neutral: Would you rather fight a chicken every time you got in a car, or fight an orangutan with a sword at a random time once per year? Since a lot of people ask, the orangutan has the sword, not you. armed_roomba (she/her)^{What am I doing wrong this time?} 22:26, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I'll fight the ape. It's only once a year, and it's unlikely to be that adept with the sword. Chickens can be vicious bastards. Cardinal Chang (talk) 22:44, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you. Every single person I have talked to irl about this has chosen the chickens. Is it just them being overconfident in fighting ability? I really can't think of another reason to pick the chickens. Just stay inside until the orangutan event has occured. armed_roomba (she/her)^{What am I doing wrong this time?} 22:55, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Haven't got in a car for above five years now and don't foresee doing so in the future so ... Scream!! (talk) 23:02, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

You are clearly suffering from infinite monkey syndrome. The orangutan doesn't have a weapon, he has a typewriter: you don't fight him, you read what he has written and only get to stop when the orangutan hands you a copy of Brave New World. Ariel31459 (talk) 23:44, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

The most important factor is the "humans get exasperated quickly with a repetitive inconvenience". That is, having to fend off a chicken (even if it were mostly harmless and pesky) would become a fucking nightmare if it happened every time you went to drive. I mean, people get huffy and puffy when they visit a website that won't always remember their password and they have to...gasp...type it out sometimes. It becomes relatively unbearable for some. Dealing with a chicken every single time you open your door? How many people would just start taking public transportation or taxis (not a bad thing) or, double gasp...walk when possible. For the environment I would say...chicken...for personal sanity...the orangutan. Having said all this: I would imagine that there is a far more important scenario: would you rather push a button and wipe social media off the face of the planet forever, or push a button that shot Donald Trump into a bottomless pit? ShabiDOO 00:58, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

An orangutang will rip your arms out and stuff the wet ends into opposite orifices. I'll take he chiken thanks - at least that's a meal every day. Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 01:15, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

what fucking monster would choose to fight an orangutan? what have people been doing to it that it would want to fight you in the first place? it would need to be treated horribly, and choosing to fight it you are complicit in the appalling treatment its no doubt going to be getting. know this - they are are super smart as well as super strong. they know how to use tools. it will take the sword and it will cleave you right down the middle and you'd deserve it. monsters.AMassiveGay (talk) 03:03, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

As a chicken owner? I would fight the chicken. Hopefully a bantam of some kind and not one of the Asiatic breeds; they are assholes. Probliknaut (talk) 03:17, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Much would depend on what the conditions of victory are for both the chicken and the orangutan. I'd rather fight the chicken, if only because I am in favor of chicken fighting. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 13:52, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I mean, if it was the famed orangutan living in Mar-a-Lago, I'd rather fight that and convince someone to bulldoze its natural habitat for palm oil... that said, if I could eat the chicken after disposing of it I could accept that. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:17, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

:"...or fight an orangutan with a sword at a random time once per year" I actually be quite impressed if an orangutan had learnt how to use a sword. I imagine it would be pretty unstoppable. Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 20:45, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Not really. Apes and monkeys are unable to throw anything faster than 40-50 mph and are unable to throw with any accuracy. While they aren't throwing the sword of course, swordsmanship is all about finesse and speed, which apes lack. However, if the orangutan had an axe we'd be in trouble.

Overall, humans are only ok at running, swimming and climbing, but absolutely no other animal beats us in all 3 categories. Even when it comes to running, humans actually are actually among the fastest runners; over long distances that is. Wild humans, with our sweat glands and lack of fur, are capable of running for hours at a decent speed. Very few animals are as capable of as wide a vocal range as humans. And as mentioned, virtually no other animal can throw anything and never with as much force as a human can. Our brains are not the only advantage we have, and our intelligence was mostly a freak occurrence that resulted when mating success got intertwined with artistic ability. CorruptUser 21:12, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I suspect that that may depend on the kind of sword the questioner was talking about when they proposed the sword-wielding orangutan. If we are talking about a rapier then I guess that the orangutan might lack the necessary fine muscle control. On the other hand an orangutan with a broadsword (perhaps with medieval armor) would be a different proposition. I guess that original questioner will need to clarify.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 13:27, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't the creator of this question, but I always imagined it as the popular cultural depiction of a large greatsword. I do agree reading it now that the type of sword would definitely have an effect. However, I do doubt an orangutan has the finesse to effectively use an epée or the like. armed_roomba (she/her)^{What am I doing wrong this time?} 02:13, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Apes are also not evolved for long bipedal motion. A two-handed greatsword would be easily countered by walking or dodging, the ape would need to be able to hold the weapon with just one hand while using the other to move. CorruptUser 16:12, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

The lack of specificity also means the orangutan could have a sword from a fictional universe. For example, they could be wielding a lightsaber! DietMondrian (talk) 00:28, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

It also seems to be unfair to arm the orangutan but not the chicken. What additional weapons could a chicken reasonably wield?Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 12:29, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Roosters used in cock fighting sometimes have sharp blades (called gaffs) attached to their legs generally on their spurs it seems, see Wikipedia:Cockfighting. As Wikipedia attests, this isn't without danger especially to handlers but also spectators and law enforcement [7] [8] [9] [10]. If it was a choice between a rooster with gaffs everytime I want to use the car and an orangutan with a sword even a light saber one time, I'm choosing the orangutan for sure. I mean if I'm lucky I'll be near my car with my car keys and can get it, won't have to deal with the rooster first and can drive off an not have to worry about it even if for some reason the orangutan is enraged. Or even better it'll be outside my house and I can just lock myself in and hopefully be able to convince the police that there is indeed a loose orangutan in the middle of suburban Auckland quite far from the zoo. Frankly I sort of think like Cortex and others that there's a fair chance the sword is just going to make the orangutan less dangerous not more since it'll probably just hurt itself. Nil Einne (talk) 06:44, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

the chickens being 'armed' were not part of the the original question. they are therefore not armed. as for swords and orangutans - the sword type was never specified. give it a short bladed cleaver type sword, and it would end you, no question. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:30, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

chimps with machetesAMassiveGay (talk) 10:34, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

chimp with an akAMassiveGay (talk) 10:38, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Would end you even if you know 100 different kinds of martial arts including Gymkata, the fusion of karate and gymnastics?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Mkl9rtttog

ShabiDOO 10:40, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

I live not too far from where a chimp bit a woman's face off (No, seriously, bit her face off), so I'd only deal with another primate if I had a long-distance weapon on my hands. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:56, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

To be fair, nobody says you don't. You just have to have it on hand at all times. armed_roomba (she/her)^{What am I doing wrong this time?} 16:53, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ The orangutan is dangerous without the sword. I'll take the daily cock-wrangling. Poll added. CorruptUser 17:06, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

edit; moving poll to PP. CorruptUser 17:45, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Finally have confidence in my gender identity

After joining a transgender discord server and talking with other users, I fully figured it out: Non-Binary/Demi-Girl. For the first time in a while I am confident in that department. --Channel 48 EAS (talk) 23:05, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

ROCK AND ROLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ShabiDOO 23:57, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Wait, "Demi" as in you grow more sexually attracted to someone as you fall in love, or "Demi" as in if you just met a cute guy in person you have absolutely no sexual desires at all until after months of getting to know them?CorruptUser 23:58, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Who can understand me in the way I understand myself? It's enough that I understand (myself). UncleKrampus (talk) 00:03, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@CorruptUser Demi-Girl means that your gender identity is partially female while Demi-Boy is a partial male gender identity. Both fall under Non-Binary. --Channel 48 EAS (talk) 00:47, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

CONGRATULATIONS!!! I'm really happy to see that you found confidence in yourself! Everyone deserves to know who they are and express themselves how they please. Revenant Raven (talk) 00:56, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Congratulations! Does this mean we can throw a party where we blow stuff up and start fires? Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 02:19, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

So @Rationalzombie94, what pronouns should we use to refer to you now? They/them/their? Spud (talk) 09:19, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

He/she. --Channel 48 EAS (talk) 22:32, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Gender Reveal Wildfire

I am never going to understand how you manage to turn a party into a massive forest fire. So do I start a massive forest fire in order to tell people about confidence? Doubt that the police and fire departments would agree with such an idea. --Channel 48 EAS (talk) 17:42, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

A startling number of those end up with the father dead too, so if somehow there's someone you can say contributed to your gender identity kill whoever that is. That's on top of the forest fire. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:58, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

It's because you have a bunch of DIY projects involving incendiary components. CorruptUser 16:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

new template

Template:request archive. Due to a quirk in how the archive bot works, if a thread/topic has no valid signatures (most common with BONs who leave unsigned comments that receive no answers), the archive bot will not consider it a valid thread. That template should provide an easy and uniform way to get threads archived. Ping me if it doesn't work as advertised (I also fixed up Template:Bump a lot). -- Techpriest (talk) 11:46, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

New flags in a template format

Hey all, I'm happy to announce that

{{Lgbtflag}} now exists if you want to invoke a miniature flag for one of many LGBT communities. It can be used, say, in "What is going on?" sections on RW. For example, the transgender flag can be invoked using . Celeste (scream at) 16:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

L_BTIA flags but no G? CorruptUser 16:39, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

That will save me some time in doing WIGos. So that's good. And any flags that aren't included yet can always be added later. Spud (talk) 16:46, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Looked it up, there's a green and blue "Gay" flag. Also a black and white "Straight" flag, as well as a black and white and triangle-rainbow "straight-ally" flag.

Either way, Good Job. Attaboy! Attagirl? Attanonbinary? CorruptUser 16:51, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons has an entire category devoted to Male homosexuality flags, including several variants of that blue and green one. All of which we can, of course, use here.And, according to Wikidata, this is the best version of it Spud (talk) 17:27, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

There are so so so many flags, I think sticking to the basics would be good since I doubt some of the less common ones are used enough to warrant a template. armed_roomba (she/her)^{What am I doing wrong this time?} 17:32, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Anyone find it funny that the BDSM flag looks like a reverse Blue Lives Matter flag? CorruptUser 17:39, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Guilty Pleasures

dont leave me this way AMassiveGay (talk) 15:40, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Ah...... thanks for that - got the toes tappin' and body rockin' again .. hadn't thought of that song for 30 years or more :) Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 01:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

honestly thought this would get a better response. dont you have guilty pleasures stateside? AMassiveGay (talk) 20:49, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

What other people think of RationalWiki

Is RationalWiki a trustworthy source? Proxima Centauri (talk) 11:41, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Quora being Quora again, yawn. Rockford the Roe ^{boop my snoot}_{praise Oscar Wilde} 14:26, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

You cannot deny that there are bits and pieces of truth in SOME of the comments there. We have an undeniable subjective point of view on some articles and a generally progressive feel in the saloon (progressive by American standards at least, would be not far some statu-quo in a few European countries). Our mission and our modus operandi is clearly stated to visitors who care to look it up and it is still a mostly accurate description of it. If someone wants an academic or expert level material...they ought to look up experts or academia. Depending on the subject, they would be missing out on not reading some of the more outstanding articles here. ShabiDOO 15:21, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an entirely reliable source either: there are parts that are biased, parts that are entirely wrong, and parts that are inadequate or misleading. Despite that, it is overall informative not a bad starting point for research. Bongolian (talk) 19:24, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is also what people focus on. In academia, sure there's a similar problem of people studying what they like, but students desperate for a dissertation topic might be forced into something obscure. If you want to find a paper on 8th century Dagestani poetry some unlucky grad student will have written a paper on it. That won't be the case with wikipedia; if a topic isn't popular you won't see people "forced" into it. You'll get multiple citations for every single line spoke in an episode of Friends but nothing on something obscure. As I mentioned a while back, the woman shot by Alec Baldwin didn't even have a Wikipedia page until after being killed in spite of apparently being a rising star of Hollywood. CorruptUser 19:45, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

So long as we are critiquing Wikipedia, allow me to also point out a sort of "corollary" to Cory's point-if one person has an agenda on an obscure topic they will meet no real opposition, so inaccurate info will be left to fester for years. I may be speaking from bitter experience-Flandres (talk) 19:55, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Hey, that's the case here too. There's probably some leftover garbage from old flamewars that a lot of us refuse to touch just to avoid more drama. CorruptUser 20:19, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Or worse, the biased editor has a lot of time on their hands and just browbeat the opposition into submission and the admins are too lazy or busy worrying about more popular topics to care. I left Wikipedia after a yearlong battle with a Turkish nationalist who was adamant about pushing some frankly ludicrous Turkish pseudohistory/pseudolinguistics; and every time I asked the admins for help they just shrugged and pointed out that he had sources and I didn't. Meanwhile I was working two jobs and didn't have the time to go digging through hundreds of historical documents to find enough to refute all the bullshit he was pushing.

Didn't matter that what he was pushing was obvious bullshit and that the sources he was using were all either written by propagandists or from 1950 or older; the bureaucracy takes precedence over common sense. 2A01:388:3F5:161:0:0:1:89 (talk) 16:14, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I think older RW content from a decade ago often seems more ranty, short, and poor in quality. The site seems on the whole to have "grown up" gradually in content qualities over the years, and I've seen some comments from others here about such a change too. There's room for more, to be sure. And sometimes I think it's a bit too ideologically charged, and sometimes a bit too US-centric. More philosophy and information about worldviews (including crank ones in more detail) and how they work would be nice, IMO.

At the same time, in the last few years, it seems people in the US have come to view RW as more polarized because of the general polarization of society. Check Urban Dictionary for an example of that change. I think nowadays, RW's basic mission is something inherently "leftist" in American eyes. (As a somewhat bemused European, I wonder if perhaps the American popular view of centrism is nowadays that it should entail a balanced compromise between science and Young Earth Creationism?) --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 21:05, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

To give you an idea, the GOP official Twitter account is basically calling Biden a communist sympathizer today because he's going to have a video meeting with Xi.[11] Nixon met with Mao. Reagan met with Gorbachev. That makes 'centrism' in the eyes of the current GOP somewhere to the far right of Nixon and Reagan. Bongolian (talk) 21:55, 15 November 2021 (UTC) Oh and lets not forget that tRump met with Kim to accomplish nothing. At least Nixon and Reagan accomplished something with those meetings. Bongolian (talk) 21:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I've always got the impression that much of the "ultra-left" reputation of RW among certain US crowds stems from The Culture War Triumphs All On US Internet types, particularly those that believe in a "help! white male oppressed!" narrative, and RW's stance that evolved on social justice issues (eg Gamergate) as well as the increasing authoritarianism and fundamentalism of the Republican party. Most of the complainers, of course, have not seemed to read the "authoritarian left" articles which also are generally negative. Rationalwiki has evolved, but the culture among the dregs of the Internet have evolved quite a bit too since SomethingAwful was the go-to site for the lulz seekers. Wired has an article on Urban Dictionary that basically asks "what the hell happened?", echoing what I've observed, a decline from a once kind of fun lulzy slang document repository to a place where the racists gather to spew hateful garbage (though from what I've seen they've cleaned up a little recently). A place where racists gather isn't exactly going to like a Wiki that doesn't like racism. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 17:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Rationalwiki is not a primary source, it gives sources. We don't actually engage in our own journalism here do we? Usually it's just about researching a topic and then including the sources to support the article's content. I think false claims here are scrutinized to a degree where you can get a really nice rule of thumb on a topic, without accidentally stepping in some bad sourcing as long as you check that source properly. Interestingly enough, if you use wikipedia as a source in a discussion, people won't even bat an eyelid at you if you click the citation for a specific point and give them that. Basically meaning that people who argue against wikipedia and rationalwiki are perfectly fine with their arguments, and when they see "wiki" their brain just shuts off and they shit out a thought terminating cliche. Bad faith and all. BumblingBuffoon (talk) 16:22, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Illinois proposed EXTREME gerrymander

As if they're map isn't gerrymandered enough, with full Democratic control, they are proposing a gerrymander to make it 14-3, Democrat. Just look at how rigged the map is. American time change coming up November 7, Andrew5 (talk) 17:52, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to American politics, since 1812 at least. How are you this morning? PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 19:13, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

I have a few questions regarding Gerrymandering. At this point, do you think the GOP should be in office? Leaving aside whether we should be ruled over by the Dems alone (we shouldn't, obviously) what benefit is there in acting as if the GOP is engaging in good faith at the present time? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:16, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Depends which GOP members. From what I've seen, the GOP members in Blue states tend to be pretty decent folks. It's GOP from Red states that are all a bunch of rectums. The same goes for Dems in Red states vs Blue states. I'd take Pete Buttigieg or George Pataki over Gavin Newsom or Spencer Cox any day of the week. CorruptUser 19:25, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

The only solution to gerrymandering is to wrestle the map-carving power out of the politician's hands. What Illinois is doing is no different than what the GOP are doing in Texas and North Carolina. Politicians love power and grabbing power by any means tends to be what that lot does if not unchecked. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 19:29, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

I have a better solution. Get rid of single-member districts and adopt a mixed-member proportional representation, like in Germany. Far from being perfect (it adds lots of complexity to an already complex system) I believe this would be the best solution. GeeJayK (talk) 19:35, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

It's impossible to have a ruleset that is completely fair. What I propose is not going to fix everything, but a simple rule;

Any county with a population greater than that needed for a single representative MUST have a district wholly contained within it. For instance, Travis County (Austin TX) has 1m people and only 900,000 are needed for a Rep, so there must be one district entirely contained within that county. This would limit the ability to simply carve up chunks of Austin. Some counties may have more than one, e.g., Queens and Kings counties (Queens and Brooklynn, NY) both have enough for 3 representatives. CorruptUser 19:42, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, in some states they require 2/3 to overturn, hence why Dems have gerrymandering power in NY and the GOP in UT. Even independent commissions can be biased. However, due to NC having a liberal Supreme Court they have to be careful. GA or FL might be better comparisons. At this point, the only 4 Republican states to have true independent commissions are arizona, Idaho, Montana and Alaska, and Alaska is at large so it doesn't count. Iowa and Utah and New York require it to be approved by the legislature, so gerrymandering is less common. And, in California, the independant commission will probably take a Democratic lean. Also, I looked at Nebraska, and it looks like NE-02 will be gerrymandered to at least make it more competitve, if not Republican leaning. This matters as it carries an electoral vote. American time change coming up November 7, Andrew5 (talk) 20:22, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

"Depends which GOP members. From what I've seen, the GOP members in Blue states tend to be pretty decent folks."

No. The GOP is rotten everywhere. I'm a California resident. If the recall thing is anything to go by, the GOP voters in California are just as awful as in the stereotypical rural GOP voters in the middle of cornfields. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 22:45, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

I disagree, and California is just one state. For instance, look at the Republican governors of Maryland, Massachusetts and Vermont. (Hell even Sununu of New Hampshire isn't super bad).

As for the issue as a whole - well, first of all, what's a blue state? Georgia could be considered blue by the largest of tingets but the GOP there is pretty rotten, as in Arizona, Michigan and Wisconsin. But they're pretty friendly in Pennsylvania. Minnesota I'm not sure. They're kinda split in Maine and Colorado.

Also it depends on districts too. John Katko is pretty nice and is a Republican from NY-24, which is a Democrat district. (Of course NY is still gonna gerrymander because, why not.) American time change coming up November 7, Andrew5 (talk) 22:52, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

I recall reading a while ago about algorithms developed to produce nonpartisan districts. Computers aren't hard to come by (they're certainly used in contemporary gerrymandering), so a change in the algorithm used in generating districts makes for a pretty straightforward solution in principle. Getting anybody to pass laws requiring the use of such a system is another matter entirely, but that seems likely to be an obstacle for any reform. An automated system could also have the benefit of eliminating sources of bias associated with an independent commission. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 01:31, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

its not actually very difficult to create electoral districts that arent hideously gerrymandered, its certainly easier than producing the works of abstract art that gerrymandered districts tend to look like. and its not like an algorithm cannot be hideously bias, and if you give it a veneer of impartiality, its bias that would go unchallenged. you really dont require algorithms, you dont require mathamatical genius, you just need the political will and the commitment to a nonpartisan/bipartisan commission and free and fair elections. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:22, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, if we look at Iowa's map, the Republicans there used an independent commission map and left it someone intact, though IA-01 and IA-02 somehow flipped and now IA-02 (which used to be IA-01) is safer. But, Trump did win by 8%, so...yeah, IA-03 might flip regardless of gerrymandering. But Republicans completely gerrymandered in North Carolina. There, they have 10 Republican districts, 3 Democratic districts and a tossup. That tossup could easily go red if 2022 is as big of a blue wave as 2021. Also if we look at New Hampshire, the map they're is gerrymandered so, while NH-02 is solid blue, NH-01 is solid red and Chris Pappas will most likely be ousted. The Democrats want two somewhat competitive districts and keep it similar to the current one, but, with the Republicans having a trifecta the Republican map will definitely pass. American time change coming up November 7, Andrew5 (talk) 13:33, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

(EC) I agree it’s easier to create reasonably fair districts than to create the current gerrymandered ones. Unfortunately, bipartisan commitment to free and fair elections and nonpartisan commissions seems to be a depressingly high bar. And even if such commitments were present now, I would not trust them to hold out indefinitely; at the end of the day, I’m skeptical of a redistricting system that depends on the uprightness of politicians with a vested interest in re-election. Even if getting rid of gerrymandering requires such political will, a good system needs to be robust against its loss. Even bipartisan commissions have some problems. I grant that smuggling in a biased algorithm is a potential problem, one for which I have no compelling solution. Naturally, the existence of current districts is dependent on biased algorithms, so it’s clear that they’re out there. Part of the appeal to me is the concreteness, as a legal requirement establishing an obstacle to the reintroduction of gerrymandering. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 13:52, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes but in some states they have split control. For example in Vermont (though they only have 1 district in the House), Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Minnesota and Louisiana have split governments so split control. However in states like New Jersey, Connecticut, Maine, Missouri and Nebraska, they negotiated a deal where both sides have power. Arkansas and Ohio have...independent commissions hired by Republicans. *sigh* Also in Missouri, the independent commission only applies on the statewide level. American time change coming up November 7, Andrew5 (talk) 14:11, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Illinois Policy is a libertarian think tank that nobody cares about here other than Facebook idiots. Take them with a grain of salt. Rockford the Roe ^{boop my snoot}_{praise Oscar Wilde} 16:50, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

NY too

NY proposes to tilt 3 republican districts to blue and get rid of another one, from 19-8 to 22-4. Though not sure if it's gonna work. Really, if the Dems didn't get the supermajority in 2020 none of this would be possible. Truly, it's dissapointing. American time change coming up November 7, Andrew5 (talk) 20:38, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm okay with this, but only because the alternative is just letting the fascists do their thing in Red states and have the Dems sit around and just shrug. ^{— Unsigned, by: 86.106.143.38 / talk / contribs}

Since when has getting elected caused Democrats to stop sitting around and shrugging? armed_roomba (she/her)^{What am I doing wrong this time?} 21:23, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

1964, but to be fair they picked up supermajorities in both houses. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Try our pumpkin spice lasagna!} 22:47, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Never, but it's better than giving the GOP free reign.5.151.22.147 (talk) 09:04, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, in 1974, they did pick up a supermajority in the House and a filibuster-proof majority in the senate, held it into 1976 and lost it in 1978. In 1966, Dems lost they're supermajority. Also, in 2008, the Senate had a filibuster proof majority but the House majority of 258-177 was not a supermajority. Fun fact - the last time the Republicans had a house supermajority was over a hundred years ago. American time change coming up November 7, Andrew5 (talk) 18:45, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Primer on Gerrymandering

If you weren't sure why it is cancer. I don't know how you can say America is democratic when the people who get elected can essentially rig the system to this degree. BumblingBuffoon (talk) 22:29, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

The Economist in their 2020 Democracy Index rankings ranks the United States as a "flawed democracy", slightly below France, a bit above Portugal, and in the company of countries like Israel and Italy. It's "one index" and I'm sure people will quibble here and there. But instinctively, I'd put the US in a "flawed democracy" category these days, which means that though most countries are helluv a lot worse, there are several countries that do things a fair bit better. The basic gist of the United States ranking is that even though elections are "free and fair" (for now, despite Angry Baby's efforts), trust in government is very low. Gerrymandering obviously is a part of that problem, and adds to the (probably quite right) impression that representatives of the US government no longer represent the American people's concerns. Something which I actually think supporters of the Angry Baby and supporters of the Angry Bernie would agree on, to be honest. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 22:52, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

It's the upper edge though, at 7.92. Flawed democracies goes from 6-8. It goes from France to Guyana, in fact. American time change coming up November 7, Andrew5 (talk) 00:37, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, but as the report details, the outlook on American democracy is negative. It's certainly important to not overblow this, of course. Italy and the United States feel like they are in a somewhat similar space at this point (democratic but dysfunctional and with lots of public mistrust), and no one would mistake Italy for Egypt or Myanmar. Some studies however have suggested that Republicans now look more like nationalist parties in Hungary, Poland, India, and Turkey instead of a party committed to full democratic values these days, so IMHO there is a not insignificant danger of crashing the ranking down to the level of those countries in the future. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 02:03, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Every year numerous functioning democracies redistrict their contituencies through a completely independent process that ensures a reasonable level of fairness all adhering to the basic principles of democracy. That doesn't exist in some US states because a two party system simply invites sleaze and power-grabbing with a yo-yo of party 1 or party 2 doing dirty things for short term games and long term loss for everyone and because voters honestly don't care enough to do anything about it. If a fair number of voters cared...then a constitutional amendment to force independent redisctricting would have been passed. Voters prefer letting their favourite party do whatever shit they want while in power and when not, bitching about the other party doing the same. ShabiDOO 13:42, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Eventually political stress will get to a level in the US where two things will happen. (1) Civil war breaks out, millions die, it probably results in a Republican victory (as they are together, Democrats are spread out although Democrats have more ocean access), or (2) the Democrats and Republicans will cease to exist, and be absorbed by another party which splits into two, similar to what happened in the 1820s. By 1820 the Federalists have died, Democrat-Republicans took over and split up in 1824, and the Whigs formed by 1830. Although they became Republicans in 1854. Since then, only in 1912 has the two party system ever been threatened, when Teddy Roosevelt actually beat the Republicans, but by 1916 merged back and endorsed Hughes for the Republicans. American time change coming up November 7, Andrew5 (talk) 14:44, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

You underestimate how brutal urban warfare really is if you think it will be a Republican victory. Plus, Democrats have more people and more economic/industrial power. Plutocow (talk) 17:18, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Here's why Republicans will win. First of all, they control the entire Gulf Coast. Also, they are more connected. If NH does join the Republicans side they will be disconnected (so they'll probably be Democrat) but everyone else is. While NYC, LA, Chicago, and potentially Phoenix and Philadelphia will be Democratic, other important cities won't be. The Republicans can easily ship something from the (relatively) West Coast states of Utah, Idaho and maybe even Arizona across to the Carolinas, Florida and maybe Georgia. (Maybe as in they might be Democratic states). The Great Lakes states of Minnesota, Illinois and potentially Wisconsin and Michigan will be immediately screwed, as they will quickly become absorbed, unless Democrats can conquer Ohio and Indiana as well. (And this would require Pennsylvania to join the Democrats side). Republicans don't have Pacific access, save for Alaska which would require Canadian support, though, which might be the Democrats one saving grace. Colorado and New Mexico will also be screwed unless Arizona goes blue. Why? Just because, again, being surrounded. Republicans could easily isolate the Democrats. Georgia would probably have to go red, as otherwise they would also be invaded. If the Republicans can conquer any one of the 3 Pacific Coast states, they can easily win. Democrats, meanwhile, would absolutely need to conquer Texas to win. It would be long and bruising, but isolation will come in handy for the Republicans. American time change coming up November 7, Andrew5 (talk) 17:35, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

You have to consider that cities like Austin, Houston, Dallas, and San Antonio won't side with the Republicans, so Texas either has to waste a disproportionate number of lives in brutal urban combat or lose its most economically valuable areas. Taking the West Coast would be incredibly difficult for Republicans taking into accout urban warfare and mountainous terrain. The Democrats would have more international support simply by being a more valuable trading partner. While the Republican's unification may seem to be an advantage, it only means that they have to fight on multiple fronts to win, and many are self-sufficient so taking one Democratic city wouldn't guarantee that the others will fall. Really, all Democrats have to do is put up a successful blockade and the Republicans will fall in the war of attrition. Plutocow (talk) 17:49, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm saying it would be states though. And "Really, all Democrats have to do is put up a successful blockade and the Republicans will fall in the war of attrition."? No. Democrats have to fight across multiple mountain ranges and squeeze from the coasts. It's possible, but they literally have to cross over 2,000 miles in foreign territory. Once they cross from Colorado to Kansas, they don't have another state of support until they reach Illinois. Republicans can launch out of Idaho and through Washington, conquering Seattle. Then, they have a poton advantage. This is because they can then do blockades of Californian cities and win. American time change coming up November 7, Andrew5 (talk) 17:59, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Not every state is purely Republican or Democrat and a true civil war will see people being more loyal to their party than their state. Democrats don't need a unified front to win, pushing across Kansas would be pointless. All Democrats would need to do to win would be to use their advantage over the seas to create a blockade, preventing Republicans from getting important materials that they need, and arm all the cities with guns and hand grenades, so any attempt to take them will result in excessive casualties that the Republicans can't afford to lose. That, combined with the coming ecological disaster that will be caused by the Ogallala Aquifer drying up, will crush Republican morale and ability to fight. Democrats would win through a war of attrition. Plutocow (talk) 18:53, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Yes but they wouldn’t be able to do that. What you’re saying is states having conflicts inside itself and, while the cities might be very blue, the rural areas won’t. Republicans will simply build more ports then Democrats and the Democrats can’t catch up. And significant ports are Republican. For example, Miami is barely blue and parts of it are red so Republicans could use that. Same for Jacksonville. Also, this would mean significant portions of staunch blue states would go red, and Republicans, who under this case would control Massena, could technically deny the Great Lakes any access. While Ohio would be weakened, Democrats would feel the pinch more. Also, Republicans have much more oil access. Also, I was trying not to say this, but Republicans have more access to nuclear weapons and if they are losing morale, all they would need to do is pull out a few, probably killing over 200 million in the process of a nuclear war, allowing Republicans a victory.

Basically, as much as you might want Democrats to win, Republicans have a slight advantage. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 20:04, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

It's easy to conquer sparsely populated farmland, but conquering cities is very difficult. That's because if you want to control a city, you basically have to clear things house by house, and every house you open is another chance that someone hidden will snipe you or a grenade will blow up in your face. It would be nearly impossible for the Republicans to take even something like Austin or Seattle without taking unsustainable casualties and something like Chicago or New York is simply out of the question. If the Republicans try to block the Great Lakes from the Democrats, such a move would turn Canada against them, and the Democrats would have most of the important ports. Naval blockades would be easier to perform than taking urban areas. Nukes would result in a pyrrhic victory if used, as it would poison the entire landscape if used, and that would also risk getting international attention. You have to consider that many red areas are dependent on subsidies and without urban support many areas would collapse. Many blue states like California can make up for lost oil with renewable energy, and they of course have the option of trading. Republicans can't make a move against the Democrats without either significant casualties, while Democrats would have the advantage in attrition. Out of the ten largest ports in North America, Democrats would indisputably control five of them (the three in California, as well as New York/New Jersey and Seattle), have a strong advantage in four more of them (Houston, Virginia, Savannah, and Charleston), and the remaining one belongs to Canada (Vancouver). Democrats simply control the most important areas. Plutocow (talk) 20:34, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes but, and this is very important, states would undoubtedly force their citizens to their side. States would probably change shape a little, too.

In order to settle this, I did a Google search. This poll says 60% of the country believes Republicans. And for a reason. @Plutocow Democrats would have less gun access and Republican civilians could help the cause. Assuming no nukes. Republicans would have an early access and would abuse it.American time change coming up November 7, Andrew5 (talk) 20:59, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

People are loyal to their sides and not their states, and if Texas tried to force Houston to support the Republicans they'd only make it more likely that Houston would fight back. Dems just need to import guns, while a blockade could prevent Republicans from building additional infrastructure. All Dems need to do is make sure its civilians are armed, and any major urban areas are effectively off-limits. The same reasons why the Confederates couldn't win the civil war would prevent Republicans from being able to win a second one. Argumentum ad populum isn't an argument to settle this, and really, just the West Coast would be impossible for Republicans to take, due to mountainous terrain, the region's self sufficiency due to renewable energy and crops in the Central Valley, and the dense urban areas. If Republicans tried nuking them, the fallout would just travel east with the winds and kill a ton of Republicans too. The best they could hope for is a stalemate in that situation. Plutocow (talk) 21:09, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

There is no evidence that I see of any sort of "civil war" breaking out. The only people I see talking about "civil war" is a handful of generally out of shape mall ninja equivalent elders yapping on social media. There is no evidence that I see that the United States military is splitting into territorial factions. For all the problems with American policing, I also don't see it reaching civil war levels. The social divide in this country is, generally speaking, youth vs. elders and urban vs. rural, and it's more of the same sort of race and social issue babbling like this country always tends to have. These days, it is amplified by big social media's focus on "engagement" (even if it is engagement with bullshit and emotional crap). Eventually, I think people will figure that out. Facebook already has a pretty justifiably shitty reputation among the youth, for instance.

If you want to envision the sort of strife that happens when sects go after each other, probably one of the better templates (since it happened in a developed English speaking nation) was The Troubles in Ireland. It's similar to other sectarian violence in the world. There are no winners or losers, generally. Just a lot of gun violence and bombings and terrorism and people who hate each other. Which actually means everyone loses, depending on how bad it gets. I mean, the IRA never took over Belfast. It just took over certain parts for certain amounts of time. It bombed the city every now and then. Which in the worst case led to a military response from the British as well as revenge attacks from the loyalists. And that really didn't change the general situation much at all, of course. I don't think America has gotten that bad, or will get that bad in the near future. But that's your template for the violence of this sort of thing if it escalates to the sort of level you are thinking. Not conventional military motifs. Sectarian violence like this is extremely messy. Some of it hasn't had a "winner" or "loser" for centuries. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 21:10, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

This source tends to support a 46% chance of a civil war. Plutocow, I get you have a strong Democratic bias, but "just getting a blockade" will be very difficult. The only way I could see Democrats winning is if they get international allies to their side, which is likely. It's because the EU would side the Democrats, and actually be able to enforce a blockade. Also, it would be easy for Texas to do a lockdown of Houston. There is already enough suppression going on here. American time change coming up November 7, Andrew5 (talk) 21:18, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

It's not bias, it's just basic facts of warfare, in that the coasts are always the most important area to control and urban terrain is always the most difficult to conquer. And consider that Texas would not only have to lockdown Houston but also Austin, San Antonio, and Dallas as well, and they'd be wasting people and resources they don't really have by trying to control these areas (the Dems always have the population advantage). The Dems already control the West and Northeast Coasts and would have an advantage in the most important ones in the Southeast and Gulf Coasts, so they just need to blockade a handful of important cities. The Union was able to do this in the Civil War and they had less of the coast than the Democrats would. Even if Republicans e.g. take Chicago, which would cost a lot of lives, it wouldn't be able to slow down California or NYC. Say the Democrats were able to control the entirety of the Texas Triangle, and that would have significant implications on the Republicans' ability to conduct war. And that's not getting into ecological disasters due to climate change that could affect the Midwest and Southeast, while the Northeast and West Coast wouldn't be hit as hard by such disasters. Just ask Germany how difficult it is to fight a two front war, and Republicans would have to fight on at least six (West Coast, Texas, Front Range, Atlanta/Black Belt, Northeast, and Great Lakes) and would have to win in all of them through dense urban warfare without sustaining excessive casualties. There's no way to pull all of that off, so they could best hope to win a couple through attrition and try to stalemate the rest. Plutocow (talk) 21:33, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

they have another avenue. They control Alaska, so all they need to do is completely blockade the entire west coast. From they’re they slowly push into the west coast. It’s a stretch but by no means impossible. From they’re, they slowly push interior. Meanwhile they use their floridan and Texan fleets to block off the northeast. They push into there. What you have to understand is if even if we say no nukes, the Republicans just need 35 air strikes to be able to win. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 21:51, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Alaska has barely any people and most of it is only accessible via plane and ship, and it is not enough to blockade even one of the four important ports of the West Coast. It would require the cooperation of Canada to be of any military use, and even then a blockade of Anchorage would cripple any of its usefulness. It would probably be in Alaska's best interest to stay neutral in the war for that reason. Meanwhile, Texas and Florida are both states that would see a lot of fighting within their borders and Texas's best port can easily fall in Democratic hands, while New York City would be impossible to take without sustaining potentially millions of casualties. All the while, Democrats can mostly focus on building defenses on their cities, with only a couple of offenses that they might want to do (it could be useful, for instance, to secure a route from Atlanta to Georgia or connect the major cities in Texas). Dems just have all the advantages in a war of attrition, and any offensive operations by the Republicans would be too costly for the limited amount of lives and resources that they have. Plutocow (talk) 22:08, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Let's stop talking about it before they're is the Great RationalWiki Civil War of 2021. American time change coming up November 7, Andrew5 (talk) 22:05, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm guessing that you don't have a good counterargument. Plutocow (talk) 22:08, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I’m gonna be honest - not without being offensive. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 22:25, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Let me guess: Argumentum ad hominem? Plutocow (talk) 22:36, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Possibly eventually but not at that reply (probably the one after that). That one would have been something racist against black and Chinese people. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 23:34, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, if you have to resort to racism then I think I won the debate. You also have to consider that many countries from Canada to Mexico to the EU to China have significant economic and military incentives to prevent a fascist U.S. from coming into power. Though this wouldn't be entirely a good thing for Dems in this situation, as having many nations with diverse goals intervening could lead to at best a partitioning of the U.S. and at worst a situation like the Syrian Civil War that goes on and on with no winner. Plutocow (talk) 00:09, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I mean, to be frank, it seems like a kind of pointless exercise to consider who would win in a civil war in a nuclear armed superpower. The most likely probability by far, imo, is that everybody’s life would get worse, nobody would win, the rest of the world would get involved to secure their own interests, the economy would collapse. Not to mention you’d probably see countless war crimes, the destruction of civilian areas, probably even straight up ethnic cleansing given how powerful the American far right is. And let’s not forget: to my knowledge, there has never been a civil war in a nuclear armed country before, and given how many nukes America has, there is a fairly significant chance that a civil war would just straight up end the world. Basically it would be an absolute hellish disaster, and everybody would be best served by doing everything they can to avoid it as long as possible, instead of goin “oh I might win so eh”. I mean don’t get me wrong, u have all raised some interesting points, and I’m not saying the discussion is meritless or anything like that. I just really don’t think an American civil war is a Good Idea For Anyone, and I feel like framing it as something that can be won by anybody, is not the best way to think about it. That’s just me tho, like I’m a Dumb Bitch, so idk could be wrong 💜 ASELA^{និយាយ} 💜 11:18, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Remember that COVID-19 lockdowns caused all sorts of the right wing Angry Baby crowd to whine about face masks and businesses closings and whatnot -- you think this crowd actually could endure the hardships of combat? Remember your typical 2021 U.S. Capitol riot profile: 40-something, white, white-collar, usually made some terrible life choices (a high amount of financial issues in that crowd). Remember that, for all that can be said about Waco, one thing that clearly demonstrated is the powerlessness of all the 2A fetish arsenal in the world against the gear of a minor SWAT team.

In the absence of organized government / military splits (which would not happen due to the demographics of the current strife), again, we are talking about sectarian violence and guerrilla warfare. I have read an article by one historian (Daniel E. Sutherland, who apparently also wrote a book on the topic) that argued that the guerrilla warfare element in the last Civil War was very dysfunctional on the Confederacy side, perhaps compounding the Confederacy disadvantage. I see no reason why similar wouldn't happen at this point if that's what it comes to... the Trump's Biggest Fans crowd (which is not all Republicans) don't strike me, in general, as the brightest bulbs on the planet. So, if such comes to pass, you'll probably see less Pattons and more Leeroy Jenkins.

Needlessly worrying about the End Times or society collapse is quintessentially American at heart. I remember early during the Y2K deal, there was a lot of fear mongering. According to one early 1999 poll, 30% predicted civil unrest from that. And 26 percent predicted "an increase in natural disasters" (LOLWUT?). And a quarter believed that the second coming of Jesus Christ was coming. It is pretty clear that none of this, of course, actually happened. So we have another poll saying Americans are worried about overblown society collapse nonsense, whoop-de-shit, show me something new. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 16:04, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘When engaging in all these US civil war speculations, it’s probably also worth considering a few factors that are prior to the actual conduct of such a conflict:

1. It’s primarily a relatively small section of extreme right wingers who tend to fantasise and banter about actually waging a civil war (hell, some of them think there is already a sort of “cold civil war” going on). Hence, the most likely prospect would be that it would be this segment that starts it and thus take on the role of secessionists (or anti Unionists).
2. Those who are seen as breaking up the Union, are probably not going to get a lot of support outside of their own, fired-up group, whereas the impetus to preserve the union is likely to be a powerful motivator (as was the case in the actual US Civil War).
3. That means that the right wing civil warriors are likely to stand even more isolated than the Confederates with their civil war project.

Hence, I think it is more likely that the US will see some form of coup or insurrection, than a broader, civil war. Of course, a coup, insurrection or similar conflict might escalate into a civil war, but I doubt it’s very likely, not least because the risks of carrying the can of being the ones who tried to “split the Union” will be huge and that this very idea goes against the sort of monolithic nationalism that these right wingers subscribe to (despite their talks of states’ rights). ScepticWombat (talk) 16:53, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

This is a good post. The business aspect of a civil conflict would rein in any legislature or governor seriously considering leaving the union. But an armed group seizing control of a few state capitals, or laying siege to the White House? That temporary vacuum could spark a civil conflict.RipCityLiberal (talk) 17:49, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Book burning in the year of Our Lord 2021

Been generally observing what passes for "Conservative" ideology in the US since 2020, and general trending towards authoritarianism. Mostly this seems to manifest itself in slavish Trump devotion, but the election of Suburban Trump has revealed an actual fascist idea.[12] It's not really interesting to get into any sort of debate about Conservatives definition of sexual content, or things that may make children feel ashamed. But WaPo does a great analysis,[13] about how this is functioning only as symbolism, because you can buy just about anything on Amazon, or download it to any e-Reader. The symbolism however is the point, that the acting of book burning isn't about removing the knowledge from circulation, instead it is a tacit acknowledgment that the methods and logic deployed by the Nazi's, makes sense.

And before anyone wants to attempt to portray this as similar to the decision made by Dr. Suess Enterprises[14] or efforts by liberals to de-platform right-wing extremists, none of the material identified[15] features any sort of violent call to action nor contain anything meant to be explicit. And efforts by Liberal groups to remove books like; To Kill A Mockingbird ,Of Mice and Men and Adventures of Huckleberry Finn were always wrong headed, but at least there reasoning was meant to do some good.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

For To Kill a Mockingbird, it promoted equality (at least from what I can remember from high school English class). Of Mice and Men did not seem bad to me but I never read Huckleberry Finn. --Channel 48 EAS (talk) 20:24, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Can we just just burn Jordan Peterson and Niall Ferguson's books? They're shite, moronic and it's getting cold in Europe this winter, they could solve a heating issue at present Cardinal Chang (talk) 21:20, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

People who want to burn books never seem to run out of matches. People who don't read books can hardly be expected to care whether books are being burnt. Even the worst books ever written should not be burned, e.g., The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, or White Fragility.UncleKrampus (talk) 22:03, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Oh I beg to differ. But I do see your point. I'm not asking for every copy of Peterson and Ferguson's books to be burnt, just the ones I foolishly happen to have. Thankfully given as gifts, although I wonder at what the person giving them was thinking. And while it may offend some, it has to be said, some shite should never be printed, let alone published. Hey, instead of burning books, lets burn publishers, :) Cardinal Chang (talk) 22:19, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Take books supporting bigotry and pseudoscience then turn them into mulch or recycle them. --Channel 48 EAS (talk) 22:58, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

It's sweet of you to think that, but I'm not sure what would be left after that sentiment were generally applied. My old Geometry book I suppose. Cardinal, I suppose your friends or whomever gave you your books imagined they might be instructive. If one were hyper-rational one might assume they thought you somehow needed being brought back to ground with somebody's idea of a self-help book. But who knows? I don't read self-help books (I'm too old now and can't be helped). Those people that you mentioned may be popular now, but are, I think, small fry in the ideas department; and if they can't be expected to help people, neither should one imagine that they would lead to real harm. I'm more concerned that my cat will be eaten by a coyote than anyone would come to harm from reading a a contemporary popular book.UncleKrampus (talk) 23:21, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm surprised that someone as "too old now" can't honestly read sarcasm. Either you're reading things too seriously, or I failed in conveying a tone. THis site is supposed to have 'snark' does it not? Cardinal Chang (talk) 23:54, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Of flags, books, and flames

Bibliophile though I am, I find the idea of banning someone from burning their possessions, stupid though their reasoning may or not be, to be moronic. Were I to destroy any book I own, sans mitigating factors such as rarity, I would be within my right to do so. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 23:51, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Sure, nothing wrong with destroying your own stuff (just don't let the flames catch any of your neighbors' things), but the links above are about removing books from public school libraries (and possibly also actually burning them, apparently). 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 00:12, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

You shouldn't be allowed to burn your own stuff, but that's because it pollutes the environment and contributes to Global warming. Andrew5 (talk) 00:44, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

A law categorically forbidding any activity that pollutes the environment or contributes to global warming would be both overbearing and unenforceable. For instance, the device you are using to access RationalWiki was undoubtedly manufactured in an environmentally unfriendly way, and operates using materials the extraction of which is hugely polluting. Ergo, the production of such a device should be forbidden, and by extension you should not be able to own one. Under fairly weak assumptions, similar arguments could be applied to almost every object you own, as well as the building in which you live, all the food to which you have access, and the water that you drink. It is worth noting that even, for instance, solar panels would violate the pollution clause. All of which is not to say that you should burn your possessions, nor that there should be no environmental policy; there should be stronger environmental policy. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 01:32, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Very minimally related, I would urge people to also be careful with this sort of news. I've seen people get angry over libraries throwing away old books under the assumption that it is wasteful for the environment or that it's throwing away "essential reading material"; keep in mind that libraries usually do whatever they can to give the books away. If you ever see those giant containers with old books, usually that's because those books have been completely worn down, were put up for exceptionally cheap prices (as in 1 or 2 dollars) for weeks, before concluding that nobody wants them and only then do the books get thrown out. Source: I volunteered in high school for my local library. -- Techpriest (talk) 12:40, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@Techpriest I know that in Portland, OR, the Multnomah library system has a branch that allows people to buy used library books for pennies on the dollar. Destroying property really isn't the point either, again because the knowledge isn't being removed. It's simply performative fascism.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 22:16, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

This is like other controversies with that coffee maker thing isn't it? Just outraged people smashing up their shit after already giving the company their money. BumblingBuffoon (talk) 18:10, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

New York Times is calling out democrats on hypocritical 'NIMBYism'

You can see the video here, is there any explanation for this behaviour that I am missing, or is this just a clear case of democrats providing nothing but lip service to ideals? We can talk about conservatives and republicans being worse overall, and that's fine, but it's a different debate. Personally I find it appalling that democrats voted down housing units, I actually live in a flat myself in the UK below the poverty line, so I get the impression some of these snobs would look down on me from this point of view, that's fine though, I've no problem flipping the bird at people right back. One problem with this is that as you know, black people are disproportionately affected by affordable housing needs. And any act against improving housing conditions would be a step towards giving black people opportunities in those areas, by voting them down, it's basically a way to enable white segregation and gated white communities. I'd think most progressive democrats would be annoyed as fuck at that.

The opinion piece also lambasts Washington, a blue state (one of 'the best') as having one of the worst tax policies of all states, according to ITEP 1. This is disgusting, as progressive tax systems are one of the most important measures of increasing equality of all. It is worse than Texas. From the view that the Times is putting up, it looks like liberals are engaged in the gradual entrenchment of the rich by generation, where the poor get less and the rich get progressively more rich, more educated, and inequality rises. This is unacceptable, and is just exascerbating one of the worst problems that the U.S has. That said, who else is there? Republicans are a non-vote, as they do all this as well, and worse. If that is the best that can be done, which is essentially nothing, then all you can vote for is that things don't get worse as fast as they could rather than making a vote for more meaningful changes to inequality. BumblingBuffoon (talk) 11:50, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Good old fashioned Ratchet Effect wrenchell (talk) 15:38, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

"The opinion piece" is the important phrase here. Digging into the arguments from this piece neglects to mention the work Washington state is doing,[16] and while a cursory search seems to indicate these journalists have some standards, it is the New York Times, which is at best an out of touch corporate legacy newspaper, and at it's worse allows the likes of Bari Weiss and Ross Douthat to blather about whatever faux controversy percolating on the right.

Not to knock you either, but as an outsider it may seem fair to compare states tax codes, without engaging in a clear analysis of other factors (like minimum wage). Additionally, there are several self identified Democrats that are likely more aligned with the GOP when it comes to taxes, and that is a function of the Democratic party having a more palatable social views.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 22:38, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I never found Weiss and Douthat to be all that close to each other, but that said; neither party has any leg to stand on when it comes to tax loopholes and all that, and I don't see anyone doing anything meaningful about it. The Democrats want to "tax the rich", but Klobuchar and Cotton have their dirty fingers all over a bill that would just happen to tax the shit out of Amazon and Google but leave their sacred cows (Target and Wal Mart) totally untouched, because they're both pandering buffoons. I live in the county (if a county in name only, CT abolished them in 1969) with the second highest tax rate in the country, essentially a tax lover's paradise, and... we're right near the top for income inequality; seriously, I can turn right and safely walk at any hour of the day or night, but turning left is a death wish. The tax system is such a Rube Goldberg machine that I can't begin to know where to start, and who the hell actually does? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:29, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

The golden rule of politics: He who has the gold rules. There is a lot of overlap in policies as far as the GOP/Dems. Mooseman (talk) 06:43, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm fine with paying taxes, if the government collecting them is putting it to good use. On the state level I have nothing but praise for Ned Lamont, he's been a voice of sanity throughout COVID (he was the first governor to suggest having a regional governor's association to handle COVID policy, which is especially important here since so many people commute in and out of state), on a more local level... no thanks to me the citizenry re-elected a guy who did 10 years in the clink for blatant corruption, take a wild guess on that. It's not just about taxing the ever-loving shit out of people, it's what you do with that sweet cash once you get ahold of it; we've long had a flooding issue here, but until the latest bill giving the state some more control over disaster relief nothing meaningful happened; we'll see if that changes now. And as an aside, since a lot of people lose their shit over nuclear power, I live close enough to a natural gas power plant that I'd be more than happy to put a nuclear power plant in my back yard; if nothing else, from an aesthetic standpoint it can't possibly be as monstrously ugly as the plant that's there now. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:17, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

As a recovering Libertarian, I'm of the belief that high taxes are fine if they benefit the taxpayer. I pay $1000 in road tax so that I save $1200 in car repairs. I pay $1000 in food stamps so that I can avoid $1200 in petty theft. And so on. But if those high taxes aren't spent locally, there's a good chance they aren't for the taxpayer's benefit. I think the states should have higher taxes, and the fed lower, with a net tax rate the same. I also think a lot of the burden of Medicare/Medicaid should likewise be shifted locally. Currently, the Fed pays 50% of Medicaid, and the State and County each pay 25%. As a result, the states have every incentive to keep all their poor people just poor enough to qualify so that all those transfer payments keep rolling in. Instead, I think it would be better if the Fed, State and County paid 1/3 each, with the tax burden shifted locally. This would create a larger incentive for states to get their residents back to work. On the flip side, we do need a national solution to help the homeless, because every state knows the easiest solution is to send their homeless somewhere else. If instead the federal government allowed states to recoup homeless services from the other states, suddenly every state would start building sufficient shelters for everyone... CorruptUser 06:20, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

An aside

@CorruptUser@The Blade of the Northern Lights Both of you seem to be to the right of my politics, but present arguments that I may not agree with, but at least give me something to consider. In both your answers above you reasonably identify that taxes do in fact have a purpose. I have wondered however if this hyper local approach you seem to be presenting gives a bit too much power to officials with much less scrutiny. But if instead a pot of money was distributed, from the federal level there would be considerable amount of scrutiny. How would you feel about scrapping all local and state taxes and only have federal taxes?-RipCityLiberal (talk) 17:57, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I would oppose it for the same reasons I wouldn't support every country on Earth unifying under the UN banner to create a one-world government, even if I would support some sort of global confederation or alliance of some sort. First, every region has different needs, a one-size-fits-all approach absolutely would not work (and money/tax is more important than the rules, don't kid yourself). Second, the further away that money is spent, the less useful it is to me. Taking $5 from me to give to my husband is effectively giving it right back to me, taking $5 to give to my neighbor so he can shop at my store still gives some back, taking $5 to give to another state does nothing for me.

That isn't to say there shouldn't be some restructuring. Schools, for example, shouldn't be funded by arbitrarily defined districts. It's utter BS and everyone knows it. The absolute worst is when some old geizers on Medicare can collect my paycheck but not pay for my school, fuck that. All districts should collect the same funds by county, or perhaps even by state. When it comes to homelessness, there's a perverse incentive to treat homeless people like garbage. Why? Unlike the EU, the US's separate states have truly open borders and all states speak the same language (mostly). Nothing prevents a homeless person from moving to (or being forced by their own state to move to) the more generous state. If you start housing your own homeless, suddenly you find yourself with ALL the homeless. So that's actually something that should be either done at a national level, or have a mechanism for one state to bill another for the services rendered. CorruptUser 18:52, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Would police brutality fall under police corruption?

Police brutality is obviously bad as is corruption. Brutality is certainly abuse of authority. Would brutality be part of the umbrella of police corruption? I think so. --Channel 48 EAS (talk) 19:55, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

My suspicion is, it would worsen. Corruption would increase the 'us against the world' mentality that plagues police departments. And it woud give them more secrets to keep, and more need to shut people up. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 20:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Many of these corrupt cops happily attack unarmed civilians; mainly colored and disabled civilians. Guess brutality is a mere part of an entirely corrupt system? --Channel 48 EAS (talk) 20:36, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

The issue for me is that even if justified, Brutality is an utter failure of the Legal System. Trials are expensive, detectives have limited time, juries are frustrating. It's a process, but the process we all decided upon when we made our laws. Bullets might be cheaper than prisons, but it's justice denied. If we need to loosen our requirements for evidence, if we need to stretch what "reasonable doubt" means in order to continue functioning as a society, that is a conversation we have every duty to have, but we shouldn't turn a blind eye to police brutality just so we can avoid the uncomfortable topic. CorruptUser 20:43, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Corruption and police brutality are both examples of abuse of power. In theory, brutality could be used as a tool for a corrupt end, but police brutality can easily be a symptom of terrible police culture that has nothing to do with corruption. As Smerdis pointed out, a fairly corrupt force will like have terrible police culture and likely have more police violence. Police forces in many countries around the world are relatively respected, restrained, endlessly patient, well trained and are loathed to use violence or even arrest people it at all avoidable (and yes it is often avoidable). I know it seems hard to believe, but there is no reason America cannot have reasonable police forces. Violent/corrupt forces exist because the citizenry doesn't care enough or even tacitly supports it considering it is merely the marginalised who suffer the most from police violence (and in their mind...for good reason). ShabiDOO 21:22, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Police brutality, absent corruption, would be exposed and the perpetrators dismissed or prosecuted. Corruption exists to provide the shadows in which such crimes can hide, grow, fester. I have no guess as to which is the chicken, which is the egg. Semipenultimate (talk) 21:52, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

As much as I hate the idea of denigrating and belittling a union, any union. As far as I'm concerned collective bargaining has been a massive benefit to all workers. But, the police unions of the US really need to scrapped and start again. I think John Oliver (sans Zaltzman) puts the argument across succinctly here Cardinal Chang (talk) 13:24, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

John Oliver is entertaining and can be informative, but take everything he says with a few grains of salt. He's notorious for leaving out details which contradict the point he wants to make, e.g., in his videos about immigration and citizenship, he effectively denies the existence of the military pathway for naturalization/citizenship. CorruptUser 16:23, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

The law enforcement and justice systems need a major overhaul. Too many crooked cops are getting away with abusing their authority and attacking unarmed civilians. --Channel 48 EAS (talk) 17:38, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@CorruptUser, that may be true, but it doesn't detract from the fact that the police union is at the core of police brutality and corruption. Cardinal Chang (talk) 18:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

as we can see here, here, here, here, and would you believe here too, and here and here. Now, do you want to take apart each source here as a means to dismiss what they are all united in saying?, that the Police Union (Which ironically is not an actual fucking union, in so far as unionisation and the American labour force movement.) are at the core of Police Corruption in the US. Christ, you can be rather annoying. Let's see you blindly dismiss the ACLU too. Cardinal Chang (talk) 17:18, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Side bar proposal 2

I have a new side bar proposal- a side bar entitled "Diseases" or "Pathology". It would catalogue various diseases and disease denialism. --Channel 48 EAS (talk) 23:15, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

"Pathology" would probably be a better name for it than "Diseases". But, going on past experience,, I doubt the rest of the community will feel the need for any such new template. Spud (talk) 14:03, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Assuming this is about templates like {{atheism}}, the best recommendation is to just make it. We have plenty of pages that don't have sidebarnavs, so just write one out and do it. If someone complains, deal with it then. -- Techpriest (talk) 14:10, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Just slap this icon on the template icon. — 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 ^{talk stalk} 15:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Here we go.

Proposed idea

--Channel 48 EAS (talk) 16:13, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Wouldn't pathology misinformation fall under either crank medicine or general science denialism? BumblingBuffoon (talk) 16:36, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

You might want to make the background of the circle lighter so that the bacteria pops out more. Also, an SVG file format would be more preferable so that the images can be scaled. Once the icon is made, one must use it with the {{Navsidebar}} template. I think there are some free SVG editors online nowadays so no one would need to pirate Illustrator or download Inkscape. — 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 ^{talk stalk} 16:43, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Could also color pick the light color we use in the others + the one in the SVG and open it in a text editor... I've done that with images before. -- Techpriest (talk) 22:31, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out

111 out of 250 most recent edits are here. (44.4%). Thats impressive.Andrew5 (talk) 17:29, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

But can we get it to 44.444...%? Would have to be 4/9ths exactly. CorruptUser 19:15, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

No, because 250 is not divisible by 9. That would have to be 243 or 252, which is impossible. Andrew5 (talk) 23:06, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Impossible with that attitude. Just get 112 of the last 252 edits...CorruptUser 21:02, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

But recentchanges does specifically 250. It's impossible, as I said. Recentchanges supports 50, 100, 250 and 500, but yet none are divisible by 9 (45, 54...99, 108...243, 252...495, 504). Hence it will never work. Andrew5 (talk) 02:05, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Q Shaman goes to prison

https://news.yahoo.com/jake-angeli-aka-qanon-shaman-172126765.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall

Q Shaman has been found guilty on all charges and will spend almost four years in prison. --Channel 48 EAS (talk) 18:07, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

As long as he's in there just long enough so that he can't interfer in the 2024 election or January 2025 inaugurationCorruptUser 19:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, unless things change quickly, QAnnon might not have to worry much about the 2024 election, but I see your point. Aaronmichael5 19:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC).

And I hope prison breaks his spirit or ends up becoming currency. --Channel 48 EAS (talk) 01:20, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

oh yes, that stalwart defender of justice and democracy, along side right to a fair trial and innocent till proven guilty, prison rape. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:17, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

The US prison system is so barbaric that my basic instinct is to acquit everybody. I argued that side for more than 35 years and would still be at it were I able to work. I certainly would not wish prison rape on this clown, although it seems likely. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 14:07, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

If anyone wonders why the US justice system (and policing for that matter if not the very high level of violence in general) is so dysfunctional, one need only look at the volume of citizens who see prison as a vehicle for making criminals suffer, if not "breaking their spirit". Being robbed of your freedom for a long period of time and being barked at by guards should really be enough. Rehabilitation is honestly in the interests of nearly everyone, but if you don't mind broken prisoners back on the street, repeat-offenders and all the social-rot that comes from a brutal justice/prison system...then yeah...wish away that they suffer and are broken if feeling that kind of satisfaction is worth it. ShabiDOO 14:45, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps there is a bit of schadenfreude in play here. A lot of the strongest "law and order" US personality types here, in my experience, happen to be a personality type that aligns with the Angry Baby worshipers that rioted, that sort of racist "Christian" (ha ha) not-very-bright all-American asshole, the type who inspired the current "Karen" meme, the type that feels entitled, self-centered, and complains about everything. Of course many will perform the same "fuck the police" song and dance if they get caught up in the system, but until then and after then, these types are why America elects Joe Arpaio personalities. This is not going to change anytime soon, there are too many in the United States (and elsewhere, I will say) that fail to use their brains and have a vengeance-seeking asshole personality. So it goes, right? No one deserves the US prison system, but if those here stuck in the fifth circle of Hell get the bile they advocated, well... hopefully lessons are learned. I doubt they will be, of course. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 15:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Relevant.

Part of the problem too (not in comic) is the hatred of the homeless. By making prisons violent rape-dens, you scare the homeless from using the prisons to avoid freezing to death during the winter. Really, again, so many problems in the US could be fixed if we could first figure out solutions for homelessness. And no, spending $500,000 to build a single unit to house a homeless person is not a solution, California. CorruptUser 15:38, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

pretty sure if you want to stop the homeless from using prisons, probably best to not have so many laws criminalising the homeless. its not the homeless specifically thats the crime, its poverty as a moral failing. the american dream of equality of opportunity makes poverty your own fault, your own laziness. crime stemming from poverty are your own choice and hard work is always the other option. Poverty is unamerican and there is no greater sin. prison is brutal because poverty exposes the lie AMassiveGay (talk) 16:17, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Some Western European countries have something closer to a living wage, offer lots of subsidies and social programs to people, better mental health services and will keep a lot more people on their feet for a lot longer when they counter issues (including long term ones). And in a few countries the homeless are housed in various ways and offered special support (mental health, job seeing services, addition support etc). Most importantly, they can (in theory) have safe places to live and overcome their issues if possible. I shouldn't even have to metnion this because not letting the homeless rot in the stree tshouldn't be controversial, but for the sociopathic...it is actually cost effective to properly and adequately prevent and deal with homelessness as it cuts down on other expensive issues like crime/imprisonment, more expensive mental health treatment and health issues in the future, less costly re:family destruction, cheaper for other social services in the long run and so on. The only reason not to put the funds into properly preventing and dealing with homelessness is because some people are ideologically against spending money on vagrancy and people with issues (be they often no fault of their own or a very small percentage exploiting the system) even if it is in their best interests that it is done and the moral thing to do. It is annoying to pay a chunk of your money to taxes to pay the costs for these services, but it is costly in many other ways not to. ShabiDOO 16:38, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I mentioned it in one of the above topics but I'll mention it again. The reason no state invests in care for the homeless is because if anyone one state does, the other 49 states will invest in bus tickets. It's something that really does need a federal program of some sort, or at the very least, a way to sue another state for sending their homeless. CorruptUser 17:11, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

In the UK I was facing homelessness when I eventually got kicked out of my first home, before I was on the streets I went to the council and got something called emergency accommodation for the time that I was looking for a formal home. After this, I got my own place with rent. In the UK, we have something called housing benefit; if you are earning less than the poverty line, you can apply for it and they will pay your rent for free, this is a government social scheme. It ensures that as long as cheap homes exist like flats, it is very hard to be homeless if you know about it. Naturally if you earn nothing, you will still starve in your house barring you do anything about that. Housing benefit is income based, when you earn more you get reduced access, so it doesn't apply for people who are earning a normal income and are paying their own rents, this is a similar concept to a negative income tax and is cheaper than implementing a UBI. BumblingBuffoon (talk) 18:01, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

We have subsidized housing in the US too. It's... weird. By taking 1/3 of the housing units off of the market, there's now literally only 2/3rds of the housing available for rent/purchase. If you were to rank people by wealth, if the market price is set by the 3000th wealthiest family and change it so now the market is set by the 2000th wealthiest family, the price goes up a fuckton, and that's how you have $3000/m apartments in NYC and LA being considered "normal". The better method would be to build more housing any which way you can. We tried that in the 1960s with the housing projects, which really were a great idea that was so horribly mismanaged it shouldve been a crime. LA currently builds housing for the homeless for about $500,000 per unit, and when 40% of that is literally for "consulting fees" and "public outreach", you know it's all grift. CorruptUser 18:38, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Somehow my parents ended up renting a place to someone who works for Section 8 housing here in CT... who receives Section 8 housing subsidies. Goodness knows how that makes any sense. She also happens to be a disgusting slob and general slug monster, pretty much the exact type of person a lot of people have in mind when they question the utility of such programs; a far cry from the welfare queen nonsense, but enough to make you at least think people might have a point about these things being horribly abused. Then again, the upside is that for landlords you get your rent and utilities on time, so it's got plenty of good for everyone. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:44, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

An old family friend had a second home, that against our circle of friends' advice, he rented out to a section 8 family, because he was on the more Liberal side of things. That family trashed the place, and it took a while but he eventually got them out. Then he rented to another section 8 family, who happened to be worse and threatened him. Both families happened to be Black. Afterwards, well, let's just say he became a Liberal with some opinions about Black people I won't repeat here, which was surreal to say the least. CorruptUser 21:06, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ This just reminds me of the rhetoric in the UK about welfare scroungers. The fact is though, I'm not homeless right now, and without this social scheme I would be a lot worse off (but not homeless), it would cut into my other benefits or wage, and since I'm still under 12k a year that's way more significant than some snob. BumblingBuffoon (talk) 22:39, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Meh, The US has worse welfare queens than the UK has. Specifically, Walmart, McDonald's and Amazon. Those companies simply could not exist without the US government subsidizing their workers' healthcare and benefits. Furthermore, all those food stamps are spent at Walmart as well, further bolstering their profits. So yeah, fucking scroungers. CorruptUser 22:44, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Those companies wouldn't die if social programs existed, they would profit less. It's not a survival issue, it's never been. There are massive welfare states in Europe and they're doing better than the US is in many aspects. Minimum wage on top of healthcare, best in the world, and yet they are capitalist countries with very rich companies in them, what gives? Greed doesn't. BumblingBuffoon (talk) 22:51, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Eh, that's a fair point I suppose. CorruptUser 23:15, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

re: rittenhouse poll at top

I found this take from what passes for a principled conservative in the US these days to be persuasive, knowing what I do about gun laws, and how I feel about armed vigilantism. 138.207.198.74 (talk) 17:41, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

My view on armed vigilantism is that the Rittenhouse case is EXACTLY why policing should be left to the police. When people start shooting, no one has any way of knowing who is the "bad guy" or "good guy", there's only "guys with guns". CorruptUser 20:26, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Rittenhouse acted in self defense but he should get prosecuted for killing someone regardless while the others get prosecuted for assault. Did these people who tried to incapacitate what they saw as an active shooter not also act in defense? Gun culture is still the core issue of this, it's completely rotten, and I think this incident indicts the second amendment. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 20:35, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree. In all but the most obvious of cases, it should be the Juries and not a detective alone to decide if a killer was justified. As for gun culture, no, it's only the culture from the 70's onward when the NRA went from "gun safety" to "MOAR GUNZ!!!" CorruptUser 20:42, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with the poll. Rittenhouse should not, ideally, be found guilty of murder. This is not to say that he acted without fault or guilt, for his transportation of a firearm across state lines (as a minor) and his reckless endangerment of others are very much on his head, only that the charge of murder is undue for this situation. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 20:43, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

IMO Rittenhouse probably should walk for the charges he's been given. The prosecutor went in way too heavily with charges here. This isn't a first degree murder case. It's second or third degree (manslaughter) at best. That doesn't mean he's innocent, he 100% still killed someone and that's bad, but the prosecution has severely botched this case. I'm disappointed for the families of those who died that the killer won't be brought to justice, but for the procedures, Rittenhouse should walk. -- Techpriest (talk) 21:45, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Meh, Rosenbaum only moved to Kenosha to stalk his ex-girlfriend, ended up with another woman but got a restraining order. Huber has numerous charges of domestic abuse, including what appears to be a kidnapping, but at least he's cute I guess. This might be my "I have pretty-ok friends and family" privilege talking, but I get the sense the families are better off without them. Grosskreutz seems like that kid that routinely ignores the law and flips the bird to the cops, always has to stick it to the man, but other than that he doesn't seem to be a bad person, just annoying. CorruptUser 22:13, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

If you're referring to the victims, then that's a horrible sentiment to have. Just because they had convictions/weren't the best of people in no way justifies their deaths. And "the families are better off without them"? Go touch grass, man. Jake Holmes^{yell at me} 22:15, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I never said they deserved to die, only that their families are better off without them. Who knew that "men shouldn't beat up their girlfriends" is a controversial stance? I guess that's 2021 for you, damn I feel old now. CorruptUser 22:33, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

That's still a terrible thing to say. Jake Holmes^{yell at me} 22:51, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ But is it factually wrong? CorruptUser 22:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@CorruptUser Yes. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 22:59, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

What we know about the attackers records has not been entered into evidence for the jury. Dutchbag (talk) 23:18, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie Alright, I'm game. Give me one situation where a woman is better off staying with a man who routinely physically abuses her, that satisfies the following;

1. It's a realistic scenario
2. It doesn't involve consensual activities (e.g., BDSM, boxing, etc)
3. It doesn't involve society itself being the problem (e.g., she'd be homeless)
4. Any other rules not mentioned here that obviously should be, are to be assumed to be included as common sense dictates CorruptUser 23:23, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@CorruptUser No. this is a stupid exercise meant to save your pitiful reputation after you said something stupid, again. Learn to eat crow. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 23:55, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I threw up a little reading CorruptUser saying "families are better off without them". Abusers are not justified in their actions but you have no idea what's going on in them either. Abusers can genuinely love for others, show concern for others, laugh with others, cry, have genuine regret for hurting, but it's how they manage their own emotions, what they identify as appropriate behavior or not, and take responsibility for hurting others that's what counts. Abuse manifests very subtley, it warps your brain and chances are abusers don't even realize they're being abusive either. You don't realize you've been abused for years but even after you do, you always doubt yourself, and it's always an extremely difficult choice to end an abusive than you are making it out to be.

I also agree that Rittenhouse should be prosecuted for killing, though murder, I'm very shaky on. I do not think Rittenhouse is an evil killer nor a hero who brought order and justice to an unruly mob, but a fool with a deadly weapon and with no respect for such a weapon that people assumed he was an active shooter. It's good for him he turned himself in, whether out of guilt, to save face during prosecution, I don't know. But in the end he's gonna walk with the reality he killed someone with his gun, something people like him too frequently delude themselves thinking it's meant to protect. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 00:05, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

138.207.198.74 (talk) 13:34, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

CorruptUser, there is a small chance you are right in some way for some family memebers, but the likelihood that you are wrong or at the very least "it is more complicated" leads me to conclude your blanket statement is fucking ludicrous and cold as fucking shit. ShabiDOO 00:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

He's wrong, of course. I had to suffer through abuse, primarily emotional. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 00:18, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Good grief, CorruptUser. One controversial post after another. Be careful of what you say. LongStylus (talk) 01:34, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

LGM, are you seriously trying to say that someone who's physically abusing someone else enough that they get convicted of two felonies and numerous misdemeanors, including strangulation, had no clue they were in the wrong? And "taking responsibility" means nothing when the person had repeat offenses. Maybe he grew out of it since then and matured and that really would've been the end of it, I don't know him, but if I knew about his past I absolutely would never even consider dating him or setting up a friend with him. CorruptUser 02:16, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@CorruptUser You know, I find selective application of morals to be a pretty disgusting thing. But hey, there's reason I think poorly of people who act on kneejerk moralism, like you are now. It's mainly that they're inconsistent hypocrites with no care for society beyond their self righteous bullshit. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 02:26, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

The Color of Right pretty much says what I would have, but better. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:51, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I did not say this guy in particular did. However, you have no idea what exactly transpired in these convictions beyond violent, reprehensible actions, even repeated. You have no idea how abuse works; multiple convictions? Sounds like cycle of abuse. Behavior IS also hard to change especially if you were deprived of coping skills and have only other violent responses as your metric. Regardless of his violent, abusive behavior, it does not make him a sort of a "family would benefit from his death" you strongly suggest. I'd be disgusted if you were to hypothetically tell me my family would benefit having a mass shooter brother who got shot by the police. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 03:45, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

No point killing someone you already have contained, they can't do it again. I only think killing is justified in self-defence, it's why the death penalty sucks. You know he can't pose a credible threat to you anymore, why are you killing him now? Kyle is 17 Years old isn't he? How many people would be ruled out from being Kyle when they were young and more impressionable to social media? A lot of poor kids who are vulnerable, that's who. The alt-right loves to groom angry, easy to convince kids who failed at life or came from a troubled past. Something to think about. BumblingBuffoon (talk) 04:54, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Here's the issue. People cause disruption in prisons, so aren't fully contained. In addition, for murder, under "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" - well "a life for a life". (Hammurabbi's code law 196, 197). Andrew5 (talk) 15:08, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

You know an eye for an eye is just one part of the adage right? Well, applying that to a life for a life, and the whole world is dead. (Only applicable to nuclear warfare and MAD really, but you get the idea.) On the issue of disruption in prisons, I'm not sure that I follow that reasonable force response to prisoners is lethal, prisons have had to deal with the problem of unruly prisoners for a long time. In fact, there is a good argument for a particular European prison model as opposed to the draconian model in the US today. People might feel angry and want 'justice' but that's not the path to them healing. BumblingBuffoon (talk) 15:49, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

They can't do it again to anyone outside of prison, you mean. More importantly, a permanent life sentence is not a complete guarantee they will never be released. Sirhan Sirhan murdered Bobby Kennedy in 1968 and was sentenced to death. He was recommended for parole a couple months ago, and could be set free soon enough. CorruptUser 15:10, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Probably not. Too many people oppose releasing him. Andrew5 (talk) 15:13, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

That's because enough people know who he is. What if 50 years ago, he was involved in a shooting that left two random people dead and one with a disabled arm, but many at the time believed it to be in self defense, and he was considered a "model prisoner"; would you still oppose his release? CorruptUser 15:25, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Depends on what type of self defense. In some cases if someone pinched you, shooting them is totally unacceptable. If his life was being threatened, then and only then would I support his release. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 15:33, 17 November 2021 (UTC) The question is confusing, was he wrongly convicted for murder when it was self-defence? There is also something to talk about with the self-defence plea, it's not bulletproof. If you can prove that someone intentionally put themselves in a situation to increase the likelihood they can claim self-defence and kill someone, the intent alone to murder someone would mean they no longer can use self-defence as a defence. Well, I'm not a lawyer anyway, but if I wanted to get away with murder, it seemed like you could just increase the odds and not post anything that could be construed as a declaration of intent that could be used to prove 'intentionality', in that sense, yeah, you get away with murder. This is why it is kinda important to check Kyle's social media activity and look for signs of that kind of thing in his personal life if possible. BumblingBuffoon (talk) 15:49, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

The prosecutor would argue that his life wasn't threatened at all because the one of the guys had a gun that was smaller than his. I know it's the lawyer's job to portray everything in either the worst or best possible light, but holy fuck that argument was dumb.

As for self defence and putting yourself in danger, that's why a while back I said that this is a weird chain issue. If Rosenbaum's death is a felony, he basically loses all self defense claims against Huber and Grosskreutz; I can't rob a bank and then shoot the guard in "self defence". But if Rosenbaum is justified, then Huber's death could be justified with self defence as well. If Huber's death is a felony, then Grosskreutz's injury also can't be justified with self defence either. So if any one action is a crime, then everything that follows is also a crime. Currently the prosecutor is arguing they have a grainy picture that after lots of photo manipulation looks like Rittenhouse pointing a gun at someone. This would be a misdemeanor at least (oddly, the same crime that the prosecutor himself committed), and enough of a provocation that any subsequent claims of self defence are invalid. I forget the specific term for it, I want to say "conceivable", but a reasonable person would believe that pointing a gun at someone might cause that person or other persons to attack and lead to the chain of events that unfolded. Inconceivable things happen, e.g., if you are guarding a property and unplug what you think is an empty fridge but didn't check the freezer, it's conceivable there's food in the freezer. If you threw out the rotten food but the food had $10,000 hidden in it, that's not conceivable. If you slap someone, it's conceivable the person has health problems that would make even a slap dangerous. Likewise, the whole issue with Ziminsky was that by firing his own gun in the air, it was conceivable that it would cause a tense situation to become oh so much worse, ergo he may be responsible for some of the mayhem that unfolded. Zaminsky was never called because the prosecutor couldn't work out a deal the way he had with dropping charges against Grosskreutz; that facepalm wasn't just because Grosskreutz admitted to pointing a gun at Rittenhouse, it was because the prosecutors worked out a deal to drop all charges against him in order for him to admit to pointing a gun at Rittenhouse. CorruptUser 16:28, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

The grainy photo image is bullshit, it's like arguing that anti-aliasing causes you to see a completely different image from what is intended (as a pixel artist I am biased to tell you that it makes pixel art look like utter shit but that is besides the point, it does not make the image unrecognizable, just 'nicer'). Total red herring issue, they'd just go the expert testimony route and hopefully that just gets thrown out. BumblingBuffoon (talk) 16:34, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Wait, are you saying the photo should be included or not? Because it depends a lot on how much detail the software has to work with, e.g, the depixelator. In the original unedited still frame I can't tell a thing. IIRC, the defence argued it shouldn't because they weren't given the full video until near the end of the trial, which is procedurally a huge issue for reasons that should be obvious. But if the photo is legit and Rittenhouse really was pointing his gun at people... CorruptUser 16:57, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah it depends on a lot of things, the Jury would have access to the image and the original though? I'm skeptical that the issue is as bad as the defence is making it out to be, and they're clearly motivated to bring up any kind of BS argument they can to discredit valuable evidence. As for the defence not getting the video, do they mean the evidence wasn't disclosed to them? BumblingBuffoon (talk) 17:10, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

They are claiming they received a compressed, low-res video, whereas the prosecution had a much large video they showed to the jury. There was a single photo taken from the video (I think?) that supposedly shows Rittenhouse aiming his gun at people before being chased by Rosenbaum, but it's so blurry and with bad lighting I can't make heads or tails of it. CorruptUser 17:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Addendum, here's the photo and explanation. It came from a different source than the drone. Also, apparently the drone actually shows that Rittenhouse pointed his arm at Ziminsky, not his firearm, which I'm quite sure is still legal in most states. CorruptUser 17:24, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

That's crap, useless red herring. Either way though, the only way they'll dismantle the self-defence argument is proving he intended to be there to get someone killed, or by inferring provocation and intent during that provocation, so same thing. They don't seem to have that, so I don't think Kyle is getting sentenced. As for whether it'll be a mistrial, don't know. Based on what I can tell so far it seems to be pointing towards Rittenhouse walking. BumblingBuffoon (talk) 17:37, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Again, I don't understand what you are saying. What are you calling crap? CorruptUser 17:39, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

The image is crap. BumblingBuffoon (talk) 17:59, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Can we agree that a seventeen year-old shouldn't be sentencing people to death without trial? Cardinal Chang (talk) 17:41, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

That's not what "self defence" is though. If I reasonably believe someone is trying to kill/harm me, I'm allowed to do whatever is necessary to avoid being killed/harmed, including killing them. If I found out someone was a murderer but wasn't currently threatening my life or others at that moment, shooting them would be "sentencing people to death without trial". CorruptUser 17:51, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

And? Honestly, what you think you would do has no relevance on what Rittenhouse did. None. What you think you would do in any hypothetical scenario has absolutely no bearing on what you would actually do. And tell me, did Rittenhouse live in the area? Did he even live in the state? No, he got a gun and travelled to the area looking to shoot someone. A vigilante barely out of nappies. Fuck him. Fuck the entitled class that spawned him and his apologisers. Cardinal Chang (talk) 19:23, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@CorruptUser Ah, but according to you, they were Bad People, so it wouldn't matter either way... ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:18, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@GC From a societal perspective it matters, but not from a legal perspective. Legally matters is what Rittenhouse knew at the time. If a psychopath decides to shoot random people in a crowd, and those people shot just so happen to be Osama bin Ladin and friends about to commit another attack that the psychopath had absolutely no knowledge of, that psychopath is still a murderer. That's why the jury isn't told about Rosenbaum, Kizinsky, Huber or Grosskreutz's history, because that information was unknown to Rittenhouse and had absolutely no bearing on whether or not a reasonable person in Rittenhouse's shoes would've done the same thing. He only knew what he had seen of those people that night, nothing more. That's why some evidence is withheld for being "prejudicial" during deliberation, but considered when sentencing.

@CC

1. The defence's argument has always been "my life/limb was in danger" and never "bitch had it coming!". If that's true (it might not be!), then at no point was Rittenhouse shooting for any other reason than self-preservation
2. The gun never crossed state lines, just Rittenhouse (the friend who gave him the gun is facing separate charges)
3. Yes, he actually lived in the area, about 20 minutes away. Rittenhouse's dad lived in Kenosha and Rittenhouse visited frequently. Crossing state lines is a thing, yes, but millions of New Jersans cross state lines every single day to work so don't get caught up in that. CorruptUser 20:35, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, still sounds like a vigilante just out of nappies who got a gun and went looking for trouble. Cardinal Chang (talk) 21:12, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I'll lukewarmly agree. People shouldn't show up to protests carrying rifles, because someone could do something stupid and bad things could happen. The law needs to be updated for that and other reasons, but as is, Rittenhouse did nothing unlawful prior to the shootings that the courts could verify. The prosecution fucked up on the curfew charge, and technically he was legally allowed to have a long gun under 18. The judge in the instructions had to clarify that "provocation" only included "unlawful" activity. Rittenhouse could be flipping the bird and saying everyone there were sons of whores and he would still be able legally allowed to argue for self defence. CorruptUser 21:19, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

The only issue the jury is looking at right now is provocation. Did Rittenhouse point the gun at Rosenbaum prior to Rosenbaum chasing him down in the parking lot? According to the faked drone footage, yes, only the jury does not know the prosecution introduced the drone footage into the record illegally. if the jury returns with a guilty verdict, the judge has to nullify the verdict. If the jury returns with a not guilty verdict, the point is moot, other than prosecutors facing misconduct and disbarment proceedings either way. Dutchbag (talk) 20:30, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

A not guilty verdict is not a vindication of actions, only a response to a narrow question of the case brought by prosecutors. It's clear this prosecutor was a tad out of their depth, and sought charges that were more severe than could have been proved. The concern from this verdict is that wanna be vigilantes may see this as vindication to kill others. It's sad that the lack of accountability may lead to the loss of more lives.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 00:24, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

The concern from a guilty verdict is that wanna be vigilantes may see this as a validation of their belief that their rights are under attack, or something. If something needs to change, it's the laws regarding "showing up to a crowd with a gun". E.g., something to the effect where if a riot breaks out, everyone with a gun must make a good faith effort to leave the area. CorruptUser 00:49, 20 November 2021 (UTC)